Anyone here NOT believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[cali]

Because evidently the majority of Americans don't Something like 2/3 believe Intelligent Design and Creationism should be taught alongside evolution. 1/3 believes that only Creationism should be taught. And to me that's bizarre beyond my comprehension. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Creationism is not. It's mythology or religion, having nothing to do with science. I don't understand how teaching creationism in a science framework can be entertained by anyone.

[demnan]

1. It's bizarre, isn't it?

I would be surprised if anyone here didn't believe in evolution.

[Bill McBlueState]

4. Don't worry

they'll inevitably show up. There's a lot of distrust of science on DU.

[Penguin31]

2. We're really all just living in another reality's The Sims

Bah..there's no such thing as Evolution...we were all created when Zorgblatt VIII fired up his computer a while back, and he's just left the thing running for a while

:P

[IrateCitizen]

3. Two words: SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Evolution is widely accepted because it has, as a theory, held up under the scientific method. Creationism, or "Intelligent Design", OTOH, is based on little more than blind faith. There are endless examples of phenomena in nature that are left unexplained by this "theory", outside of the standard, "Satan put that there to trick us into rejecting the truth!"

I challenge anyone who supports such balderdash as "Intelligent Design" to subject it to the scientific method. Of course, most people who believe in such claptrap have no idea what the scientific method even is....

[Cyrano]

5. Quote from H. L. Mencken:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Look it up in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Mencken had many more cynical things to say about the American public, most of which are (unfortunately) quite accurate.

[iamjoy]

156. Quote Is inaccurate...

I mean, we Liberals underestimate the intelligence of the American people all the time and throw a lot of money away in the process... it is called elections ;-)

although, I don't know if any of us have actually gone broke....

[tk2kewl]

6. I have seen poll figures similar to what you state

However I am skeptical of most opinion polls. They are almost always biased one way or another. And the manner in which the results are presented can further tilt such bias.

I suspect that 2/3 of Americans believe that somewhere there is a God that has directed the universe and such. Einstein said "God doesn't play dice".

Bottom line is I doubt that 2/3 want to see creationism taught in science. 2/3 more likely believe that for their to be order from chaos there must be some higher power at work.

[Walt Starr]

7. Nobody "believes" in the theory of evolution

Once may only accept it as the most reasonable explanation given the current evidence.

This is the scientific method. If better evidence is provided later, we can easily adapt, unlike those who must "believe" in this or that explanation.

Belief allows no room for movement should new and better evidence be provided.

[cali]

15. talk about nitpicking.

Fine. Believe that the theory of evolution is grounded in the Scientific Method. I think it's pretty clear what I meant. And let us note, that in the last 150 years, no better evidence, disputing evolution, has been demonstrated. Most biologists believe (OK, think) that evolution is as strong a theory as science has.

[indigobusiness]

41. That's not an insignificant point.

One of the major hurdles of the debate is framing it in terms of belief.

Belief has nothing to do with the natural world, or the way it functions.

Framing the debate in a meaningful context is essential to resolving it.

[K-W]

49. You are missing the fundemental point of science, IT ISNT BELIEF

Belief requires a leap beyond logic.

All science can say is that a theory is falsifiable and has been rigourously tested and so far has yet to be falsified.

The entire point of science is that through empiricism,deductive reasoning, and testing, we can check our theories against reality. We can never fully know reality, only that so far reality seems to be conforming to a certain theory.

This is not nit-picking. It is the exact reason that evolution and intelligent design to not belong together.

Intelligent design is an inductive argument. It requires a leap of logic. It is a belief.

[brainwashed]

104. belief vs science

very well put.

[Julius Civitatus]

31. Right on!

I agree. The scientific method is not subject to "belief" or "disbelief," but rather the empirical study of data and evidence. I know it sounds nit-picky, but "belief" or "faith" implies the blind trust on something for which you have no proof. "Belief" applies to the Scriptures, for instance, but not to the scientific method.

:think:

[K-W]

50. Dont forget falsifiable.

The most often forgotten requirement of a scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. IE, testable. That the theory not only conforms to observations, but produces predictions that can be tested.

If a theory does not do this, or ceases to do this, it ceases to become scientific because it can not be analyzed scientifically.

[Richard D]

8. It is possible to make a damn good argument against it . . .

See:

[hippiechick]

9. I do but ...

:tinfoilhat: I also think that the indigenous inhabitants of this planet were helped along by an intelligent and advanced group of visitors from another time or place.

There are alot of similar theories out there that try to explain the 'creation myths' -- seemingly separate societies around the world -- that talk of 'a teacher' or 'God' or 'leader' who 'arrives from the sky' or 'on a carpet of gold', etc ...

I definitely think there was some 'pre-historic genetic engineering' going on.

But when, how often, and by whom ... :shrug:


:hippie:

[Dhalgren]

10. I don't want to be pedantic,

but evolution isn't a "theory" - it's science. The prevalent "Theory of Evolution" is the "Theory of Natural Selection".
Natural Selection is the current most widely accepted "Theory of Evolution". Evolution, itself, is not a theory; it is proved in the fossil record. Only the "motor" of evolution is theoretical. Sorry for the lecture.

[WMliberal]

14. but the fossil record only shows

pre- flood earth! Just don't ask why Noah didn't bring dinosaurs on his ark, if he supposedly brought two of EVERY species along.

[chicagiana]

18. Noah story is the weak link of the bible ...

We can actually look back in geological history and find events like floods. Guess what there WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD!!! It's not there!!!

If it happened, you'd be able to find a layer of silt EVERYWHERE. It's not there. No global flood happened.

We also know that there a BILLIONS of species on the earth. So even if Noah gathered up all the species he know about, you have to start interpreting the bible rather than reading it literally.

[Julius Civitatus]

35. Interesting

Recent historical studies have determined that the Old Testament story of Noah is very remotely based in real events, but given a mantle of "magical myth" and serious enhancements has it passed down by oral tradition through the ages.

The valleys between the Trigris and Euphrates used to flood considerably, and there is evidence of massive catastrophic floodings every now and then. It is likely that a story of a farmer saving his farm animals on a riggety boat while thousands others perished may have being turned into a massive myth with theological, moralistic implications.

There was a great documentary about this on the Discovery channel, tracing the origina to folk stories of catastrophic floods. Mind you, to those ancient people, the "entire world" was just what the could see up to the horizon. And for them "all the animals in the world" ranged from goats to donkeys and chickens. That was all they knew.

[chicagiana]

106. Allegory ...

I'm down on it being a "paraphrased" tale of something similar but different.

The one about the straight between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea bursting and flooding that area seems like a good candidate to me. The dates seem to match up appropriately with the Noah and Gilgamesh tales.

[Zynx]

115. Allegory doesn't work for fundies. >:]

Really, the stuff they like so much (Genesis) screws up their entire argument. The Flood must take place exactly when it does in the Bible and kill everyone other than the people on the arc.

There are civilizations that overlap the supposed period of the Flood, and worldwide geographic evidence doesn't support it. Neither does physics - we know how much water there is, and one cannot make more - Law of Conservation of Matter.

Literal Creationism isn't just incompatable with Evolution. It's effectively incompatable with virtually *all* science - genetics, geology, astronamy, all scientific laws, etc...

[TlalocW]

23. Here's my little brain-buster for fundamentalists

If the Theory of Evolution is not true then all the animals we see today were saved by Noah by being put on the Ark. However, given the proportions for the Ark, it wouldn't have been big enough to hold all the different species of beetles let alone all the other animals. So that would mean that Noah could only take one "breed" or type of every animal group out there. And then taking dogs as an example, that would mean that every breed of dog - from chihuahuas to great danes all are descendents from that one pair of dogs Noah put on the Ark, but through some process - say evolution - they've changed and adapted, and it didn't take millions or billions of years as the evolutionists claim but less than 6000 years (creationists contend the Earth is around 6000 years old).

So if you don't believe in evolution, you do believe in evolution. :)

TlalocW

[WMliberal]

72. or how about the ensuing results of inbreeding

if you only had two of each species. We'd all be wiped out as the result of genetic deficiencies and half of each species being mentally handicapped as a result of such incest.

[Andromeda]

185. Exactly...

<We'd all be wiped out as the result of genetic deficiencies and half of each species being mentally handicapped as a result of such incest.>

And they are called religious fundamentalists.

[dkofos]

87. Are you trying to confuse the fundies??

Not sure they are able to get their narrow little minds around such a broad subject.

[deutsey]

11. Evolution is ridiculous

As for me, I believe I sprang forth fully developed from the forehead of the supreme godhead who rules over the pantheon of immortals residing in the ethereal heights of Mt. Olympus.

That's the only explanation that really makes any sense to me.

:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

13. All hail Deutsey!

The only official offspring of a God-awful headache! Blessed be the name of Deutsey!!

[deutsey]

17. LOL

:7

[Andromeda]

186. Isn't that called Mt. Rushmore?

:silly:

[McKenzie]

12. I had Jehovah's Witnesses on the doorstep on Sunday

They were stereotype religous zealots, utterly convinced of their own belief system. The sort of people who could be utterly fascist if they ever came to power.

I am extremely interested in this subject so I am quite knowledgable about comparative religion and related matters. I started asking about mentally ill people and how they would be judged, Constantinian Decree as the reason for Christianity's ascendancy in the western world, parallel messianic stories in much earlier religions etc.

After around 15 minutes of debate they realised they were onto a hiding to nothing. Their body language showed they were keen to shuffle off to someone less difficult to convince so I left them with a wee conundrum. I asked if there was an appeals mechanism for entry to heaven? I suggested that there might be borderline cases that warranted review by a tribunal. Say a few key angels and a character witness or two such as the old lady I helped over the road. That pissed them off but they were too polite to say anything. They shook my hand and buggered off, leather document cases tucked under their arms.

I'm not anti-faith, far from it. Nor do I believe that science is the only way to explain the universe, consciousness etc. There are interesting parallels bewteen quantum physical phenomena and eastern mystical concepts, for example, particularly Buddhist ideas. I do, however, find the notion of creationism a tad silly.

[chicagiana]

19. Show up to the Jehova Witness Hall on Sunday ...

... and start prostelitizing!!! See how THEY like it.

Better yet, if you can steal their registry, you can start running around buggin them at off hours!!!!

Or take down their license plate numbers in the Witness Parking lot. Get their addresses and go a canvassing!!!!

[McKenzie]

21. now there's a thought...n/t

[TlalocW]

26. I've wanted to do that...

I happened to be driving when I saw the two Mormon kids - white shirts, ties, riding bicycles - pull into a driveway and put their bikes in the garage of this one house about a mile from mine. I was going to go over at 5:00 am one Sunday and try to convert them to being Aztecs.

"Sacrifice the hearts of your enemies to the god Huitzilopochtli by putting them, still beating, in the offering dish of Chaac Mol or wander the shadows of the dark realm forever! Here's some literature. Have a nice day!"

TlalocW

[Kali]

39. Been wondering about your name

as a fellow (rather bloody) diety.

[Walt Starr]

127. If you do that, nobody will be there

Jevos worship on Saturdays.

[Andromeda]

187. You're thinking of Seventh Day Adventists.

JW's have services and bible studies every day of the week.

[Walt Starr]

189. Jevos and SDAs are from the same movement

The Millerites broke up after the Great Disappointment of 1844. They became the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists.

Both groups hold Saturday as the Sabbath.

[bhairava]

193. You're still mistaken

Saturday is not the Sabbath for them. There are meetings that day, on Sundays and other days. It is not special. Witnesses don't hold ANY day as more holy per se and certainly Saturday is nothing special. Most practices, taboos, etc from old Mosaic law are considered obsolete.

[DemBones DemBones]

206. I can assure you that Jehovah's Witnesses have services on Sunday,

plus two Bible studies a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays around here. On Saturdays, they got out witnessing, but there are no services or Bible studies on Saturday.

[Kali]

22. heh heh

Wish I still had the patience to engage with nitwits, I have had some enjoyable times with these types of conversations. Anymore I just have no tolerance for no tolerance.

[McKenzie]

25. hey is your avatar Vishnu?

looks like it. I looked at the file properties but that didn't say what the avatar was called.

regards

[Kali]

37. Avatar is Name

Kali

[Julius Civitatus]

216. Should tell them more about Constantine and Nicea....

If you want to see a fundie go apoplectic, tell them about Emperor Constantine and the Nicean Council. Explain to them that Christianism as we know it today, is a mixture of Roman mythology, Greek mythology and Mithaic cults. Constantine, in order to make early Christianism more palatable with the Roman Empire (and in order to adopt it as the official religion) requested that Early Christians made tremendous concessions and adopt an official mixture of Roman pagan beliefs meshed with Christian belief.

Constantine ordered to remove from the official reading list of Christian documents (aka, the Bible) all those books and letters that didn't rub well with Roman power and orthodoxy. Dozens of documents were left out of the Bible, known now as the Apocrypha. Keep in mind early Christians were strict pacifists, and a threat to Roman power because they didn't recognize the authority of the emperor as a living deity.

Constantine went as far as to transfer qualities and characteristic of Roman and pagan deities to Jesus, so to make the transfer to official Christendom more palatable to the Roman subjects. Heck, Constantine even changed the birthday of Jesus (from January 6) to December 25 (the official birthday of Mithra).

The list is endless. The more I read about this subject, the more I want to learn about early Christianism and this transformation. It's truly fascinating.

[Selwynn]

16. I have no problem believing that God fashioned a world which would evolve

:)

Sorry, that's just my dorky way of saying even a spiritual person should accept the evidence given to them by science. I see evolution in and of itself as facts (things do evolve, we can prove that) and the theory of the origin of all life/species as the best explanation currently available to account for all the facts.

If in the future new evidence or data emerges which contradicts or refutes the theory, I will not hold onto it like some kind of dogma, I will reject it. Until then, I accept the evolutionary explanation for the origin of species as most plausible given the data we have, and see no reason on earth to get into such a fuss about it. :D

Sel

[ieoeja]

27. Evolution is the method by which God created life.

That is the Vatican's stance. Apparently the pope also has no problem with evolution.

My brother works with a Southern Baptist fundie. The fundie loves to preach to him. And he loves to pick on the fundie ("who were the last two Southern Baptist presidents? Clinton and Carter!"). So it works for the two of them. This past weekend I suggested the following argument vis-a-vis evolution.

Do you believe in gravity? Gravity is the scientific explanation for the force that created and holds the planets together. So why do you accept gravity as a description of how God holds the planets and solar system together even though the word "gravity" is never used in the bible, but you reject evolution as the scientific explanation for how God created life?

[Lerkfish]

20. contrary to popular conception, science and religion are NOT incompatible

It is possible to believe in a divine being AND accept the theory of evolution.

to nitpick, though...there is a difference between evolution, which is scientifically observable (transmutation within a species) and macroevolution theory, which propose transmigration from one species to another, for which there is not as much evidence.

I personally believe that macroevolution is highly likely, but I also believe God created everything...its just that evolution would be included in "everything".

[RUDUing2]

24. yep...my favorite reply to the fundies who claim

Evolution is impossible because God created the world is:

So you are saying God has limits? And you are committing the sin of claiming to know the ways of God? Are you really telling me that you don't believe that *with God all things are possible*? Wow...interesting....

I just don't understand why people believe evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive...IMO they are mutually inclusive...

[yellowdogintexas]

66. that is my line too

Once, my grandmother asked me what I thought about evolution. I was about 17 at the time...

so I said "Granny, if God is powerful enough to do the 6 day
Creation as told in the Bible, who are we to say He isn't powerful enough to have set everything in motion that we now see revealed through science? "

she actually liked that answer!

I actually LIKE the idea of not setting limits on the power of the Creator (whatever you name him/her)

This was before I went to my liberal Methodist college and heard the Old Testament professor proclaim "Genesis is a myth!"

[bmbmd]

131. Yeah-I went to McMurry in Abilene

back in the day.

[yellowdogintexas]

160. How long ago? I know someone who was there in the early '60

or late '50's

[toddaa]

32. Macroevolution?

The word macroevolution is a clever term used by creation "scientists" that has no application in biology. Species classification is way biologists manage the enormous catalog of flora and fauna on the planet. It has nothing to do with natural selection and there's nothing in DNA that you can pinpoint as the "species" gene.

[Lerkfish]

54. That was my understanding, anyways...

if you know more than I do, thanks for the correction.

[L0cke]

52. They are incompatible

They are incompatible at a very basic, fundamental level.

Science is based on logic, observation, testing, proof, and the willingness to realize that all theories are just theories. They may be extremely good theories, but there is always the possibility that they will be disproved someday.

Religion and the belief in a divine being on the other hand, is based solely on FAITH. It does not depend on reason or proof. It can never be disproven. Therein lies its appeal, and its fatal weakness.

To teach religion and/or creationism in school is to throw away humanity's most powerful tool in understanding the universe. LOGIC. It encourages the acceptance of FEELINGS as a valid road to truth. It says that if you feel something to be true, then it is true. It is the path to civilization's decline.

[Lerkfish]

56. ok, let me rephrase that, then...

the existence of God and science are not incompatible.

[K-W]

58. Define God, almost all claims of god are incompatible with science.

A claim of God that is compatible with science would need to be empirically falsifiable.

[Lerkfish]

62. why?

all you're lacking is empirical evidence.

You're also lacking empirical evidence of the unified field theory.

[K-W]

64. Apparently you dont understand science.

You seem to be confused, we dont have a unified field theory, it is the goal of some researches.

The reason we dont have a theory yet, is because they have yet to produce an empiricably falsifiable theory.

Scientific claims must be empiricably falsifiable. That is, they must make predictions that can be tested.

So for your concept of God to be scientific, it must not only explain the observations and data that we already have, it must make claims that can be tested.

Without the ability to test it, it is not scientific, it is purely speculation with no more validity than a claim of leperchauns stealing money.

[Lerkfish]

82. sorry to disappoint, but apparently you don't understand my point.

I understand science. I understand religion.

however, I'm willing to explore the deficiencies in both systems. Why is it that you are not?

[K-W]

89. Then why do you keep mistating what science is?

I understand that you think you know what science is, but you have provided more than enough evidence that you harbor fundemental misunderstandings.

As far as the 'fundemental deficiencies in both systems', that statement includes an implied point of view on the two issues that you have yet to support.

Your argument is, as I take it, that both are systems of understanding with thier own deficiencies.

To belive this, you must not understand either science, religion or both.

[Lerkfish]

95. sigh...

you're going to stand with:

"Your argument is, as I take it, that both are systems of understanding with thier own deficiencies.

To belive this, you must not understand either science, religion or both."

LOL.

I'm saying both systems have hubris as a downfall, and the belief in exclusivity when it comes to understanding....that is a potential deficiency of both systems. I do believe that, and I do come to that conclusion from being intimately involved with both systems. Arrogance or self-righteousness is apparently a inescapable temptation to both.

If you conclude from that that I have no understanding, perhaps we begin to see how poorly you yourself gather data before arriving at a conclusion.

[K-W]

101. You have made so many errors about science,

why do you still claim that you know it?

[Lerkfish]

109. I suppose because it irritates you so much. /sarcasm

you have not provided any evidence you understand religion or science, either.

what do you want, here, exactly? I'm stating my opinion ,and all you're doing is attacking me personally. Whatever makes your boat float, I guess.

I double majored in college, one of which was chemistry. I graduated in the top 1% of my class at a prestigious college, though admittedly that was decades ago. I did not make science my career....and...so what? does this allow me/not allow me to express my opinion on this board?

what is YOUR pedigree? don't answer,really. that's a rhetorical question. I really really don't care.

[K-W]

112. Argument from authority.

For someone with a comprehensive knowledge of science and reason you do seem to make an aweful lot of scientific and logical errors.

Luckily for your prestigious institution all schools churn out plenty of people who missed a fact here and there. It wasnt, I imagine, a requirement to graduate that you be able to accurately discuss the philosophy of science.

[Lerkfish]

120. I've already reported you

for harrassing me. Please stop doing so.

There's no reason to continually attack me personally like this.

goodbye and welcome to my ignore list.

[K-W]

121. I didnt attack you personally, nor did I harass you.

You responded to me, I responded to you. Its called a discussion. You could have opted out of it at any time.

I didnt put a gun in your head and force you to read or respond to me.

I guess your lying and retreating is a good indication of your confidence in your argument.

[datasuspect]

134. education credentials

constitute "pedigree?"

i thought pedigree denoted something similar to "noble lineage."

[XemaSab]

153. well

If you got into Yale as a legacy, then both are true. :-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. I think you're overstating things there

For instance, Godel's Theorem has shown that even in systems using formal logic, there are some statements that are true, but not provable. To say that, to be compatiable with science, all claims must be empirically falsifiable is insisting on far too much.

[Andromeda]

188. Science is not incompatible with a belief in God.

I have heard many scientists say this and I have also heard some that don't believe in God because his/her existence can't be quantified.

[Cheswick2.0]

86. they are not incompatable

as all the scientists who believe in God will tell you.

[K-W]

92. They are not mentally incompatible, they are logically incompatible.

Someone can function scientifically and have unscientific beliefs, as many scientists prove.

That doesnt erase the fact that the two are logically incompatible until someone presents a scientific claim of God.

[Lerkfish]

96. they are only incompatible UNTIL

..someone presents a scientific claim of God.

so, then, you're jumping to a conclusion absent evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Your assumption is that there CANNOT be empirical evidence of God, therefore it is logically incompatible, but at the end you acknowledge the only barrier to their compatibility is data not YET obtained.

Will the existence of God ever be empirically proved? I think so, but you do not. I will, however, accept the possibility I am wrong. Can you?

[K-W]

103. You misread my post.

I never claimed anywhere that absence of evidence is evidence of abscence. I also never claimed or assumed that there cannot be empirical evidence of a god.

I will try to make this painfully simple.

The word God is not a theory, it is a word. There are millions if not billions of conceptions of God or God's or non deity spiritual beliefs in this planet.

Now lets take one particular theory.
For it to be compatible with science it must consist only of claims that:
A. Conform to all the data presently available.
B. Make predictions about the universe that can be tested.

If it does not fit that, it is not compatible with science. Claims that do not fit that are rejected by science.

[datasuspect]

135. damn

that was pretty straightforward.

unfortunately, there are such tremendous pressures from having religion/god-ideation as a fundamental pillar of a person's identity that any attempt at discussion becomes instantly inflamed with emotion on the part of the believer.

emotion and science do not mix very well.

[L0cke]

124. yep.

Logically incompatible.

[MRKARNO]

178. Yay evolution

It sickens me when I read polls of how few people actually believe wholeheartedly in evolution. The fact that schools can teach creationisim is also truly sad. I'm all about reason and logic and they point towards evolution.

[K-W]

57. One of your points is false, the other kinda true.

Science and religion ARE incompatible.

Religion says there are things that we can know through faith
Science says that we can only know the empirical.

It is only possible to believe in something and accept science if you remove the conflicts as they appear and keep a concept of science and a concept of faith that dont overlap. If you do it with ultimate reverence to science, this is referred to as a 'god of the gaps'.

While I do certainly encourage compartmentalization over fundementalism, do understand that science find the claim that God created the universe in its entirity to be extremely non-parsimonius and completely untestable, ie bad.

[Lerkfish]

61. cool...a philosophical discussion...I love those...

IMHO, religion is believing something is true, with or without empirical evidence. This does NOT mean empirical evidence does not exist or will not be found at some point, only that believing it is not dependent on that discovery.

a scientific theory is something which addresses the empirical evidence, whether it is true or not. Scientific theories are disproven frequently.

For example, scientists used to believe atoms were constructed a certain way...which was consistent with data available at the time. Then, as more data was obtained, they believed atoms were structured much differently. Did the truth of their structure change because the theory changed? No, atoms were the same before and after more was learned.
However, its interesting to realize that when science theory disproves itself, this encourages science adherents in the reliability of the system, rather than making them ask hard questions about what they consider "truth".

The best characterization would be that scientists think truth can be a tangible result from correctly analyzing empirical data. But as more or different data is obtained, their version of "truth" also changes to reflect new data. It is pasing odd, then, that scientists seem to categorize religion negatively and science positively in terms of "truth", when the version of scientific truth is constantly malleable.

Personally, I find science adherents as dogmatic in this regard and fundamentalists....their minds are closed to exploring the possibility they may be wrong.

[K-W]

69. You are misinformed as to the nature of science.

"The best characterization would be that scientists think truth can be a tangible result from correctly analyzing empirical data."

Bullshit.
That is philosophy.

That is what destinguishes science from the philosophical traditions that predated it. Philosophers said that knowledge can be gained through applying logic to observations. (I just want to point out that many philosophers recognize the limitations of non-scientific analysis and make no such claims, this is more a historical reference.

Scientists say that the only way to check a theory with reality is to attempt to falsify it through testing empricical predictions.

This produces a concept of reality that nobody who knows anything about science would claim to be reality. It is just the concept that is made up of scientific claims that so far fits the evidence best and hasnt been proven false to this date.

The only dogma involved in science is whether or not you agree with the logic behind it, ie that our only way to get information on the world is through empricism, and the only logic that can prove something is deductive reasoning. If you disagree, fine, that isnt science.

[Lerkfish]

91. bullshit.

sorry, I just wanted to say that back to you for you to see what a mature method of argument it is.

look, obviously you are very emotionally charged on this issue. Sorry to have offended you by speaking my opinion.

You said "This produces a concept of reality that nobody who knows anything about science would claim to be reality. It is just the concept that is made up of scientific claims that so far fits the evidence best and hasnt been proven false to this date."

If I understand you correctly, You're merely restating my central point. As long as available data is consistent with a theory, it is considered "true" or valid. Or, until it is proven false, it is considered "true" or valid. I'm only pointing out that new data is often discovered which actually does invalidate the theory...but up until that point, scientists like to think their theories are ironclad truths.

and that's ok...if it helps, its ok to admit science is merely a method to understand the nature of nature. By its basis in empiricism it can only adopt as true what can be measured. Unfortunately, often measurements are incorrect, and not discovered until later. Until then, though, science is as adamant about the validity of its claims as fundamentalists.

*shrugs* but I can agree to disagree with you if you feel differently.
You don't know me, however, and to assume I know nothing of science is based on ignorance...not a very shining example of the scientific method on your part, I might add.

[K-W]

99. By this one statement, you prove yourself entirely wrong.

"Until then, though, science is as adamant about the validity of its claims as fundamentalists."

Nobody who has even a vague understanding of science would ever say anything like this.

If you dont see the difference between presenting theories to be tested and gaining confidence in them as they gain support and assuming a set of religious beliefs with no rational support, I dont even know how you can participate in this discussion.

[Lerkfish]

110. what-ever.

instead of attempting to bar me from this discussion, may I politely ask you to harrass someone else? thanks.

[K-W]

113. It is your lack of information that bars you from discussing this topic.

Clearly I have no problem with you posting here, I could have chosen to ignore you long ago.

I am simply pointing out that you continue to demonstrate absolutely no understanding of what science is and a complete unwillingess to understand it.

You are too attached to your false concept of science that allows you to judge it unfairly.

[XemaSab]

155. Question

What are your scientific credentials that make you so adament that your ideas about science are the only correct ideas in this thread?

I think you're defending a strict definition, which is good, but you sound like my Bio 105 teacher preparing us for a midterm.

[datasuspect]

137. you mentioned a fundamental mischaraterization

when you said the following:

" . . . scientists like to think their theories are ironclad truths."

that's not really true.

science is a fundamentally "negative" pursuit in that you don't go searching for facts to fit your theory.

it's more a process of elimination to determine if under x circumstances, would y still obtain as the result, and so on and so on.

a theory is only as good as it is falsifiable. if you can replicate results that is great, but ultimately a scientist is trying to determine how/when/where a hypothesis is not true.

[L0cke]

63. oop

Never mind. I misread.

[datasuspect]

28. "it's only a theory"

i love it when people say this because it places their fundamental ignorance of basic science in stark relief.

a theory is an attempt at explanation, you build your knowledge therefrom. theorization is the engine of science. a theory is only as good as its falsifiability. that's how science progresses - FALSIFIABILITY. which means that you have to try to find the weaknesses in your theory for it to have any strength.

it's more a process of elimination to see what obtains when and if results can be replicated.

[prolesunited]

44. Tell them gravity is only at theory as well

and to go take a flying leap off a tall building if they distrust theories that much. :P

[Zynx]

117. Wrong - Gravity is a collection of Laws under a general Theory

[datasuspect]

138. then

the those specific laws would be subsumed under the general theory.

IT'S STILL A THEORY.

[Beam Me Up]

29. I don't.

I don't UNDERSTAND the "theory of evolution"--especially as it relates to homo sapiens--and I think that is where there is so much confusion.

Does evolutionary theory FULLY account for the arising of homo sapiens on this planet? If not, then there is room for considering other ideas. FOR EXAMPLE, In "Food of the Gods," Terence McKenna makes a compelling case for the INFLUENCE of DIET (specifically psychoactive substances such as psilocybin mushrooms) in the development of the human species and human consciousness. Anyone who has ever had a full blown psychedelic experience understands that when we are dealing with matters of CONSCIOUSNESS, we are on the edge of something science does a damn poor job of articulating. How can science account for the arising of the experience of the sacred; that is, the subjective awareness of being in the presence of another, higher form of consciousness that is as superior to our own as we are to an earth worm?

[Lizz612]

36. Yes.

Does evolutionary theory FULLY account for the arising of homo sapiens on this planet?
Yes. Its mind boggling, but true. Consciousness is on the edges of scientific understanding, but just because we don't understand it yet doesn't mean its God's doing.

[Beam Me Up]

78. What do you mean by "GOD"?

If by "GOD" you mean someone's idea of God, of course you are right. But if by God one means the highest possible manifestation of consciousness in the universe, how can you be so sure?

[Lizz612]

94. I can't even be sure what you mean

Honestly I don't know what you mean by "highest possible manifestation of consciousness in the universe".(How is that different from the definition of god? It seems to just be a definition wrapped in semi eastern religion language.)

I'm going to take a stab anyway, tell me if I'm way off the mark, eh? Are you saying that human consciousness may have been sparked by a higher consciousness that is universal? Sure, anything is possible theoretically. But it is also just as possible that consciousness arose in our ancestors of its own accord. And since life itself sprang of its own accord, I think not a big leap to think that consciousness could have done the same.

Really I believe God's physical impact is more "clock maker" while God's moral impact should be taken very seriously.

[Beam Me Up]

182. "God's moral impact should be taken very seriously."

On that at least we agree. On the rest of it it appears we lack the words to communicate and fully understand one another, and I am sorry about that. We human beings need so much to try and understand one another even though we speak different languages--especially in times such as these. Science, religion, philosophy--I've read extensively in all these fields but I am "an artist" and so am master of none.

For me there is a what has been called a "great chain of being" from the lowest to the highest. To ask about causes "are you saying that human consciousness may have been sparked by a higher consciousness that is universal" is to put the whole question from the point of view of TIME; which is precisely the problem. If we could begin to understand, not only theoretically but directly through our own conscious experience, that TIME itself is a subjective experience and that a consciousness of higher dimensions offers solutions to what appear to be irreconcilable contradictions, then, perhaps, we can begin to communicate.

[indigobusiness]

43. Terrance McKenna has made huge contributions

to human understanding, though it will be awhile before that is fully realized.

Diet is a functionary of evolution. Whatever drives it hardly denies it.

Science is confirming many of the ancient wisdom concepts through much of the "new science" such as quantum entanglement. But you won't hear that in a generic American classroom. You have to dig for it.

edit- I would agree with Lizz612's post above, except to say that God is probably just the comprehensive force and logic behind such things as Evolution. There has to be some word(and concept) for it - the form that word (and concept) takes is the cause of all the fuss.

[Beam Me Up]

84. Thanks, Indigo

Civilization (and the recreation of it that exists in the human mind) truly is a TOWER OF BABBLE--and DU is a perfect representation in mineature. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT!

Yes, I include myself in that. ;)

That doesn't stop us from YACKING AWAY.

YACK YACK YACK YACK.

Here is wisdom speaking: "Wrods do not spoil the silence for those who have ears to hear what can not be said."

Who said that? :hi:

[indigobusiness]

97. Yep. Reverence for the mystery is lost...

in the love of the noise.

The sound of silence is more than a song title.

[K-W]

81. science has no problem analyzing why psychoactive chemicals

effect your perception, the only limiting factor in that exploration is how little we know about the functioning of the brain,

if you want to throw spiritualism into that gap, fine, dont claim you can do it with any credibility.

If you want a theory that fully accounts for everything, you dont want science. Unfortunately for people as demanding as you, human beings dont get to just know the entire universe in complete detail.

I have taken more than my fair share of psychedellic chemicals, it doesnt ask any questions past "What is this chemical doing to my brain." And I am nearly certain that science knows alot more about it than you think they do.

[Beam Me Up]

90. Not just STONED but BEAUTIFUL.

Do you know the difference Jimmy Hendrix was referring to? If not, all your psychedelic experience has been wasted (pun intended).

[K-W]

105. Congratulations on having your mind blown.

If you would like to talk rationally about the actual world we live in, I would love to.

If you would like to argue that you know something I dont because you ate some mushrooms and tripped and thought you learned something, I will refer you to a dr who can help you reaclimate to observing the world without chemicals interferring with the functioning of your brain.

The history of the world is littered with people who thought they could think thier way to knowledge. You are in good company, but you are wrong.

[Beam Me Up]

148. who said anything about 'thinking one's way to knowledge'?

Don't give me BS about "rationality" and "the real world". In my world, BEAUTY, like Love, is MORE REAL than either one of us. If that hasn't been your experience then that is most unfortunate. Ultimately we are all one thing and this 'me vs you' crap is the illusion. It does not make for happy campers on planet Earth.

Peace

[H2O Man]

114. You ignore a huge part of the human

experience. There is a significant difference between a native person ingesting certain plants as part of a religious ceremony; a hippie at a rock concert ingesting the same plant; and a kid in a ghetto sitting in a rat-infested apartment ingesting that same plant. If you are not able to distinguish between these, it is actually you who loses credibility. Even in the scientific community.

I think that there are a fair number of hippies who will recall having ingested a tad bit too much of some of these plants or the chemicals that the great scientists invented to mimic them. Quite often, the people had frightening experiences, even to the point of thinking (maybe even over and over!) "When will this end?" And quite often, a voice from inside says, "You will be okay." "Who are you?" "Who wants to know?"

This conversation also occures in people who do intensive meditation or go on what you might call a "vision quest." Now, you might have a scientific explanation of those altered states, too. But if you insist that they have nothing to do with spirituality, you lose credibility. Even in the scientific community.

[K-W]

118. I ignored nothing.

I never claimed nor inferred that psychoactives have a constant effect independent of the multitude of other factors that inform a persons subjective experience. Nor would I ever claim this, where on earth did you get that from?

So schizophrenics are prophets then? Now a voice in your head proves spiritual involvement?

Your argument is "People have gone through things and thought they were spiritual, therefore they are spiritual."

Excuse me if I am not convinced.

Then you argue from the authority of the scientific community, which, unless someones been playing a big prank on me, doesnt agree with you. Either way, it is an argument from authority.

So explain to me again, rationally, why I am to put anymore credibility on your claims of spiritual causes of your perception than I do in spiritual causes of the sun rising?

[H2O Man]

125. You misunderstand.

From what I said to you, to why I said it. And you confuse yourself with the scientific community. If you could for eve 15 seconds be objective, and read your last sentence, you would appreciate how silly you are.

Do you think asperson who meditates is schizophrenic? Do you think a person who is schizophrenic is more or less likely to appreciate things spiritual?

[K-W]

128. Im definately not saying what you think I am.

I never confused myself with the scientific community. I pointed out that your claim that it was true because the scientific community says it is true is an argument from authority, and logically flawed. I also expressed skepticism as to your claim that the scientific community agrees with you.

"Do you think asperson who meditates is schizophrenic? Do you think a person who is schizophrenic is more or less likely to appreciate things spiritual?"

I never claimed or implied that people who meditate are schizonphrenic.

I was pointing out that schizophrenics too experience extra sensory percetion, hear voices, and often attribute them to spiritual sources. It just goes to show that the human brain is fully capable of producing vivid 'spiritual' experiences without any need to rely on spiritual explenations, unless you think that schizophrenics are having a spiritual experience.

As far as objectivity and my last sentance, I stated "So explain to me again, rationally, why I am to put anymore credibility on your claims of spiritual causes of your perception than I do in spiritual causes of the sun rising?"

That is completely objective. You are claiming spiritual things without any support. Until you support them with something other than a logical fallacy or speculation, why should I put anymore credence on your claims than on a claim of any other spiritual event?

I am holding your claims to scientific standards in a perfectly objective matter.

[H2O Man]

130. Just for fun:

I said that you had wrote the last sentence in your post. I find it hard to believe that you would propose it is rational to insist that you did not write it.

In your last sentence, you wrote -- or someone else inserted it, if you insist upon denying you wrote it -- "....on your claims of spiritual causes..." Yet you will not find my claiming anything about "spiritual causes."

I did write about the science known as anthropology. You can insist that no social scientist would distinguish between the three examples I listed, but it only makes you look silly.

After re-reading all of your posts in this thread, I have to admit that I think there is a good chance that you are against science, and are merely trying to discredit it. If you are serious, it might be worse.

[K-W]

132. You made a spiritual claim whether you want to admit it or not.

And I never claimed to have not written anything, this is just another of the long line of things you think I said that have been complete fabrications on your part. The last sentence you referred to was quoted in my post and refers to the spiritual claim you made in your first post.

"This conversation also occures in people who do intensive meditation or go on what you might call a "vision quest." Now, you might have a scientific explanation of those altered states, too. But if you insist that they have nothing to do with spirituality, you lose credibility. Even in the scientific community."

So you arent claiming spiritual involvement in that selection? Perhaps there is a definition of the word spirituality I am unaware of?

[H2O Man]

133. I want to thank you!

You are really something! I haven't laughed this hard in years.

Yes! There are many, many definitions of spirituality which you are not even close to being aware of! Now you've got it!

One you apparently need to consider would be in the social sciences, and the examples I gave you. I would recommend that you read some of Joseph Campbell, even though there is little chance that you would benefit much from it in your present state. But try the introduction to his book "Primitive Mythology;" keep in touch with me on GD and I'll try to break it down into simply terms for you.

Also, although it's probably way beyond you now, buy his book "Myths To Live By," and read chapter ten on schizophrenia.

I'm curious: what were your drug experiences like? Did they help you in life? Hurt you? Scare you? Of course, do not answer if these are uncomfortable questions. I'm just curious .... in an entirely scientific manner .... about what shaped your outlook.

Again, thank you. I'm really enjoying our chat!

[K-W]

136. Let us clear up the definition of spirituality first.

I have access to all numbers of dictionaries, please tell me where I can find a definition of the word 'spirituality' that would fit in your original post and make it not a spiritual claim.

Obviously we should get on the same definition before we procceed in discussing this.

I am happy that logic and science provide you with so many laughs.

[H2O Man]

140. I already did.

Please read Campbell, unless you are already convinced that you know more than he.

Logic and science do bring great joy to me. I do not confuse what you are saying for either logic or science.

But, for fun if for nothing else, how do you think an anthropologist might apply the word "spirituality" to each of the three examples I listed in my first post to you?

And I hope that you are enjoying this conversation, too. It's important not to be rigid in our thinking. Sometimes people who "used to use drugs" have to subscribe to a rigid theory of life to get by. I am not saying that is your circumstance, but you seem to have a difficult time realizing that the word "spiritual" has many different meanings.

[K-W]

142. Nope, you have yet to provide a definition. Im still waiting.

Citing a work is not providing a definition.

I imagine an anthropologist would discuss spirituality objectively, as I have, as a phenonemom of human behavior and human culture. I dont imagine any anthropoligist with a passing concept of science would ever claim that there were spiritual things at work.

[H2O Man]

195. I agree

that you don't imagine. Sad.

I listed 17 distinct examples. Your life would be so much improved if you would use a little repressed spiritual energy, and find them yourself. It's really not for me to answer every question you have.

But, being really nice, I will help you .... read Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning." Frankl was one of the preeminent psychotherapists of the 20th century. Then get back to me.

Enjoy the book. It's never too late to learn!

[datasuspect]

143. joseph campbell

has largely been discredited in many circles.

his work is not rigorous in any way.

if you are dead set in perpetuating a mythological consciousness, try reading Ernst Cassirer: Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. Zweiter Teil: Das mythische Denken. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer. Translated as The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume Two: Mythical Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.

[K-W]

144. Thanks.

I was alot having no familiarity with the school of thought he was referring to.

Hopefully you can phrase things better, I have had no luck. Off from work I go.

[H2O Man]

149. "I was alot having no familiarity"

Freudian slip! "Oh, but Freud is largely discredited!!" You guys are great!

[H2O Man]

147. Ha!

Good one! I prefer C.G. Jung's 5th lecture to the Institute of Medical Psychology. Are you familiar?

Also, if you were familiar with Campbell, you'd know the beginning of Primitive Mythology is about Knud Rassmussen's studies. Just for fun, tell me if you think Rassmussen is likewise discredited?

And tell us the half-dozen or so errors , in rigorous terms, that he makes in his lecture on schizophrenia?

[datasuspect]

150. uh, i don't engage in silly one upmanship

nor am i very familiar with popular/pseudo-intellectual works.

i wouldn't say rasmussen is discredited because this would imply he was ever relevant.

jung however (and anyone within or connected with the freudian lineage/millieu - and i know he split from freud) is highly suspect or plain out discredited nowadays. they are more or less historical curiosities.

and i wasn't dropping names, i was trying to turn you onto the definitive scholarly work that deals with mythological consciousness.

[H2O Man]

154. Oh, I wasn't

"name dropping" or attempting to engage in silly one upmanship.

Rassmussen was certainly relevant in European anthropological studies. He was particularly interested in the study of the most isolated and primitive peoples. Though he might not be popular or in style today, that has nothing to do with the quality of his research. One can learn a great deal from the studies of people who might be overlooked by popular or mainstream thought.

Much of the discrediting of Campbell came from those who were focusing on his personal weaknesses. His works, including the wonderful series of interviews with Bill Moyers, are still of great value.

It's a good thing that others view things differently; it's cheap to say that folks like Campbell, Jung, or Rassmussen are insignificant.

[datasuspect]

157. well

to each their own.

i wish you the best.

[H2O Man]

190. fair enough ....

Now you had me going upstairs to find a few books .... because I do think you are serious -- and I'm not sure, but I think the other fellow is pulling my leg -- but! Rassmussen was part of a Danish study of archtic shamen in the early 1920s (which would make me rather pathetic if I were "name-dropping"!) .... and I mentioned the information in Campbell's book for a very specific purpose.

You'll recognize it. He speaks to Najagneq, a strange old hermit, and asks about "God" : "Yes, a power we call Sila, one that can not be explained in so many words. A strong spirit, the upholder of the universe, of the weather, in fact all life on earth -- so mighty that his speech comes to man not through ordinary words, but through storms, snowfall, rain showers, the tempests of the sea, through all the forces man fears, or through sunshine, calm seas, or small, innocent playing children who understand nothing ..."

This is an accurate description of what all human beings who come in contact with higher understanding find .... "it cannot be said in so many words" .... and so it is only conveyed in symbolic terms.

Or think of Igjugarjuk's words: "The only true wisdom lives far from mankind, out in the great lonliness, and can only be reached through suffering. Privation and suffering alone can open the mind of a man to that which is hidden from others."

Those two sentences sum up the meaning of Viktor Frankl's book, "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning." Likerwise, of course, we can dismiss Frankl as a nut .... just as some people -- including some here on DU -- will make nasty little jokes about schizophrenia .... which was the exact reason I suggested the chapter on schizophrenia in the other Campbell book .... not name-dropping, not showing off that I've actually read two books in my life (I've actually read four!) .... but very seriously saying if the person wanted a definition of spirituality that goes well beyond what he understands, spend some energy investigating. I'm not an attorney making a plea for sympathy and understanding from him, hoping he judges in my favor.

(I also mentioned Jung for a specific reason .... that talk is where he outlined some of his experience in detailing "the beast" in pre-war Germany .... his views on archetypal imagery is, in my opinion, worth re-examining in America today.)

[datasuspect]

209. that's a lot of information

please provide bibiliographic information so i can delve into rasmussen further.

i was more into philosophy/germanic studies.

insofar as campbell is concerned, i don't have much stomach for him (or jung for that matter) but rasmussen sounds interesting.

i'm in a rural location, so i really don't have library resources, but i'd be very interested to delve into his work.

[H2O Man]

212. sure .....

H. Ostermann; The Alaskan Eskimos, as Described in the Posthumous Notes of Dr. Knud Rassmussen. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-24; Vol X, No 3; Copenhagen:Nordisk Forlag, 1952.

I assume you are familiar with Frankl.

[datasuspect]

213. no not really

is the work you cited what you suggest as a good introduction?

[H2O Man]

215. Yes.

Frankl was, as I noted, one of the preeminent psychotherapists of the past century. His work was influenced by his personal experiences in a concentration camp during the Holocaust. He wrote 31 books on philosophy, psychotherapy, and neurology. He differed significantly from his Viennese colleagues, in that he believed the basic drive in life as the urge to find meaning, not in the thwarted sense of finding security in fairy-tale religions or the republican party, but rather in a healthy way that finds no contradiction between spirituality and science. His works are well worth reading.

[indigobusiness]

159. I'd just remind you that the works of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein...

were "discredited", as well.

[datasuspect]

162. puh-leaze

CONTEXT, again: C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

again, if you could even make a statement like that, i question the utility of responding to you.

[indigobusiness]

167. That was in context.

I'd question your understanding of "context".

Don't patronize me. That was a good historical example of the predisposition of the status quo to reject meaningful work.

--

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'."
-Werner Heisenberg

[datasuspect]

169. uhhhhhhhh

okay

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigobusiness]

177. It's nothing personal,

just self-evident. Your ego stomps all over your idiomatic argument.

[datasuspect]

197. what idiom am i speaking in?

i thought i was speaking conventional english.

anyway, hope everything works out for you.

all the best to you and yours

[indigobusiness]

200. I said your idiomatic argument.

Not your idiomatic language.

[datasuspect]

202. so again,

so what idiom characterizes my argument?

are you sure you don't mean something else?

anyway, i shouldn't be having all these laughs at your expense. sorry

i'll stop responding to you for awhile until you rehabilitate your grasp of the english language.

toodles

[indigobusiness]

205. You mock...

yourself.

[datasuspect]

173. anyway

to each their own

i wish you the best

[H2O Man]

191. plagiarism!

someone wrote the exact same message to me .... but since it was you, we'll let you get away without footnoting it. Anyhow, I did respond in a serious way to your last reply .... because while the K-Y person appeared to be joking in an effort to discredit science, I think you are being serious, and so I wanted to explain two small things.

peace

[indigobusiness]

201. Who are these people?

Does anyone know?

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

207. regarding post #190 ......

Curious if you read it?

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

210. oh dear god

i simply adore you.

such energy, such conviction.

your bloviation really warms the cockels of my black heart.

btw, i highly recommend any usage and style primer. you have the fire in the gut and that is admirable. i think you can do what has been hitherto only the stuff of dreams: i think you can be THE person who wins an internet argument.

[datasuspect]

139. a lot of

that falls under the purview of neuroscience. yes, they can understand why hallucinogens work on the brain. any resultant "spirituality" is the work of the user, not necessarily the work of a chemical agent and the way it fucks around with serotonin reuptake and endorphin secretion.

[H2O Man]

192. that's one view .....

and certainly makes sense to those who start from a status of "non-believer." Likewise, a recent TIME article on the "God gene" fights that same viewpoint.

Those who start from a staus of "believers" view it as evidence of the brain having the capacity to make things known to the conscious mind. Likewise, they view the "God gene" as evidence that supports their view.

Just to take a different example, to try to approach it from an objective view, a scientist could look at the brain, and see that it is hard-wired to work with the eyes to see colors. And things such as certain plants or meditation can make perception of colors seem a bit more, well, colorful. (grin) Would that be proof that colors do not exist except in the hard-wiring of the brain, enhanced by jolts of those chemicals that can make life seem pleasurable? Gosh, what a sterile and worthless view! Almost "color-blind"! The truth is the eyes and the brain are what allows us to pick up on the energy forces that exist outside of our head! And, those of us who speak of "spirituality" are speaking -- in the most literal sense -- of that energy that upholds the universe. It is the ultimate reality.

[datasuspect]

196. the problem with

hallucinogens are that many of them (most prominently LSD-25) are psychotomimetic; that is to say they mimic psychosis in the user.

as far as spirituality and all the divergent "coloration" (in conjunction with chemicals, ritual, custom, or other mediation; or standing on its own merits) it can bring to life, that is fine, but a little too all-encompassing and subjective to be anything more than entertaining.

[H2O Man]

198. that's one view ....

narrow, perhaps, but if it works, that's great!

Perhaps the difference between the way we view things is summed up by your saying that LSD mimics psychosis. I would say it is psychosis. Perhaps brief and reactive to the ingesting of the LSD. But I'd never advise anyone to do LSD. It is, of course, a product of science, and unnatural. (grin) Fast, meditate, etc.

[datasuspect]

199. actually

lsd is synthesized from organic components. in its pure form, it is a relatively "clean" drug (pharmaceutical grade).

still, i'm trying to figure out what you are trying to propose. are you saying that inner world of spirituality, altered states of perception, subjective experience of the divine and god-concepts are superior or more useful than scientific knowledge?

[H2O Man]

204. no, no! not at all!

I'm not saying that they are any more or less important. I do not think that science and spirituality are in conflict at all. Of course, either can be abused. We can list the church-supported institution of slavery in this country, or the destruction of the native population, as examples of religion abused. Or we could look to Nazi Germany for the abuse of science.

And you are correct that LSD is synthesized. That was my point, though I apparently was not clear. But a person doesn't need it; the exact same insights that can potentially occure from ingesting it can be found elsewhere, with no potentially unpleasant side effects.

Again, I see science at its best as spiritual. Carl Sagan, for example, could describe complex scientific issues in a manner that we simple folk could appreciate. In The Dragons of Eden, he translated the poetic description of human evolution in more scientific terms. I think that type of "overlap" is of great value.

[Tsiyu]

30. If I didn't

or I wasn't sure, I would never state so on DU.

It's one of those topics I avoid here because if you don't buy it lock, stock and barrel you are considered ignorant.

[Squeech]

33. I couldn't agree more

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in gravity-- they're both theories, i.e. hypotheses about how the world really works, supported by a boatload of evidence.

People don't normally dis gravity (at least, not in a public forum) because its effects are really easy to watch, whereas the evidence for evolution is considerably less obvious-- species divergence takes a lot longer than the lifespan of any mortal observer, and the fossil record needs training to interpret, training which few people who aren't already committed to the idea will ever get. But to say "Intelligent design answers all this just as readily" is hardly different from claiming the earth is flat.

If you know an actual doubter, inform him/her that the same theory he's dismissing is responsible for the techniques biochemists use to discover new drugs, and if (s)he's on any modern meds, (s)he benefits from a theory (s)he doesn't believe in, and is therefore open to a charge of hypocrisy.

[indigobusiness]

46. Gravity is a recognized and measurable force.

It is no theory, just unexplained.

But you win a toaster, too (how did I miss your post?).

Good point.

[Squeech]

77. Yeah, but

To say that it's recognized is just another way of saying that most of us accept the theory. Granted that an awful lot of other theory in contemporary physics depends on our current understanding of gravity, there's still a lot we *don't* know about gravity-- for example, I don't think we've yet observed a graviton, even though most of us have faith that we will, some day. (My understanding is that we *have* detected a gravity wave, emitted by some rotating super-heavy dwarf star.)

As to why you may have missed my post, it's either because I came late to the party, or because I'm on so many DUers' ignore lists that the mods decided to have everyone ignore me as the default?

On edit: oops.

[indigobusiness]

88. No, it's different. It has practical applications, and like electricity

is far beyond theory...but equally unfully explained.

Black holes are not observed (but their influence is) and are defined by gravity. Nothing can be defined by a theory.

[XemaSab]

163. Beak of the Finch

Interesting read on evolution. Not a hard read, either.

[indigobusiness]

34. Evolution is self-evident.

The implications are all that remains to argue.

[H2O Man]

40. it's kind of like asking

if people believe in the Theory of Gravity.

[indigobusiness]

42. Bingo!!!!

We have a winner!!!

Your toaster is in the mail.

[okieinpain]

38. it's funny, I believe in a mixture. I believe god created the world and

all that's in it. but I believe he/she is just an advanced being that is
seeing how far he/she can push their knowledge. the human body is just too much like a machine for me to believe that it just happen from some bacteria.

[K-W]

60. Bacteria work like machines too.

Just as much as you do.
So does the weather.

Perhaps you should look at how general a description "like a machine" is. Basically it just means physically moves in a systematic way. Not exactly an awe inspiring resemblence.

[xerox]

45. Is evolution

a theory or a type of religion?

[DrWeird]

47. Neither.

It's a scientific fact. Like the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

[xerox]

51. Then

why is it called a theory if it has been scientifically proven? It would be called the laws of evolution like the laws of motion or the law of gravity. Shouldn't we be calling it laws of evolution instead of theory of evolution?

[DrWeird]

55. I just call it "evolution."

Scientists don't use the word "theory" or "law" when talking about evolution.

[K-W]

59. Words have multiple meanings..

Evolution refers to both the evidence of long term biological change and speciation along a continuim as well as the particular theory of evolution currently favored by the scientific community that explains that evidence.

To answer your first question it is a theory, not a religion. Im not sure how you could be confused about that. Do you know what both of those words mean, because they arent close?

[xerox]

67. If

it is scientific fact then there is no need to believe in it. Hence the word believe is taking something based on faith that something is true without any proof which is essentially the definition of a Religious principle. The question "Do we believe in evolution" is a question of faith not fact.

[DrWeird]

68. Since when did belief equal religion?

I believe the world is round. It is also a fact. You seem to be of the opinion that belief = faith = religion. That happens to be a creationist talking point. Since scientists believe in Evolution then it's a matter of faith and therefore a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools do to seperation of church and state.

[xerox]

71. Uhhh

nope. I carefully said "religious principle," the key word is principle. If it is fact then it is fact and therefore we do not need to believe in it just accept that it is a law.

The danger here is characterizing something that is science as a belief. This is going down the wrong road and will give the enemy the power to characterize it as a religion and therefore get it banned from teaching in schools.

[DrWeird]

74. I believe in the laws of gravity too.

Evolution is a fact. Scientists and other intelligent people everywhere believe in it. You've got some funny ideas about the definitions of the words "belief" "religion" "theories" and "laws."

So what do you believe in?

[xerox]

80. I believe

that I am not crazy. But most people will disagree.
I believe that if I keep taking my medication I will be ok.
I believe my dog is gay.
I believe that if I plant my corn in the winter it will not grow, especially in the desert.
I believe in washing my hands after I go to the bathroom.
See I believe in lots of things.

[Zynx]

111. Evolution is not a "fact" - this is a misuse of language.

The highest status something can be afforded in science is "law." Evolution is not there.

Gravity is a scientific law. The Laws of Thermodynamics are scientific laws. The Law of Conservation of Matter is a law. Evolution is the "Theory of Evolution."

However, evolution shares the title Theory with some other extremely well-proved stuff...Theory of Relativity, for example. E=MC^2 works, we know it works, we know a lot of Einstein's other stuff works, but Relativity still isn't a Law.

The burden of proof for making something a scientific law is rediculiously high.

However, intelligent design passes NO scientific muster whatsoever, and therefore is not even a "Theory." You could call it a hypothesis. That is being generous.

Basically, intelligent design and creationism are not emphirical and open to being disproven. Therefore, they are not science at all.

[DrWeird]

116. Bullshit. Evolution is a fact.

And you're misusing "laws" as well. The "laws" of Gravity are rules that are subsets of the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Thermodynamics. There are also the laws of Relativity. Regardless, this is something of a semantic argument.

"The burden of proof for making something a scientific law is rediculiously high" Now you're just making things up. There's no such standard.

Regardless, Evolution has been proven beyond anything resembling a shadow of a doubt and is as much a fact as the world is round.

[K-W]

119. It always amazes me

how few people understand the tenets of science and how many people think they do.

[Zynx]

123. Then what does our human evolution tree look like?

Oh, you don't know.? No one else does either, because every new find reworks it to a massive extent.

As we are unable to straighten out even that little subset of evolution into factual knowledge that is not going to be changed in a few months or years, I'd like to know how you think you can declare all of evolution, as we know it, to be a fact.

And *no* scientist is ever going to consider anything conclusively "proven". Things like Thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of Gravity and Conservation of Matter are just near the top of a scale that doesn't quite reach the very top of "fact."

[DrWeird]

126. You're being phony.

It's a fact that the earth is round.

"Ah," you say, "but the Earth is not a perfect sphere, scientists now say it is actually an oblate spheroid. How can you say it's a fact that the Earth is round when you keep changing your theories?!"

[Zynx]

129. The earth being round is incomporable to scientific theory

And as you pointed out, the understanding of its shape changed considerably from "flat" to "round sphere" to "imperfect oblate spheroid." The shape of the earth will continue to change, for that matter, as we continue to develope more and more precise measurements. Mathematics allows for infinately small differences, and so there is, and never will be, no absolute final ruling on shape of the earth. Granted these differences are entirely meaningless, but they still exist. You get small enough and even nanometers become worthlessly "inaccurate."

A perfect "1" does not exist outside of mathematics. End of story.

And, interestingly enough, mathematics is the only part of science where you hear the term "proven" used to actually mean "This is the way things are."

Now, considering that we will never have a final, accurate shape of the earth, how can you even think to apply the same logic of "earth is round" to "evolution is fact."

Science will *always* allow for something that breaks the theory. For example, if we found a vampire walking around tomorrow, that would change an awful lot of our understanding of biology. If we found a shapeshifter, that would probably rip the heck out of Conservation of Matter. If aliens dropped out of hyperspace and said "Hello", Relativity goes out the window because FTL travel shouldn't work, period. Science INHERENTLY allows for this sort of event to disprove theories. This is why concepts like Relativity and Evolution are not called fact.

I suggest you review this page (essentially Scientific Terminology for Dummies) before yo continue to compare facts such as "the sun came up this morning" or "the earth is round" - a bad example as I pointed out - to scientific theories and their law subsets.

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

[datasuspect]

145. uh, here is one human phylogenetic tree

and the reworks aren't as severe as you think.

lots of ideas change when they find older and older ancestors and develop more precise methods of dating. they don't simply chuck the whole thing out with each new discovery.

there are others because science doesn't really seek to prove absolute truths as much as it tries to advance knowledge - and this is a slow, incremental, and messy endeavor.

[K-W]

70. I guess if we take a simpletons understanding of language.

I am not a simpleton, are you?

Do I honestly need to explain to a literate person that words mean different things in different contexts?

We use the word believe, in the context of science in the same place as the word think basically. It does not refer to religious beliefs.

To clear things up for you I will rephrase it.

"Do we agree with the scientific consensus about evolution?"

Is that less confusing?

[xerox]

73. I

am not confused. Just a friendly discussion. Is that allowed here without resulting to name calling?

[K-W]

76. Then why the belief issue?

The conflict does not lie at such a superficial level. It is not the fact that people believe science or religion, it is that the beliefs contained in science are supported, whilest the beliefs in religion are often unsupportable.

You are just squabbling over the differing contexts you can use the word belief in.

[xerox]

83. Im

just curious to see what people would say. Besides I have not taken my medication yet.

[Bridget Burke]

85. Go back to school.

Or don't drop out of school. Or watch educational TV. Or read a book.

Learn the meaning of "scientific theory." I attended public schools in Texas & managed to pick up the basics. It's not that hard.

[xerox]

93. I know

the meaning. Never ask questions that you do not know the answer too is also one of my beliefs.

[datasuspect]

146. WOW (jaw drops to floor)!

you said: "Never ask questions that you do not know the answer too is also one of my beliefs."

how do you expect to ever learn anything?!!?! you can't really be serious.

[XemaSab]

164. "Theory"

has a meaning in science, a technical definition, that differs from the lay meaning.

This is a big part of the problem. When lay people say they have a theory, it means an idea that's a more or less supportable hunch. This is akin to the scientific definition of "hypothesis."

In science, you develop a hypothesis, subject it to testing, and eventually develop a theory from all the data.

In science, a theory can be very well measured and supported with lots of data (like evolution or relativity), but in science there are no "facts," just theories that are open to new evidence.

If there was real data that evolution is bogus, then scientists would rethink the whole thing. But there isn't, so we're sticking with evolution.

[indigobusiness]

48. Anti-Evolution is the Anti-Religion

of the Anti-Christ.

[johnnie]

53. I lean toward some kind of evolution

The truth is, it doesn't really matter to me. I let the people who believe in creationism believe what they want. Hell, for all we know we are just some eighth dimensional existence of some supreme being's nightmare.
I trust science to a degree, but also take in to account that if God exists it could do anything it wanted to and fudging science could just be a way of teasing us. Funny thing is, the fundies believe science when it fits their beliefs and discounts it when it goes against their faith. The "anti-choice" people believe that a baby is a complete human at conception because science says it is (in their opinion) and the earth is a little over 6,000 years old even though science proves it isn't.

[Dzimbowicz]

65. Evolution is my guess

although I don't have all the answers and never will.

[Poiuyt]

75. The universe was created by masturbation

According to Egyptian mythology.

If we're going to teach Creationism, shouldn't we teach all variations of it?

[Cheswick2.0]

79. I believe that the "theory" of evolution is probably pretty accurate

I think only evolution should be taught in school. But of course since I believe in God, the idea of intelligent design is also valid to me.

The people who think science and religion are completely incompatable, whether they are right or left, are the ones with the closed minds.

[Lerkfish]

98. I'm a christian, but DON"T think intelligent design should be taught.

nor creationism. Nor prayer in schools, nor even the declaration of independence if it contains "under God".

I think public school should be open and non-threatening to all beliefs or non-beliefs. Religious views should be taught in church or in the family.

I have absolutely no problem with evolution and I think it should be taught, as science.

so I agree with you.

[K-W]

107. So understanding logic = a closed mind.

Its good to know my party is the reality based one.

:p

[Comicstripper]

100. Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit teaches us that

Man was created from the blood of a thousand goats.
Or something like that, I don't recall.
But it was pretty clear on gayness: don't do it.

[brainwashed]

102. religion vs science

If anyone thinks that there is any scientific validity to religion or any sort of spirituality, they should study the latest scientific discourse on the mind by John Searle at UC Berkeley. I heard on the radio yesterday on a religious station that the creationists were very happy about getting their teachings into public textbooks and that now they are going after the museums to tell the truth about the actual age of their artifacts (dinosaur bones cannot be over 6000 years old).

I think that instead of trying to bring back Jesus, we should try to bring back sanity.

[RedCloud]

108. No real man doubts evolution!!! Here's why!

As you go through life simply put a mirror up to look at your back in another mirror. Then after a few decades an amazing transformation will occur. Your back will start to sprout hair first like a Neanderthal, then like a Homo Please Don't Erectus. Constant years of slapping yourself in the forehead because you forgot something will have you looking like a Homo Habilis. Then you will have forgotten how to check your back. One day you will realize that you are not permanently wearing a sweater, but your hirsute adornment has completely enveloped you (except for the head!) making you a true primate!

Ladies can also get in on the fun, by avoiding those depilatory things you do. Grow that leg hair. Let's see those pits sprouting! Keep that mustache.

Hair!

[theboss]

122. Believe? No. Accept? Yes.

It's not a religion. It's a scientific theory, which I accept in the same way I accept the theory of gravity.

[LakeCohoon]

141. Actually, I believe in DeEvolution

Just look at the direction the world is heading in now.

[OxQQme]

152. For hippiechick

It seems that many DU'ers don't wish to investigate our ancient past.
Whenever the subject of evolution v. creation comes up these records from the past get glossed over or dismissed as whacko.
THE Tale of Creation is on seven clay tablets that have been affirmed to be from several thousand (THOUSAND) years before the bible was created telling of a monotheistict male god.
I urge all who have current Western beliefs to at least dig for some of our pre-God civilizations beliefs before setting in stone this one that's been rampant for 3500 years.

http://www.sitchin.com/adamgene.htm

<snip> Now, Read the Sumerian Texts…

This report caught my attention because it sounds very much like the problems, and the solutions, encountered by Enki and Ninmah (later known as Ninti) when they engaged in genetic engineering to fashion “The Adam” -– the Earthling -– by upgrading the wild Homo erectus found in southeast Africa to become Homo sapiens (you and me).

The Sumerian creation texts -– yes, texts, not one but several –- have been reported by me in my first book, The 12th Planet, enlarged upon in Genesis Revisited, and then rendered in maximal detail in The Lost Book of Enki (2002). The methods used, the trial and error, the involvement of the young son of Enki Ningishzidda, are all there. But after the successful fashioning of the male Adamu, the efforts to fashion a female counterpart failed. It was then that Enki realized that the problem might be the re-implanting of the fertilized egg in the womb of an Earthling female.

[Johonny]

158. Er?

"I urge all who have current Western beliefs to at least dig for some of our pre-God civilizations beliefs before setting in stone this one that's been rampant for 3500 years."

What the heck is a pre-God civilization? Does such a thing exist? Historical evidence I've seen strongly hint that the belief in god pre-dates written history. Certainly the Sumarian came well after the notion of God came. They are hardly the source of any thing more "pure" than the Ancient Jews.

This post goes into the "I hate goofy western beliefs because they are goofy but my goofy beliefs aren't goofy" box.

[OxQQme]

161. Suit yourself Johonny

"Certainly the Sumarian came well after the notion of God came."

(F)Actually, Johonny, our current 'God' didn't come into written records until about 1700 years before the time of Jesus. HE proclaimed to Moses that he was THE ONE AND ONLY God, ten commandments, woman caused the 'downfall' of man, Levites are the 'chosen' tribe, blah blah blah.
Archeology teaches us that there were 4 or 5 thousand years of humanity living just in Mesopotamia prior to that 'I AM THE ONE GOD' meeting with Moses.
I would consider that to be 'pre-God

[Johonny]

176. What?

Mesopotamia certainly had their own gods. They weren't pre-God in any sense or form a. The concept of God certainly pre-dates written records not by 4-5 thousand years but perhaps by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude above that. Since it pre-dates written records it is impossible to tell. The earliest written records in general include a concept of god(s) thus strongly hinting the origin of the concept of gods predates the written record.

What's this our god crap. I worship the peanut butter jar in my refrigerator.

[DrWeird]

181. "God" as in YHWH.

Sumerian's were polytheistic. The Christian, Jewish, Muslim of Abraham was a relatively recent invention.

[progressoid]

151. I used to but my belief has evolved...

We didn't evolve from apes. Its more like we are the result of cross breeding. Apes and space aliens. You see the aliens (or Greys) came here to check up on their creations. The Greys are actually the Gods that made the earth and everything on it. Anywho, some of them got a little bored (or bi-curious) and had a fling with the primates. Fast forward a couple million years and you get George Bush. Case closed.

[zippy890]

168. The Reptilians aliens from the fouth dimension

have taken human form throughout history-- the Bush family are defiantly 'Reptoids". They are malevolent (obviously) and work toward the enslavement/destruction of human race.

:+

As for evolution, creationism and the cross-breeding-- I'm thinking it was Martians that had to leave their planet hundreds of thousands of years ago, came here and cross-breeded with Neanderthals.

OR-

The human race is an alien experiment gone terribly awry--the aliens took a look at what they did and took off, never looking back.

The human imagination is a wondrous thing

:think:

[quaker bill]

166. Only the wilfully uninformed can sustain doubts about it

Evolutionary biology is now supported by enormous quantities of evidence. The study of comparative molecular biology and the cladistic models generated from it confirm the general layout of historic evolutionary biology (paleontology) with fantastic precision.

There is no alternate model that can be applied with scientific rigor to explain how life on earth became to be what it currently is.

However, none of it answers the question, why?

Remember, the evolutionary model and the math behind it has an infinite number of possible solutions. Per the theory, if the meteor fell in a different location 65 million years ago, we could all be cockroaches. The math would be just as happy with that outcome.

The question, "why?" if you need an answer to it, is the realm best left to faith.

That being said, I no more want the theories of "intelligent design" or "creationism" taught in science class than I do the classic theory of "spontaneous generation". You know the one where life (rats) could be "created" by placing some wheat and old rags in a box in the corner of the barn...

My religious faith (Christian) requires me to deal with the real world as I actually find it.

[Warren DeMontague]

172. Fairy Tales Should Not Be Given Equal Weight To Science Backed Up With

Evidence. Period.

[Johonny]

179. well

To be fair creationism wasn't a fairy tale to begin with. It was a major scientific theory only some 200 years ago. Oddly the fact that the world was created by god lead many scientist to study the Earth and the animals on it. Thinking that the intelligent design of god could be understood by examining the Earth. Creation only fell out of favor once enough evidence was collected that showed that the Earth's geology and biology do indeed evolve and do not appear to have been created in one event 6000 years ago. Certainly today it's easy to see the unscientific method of creationism but in the science of 200 years ago it was a perfectly good theory.

[Warren DeMontague]

180. Right, but how many other 200yr old theories are given any credence today?

Particularly ones that have been thoroughly discredited?

The ideas of Lamarck? The notion that illness is the result of an imbalance of bodily "humours"? The idea that masturbation causes blindness... but is easily prevented by eating graham crackers?

I mean, if you want to teach creationism in a philosophy class, a religion class, or even a scientific history class, okay. But in an actual science class it has no place whatsoever.

[WoodrowFan]

174. I don't

the world was created in 2003 BC (specifically on October 19, at 3:30 pm local time on Cyprus) by a guy named "Phil." He has since refused to claim credit. The dinosaurs? Rough drafts only.

[hangloose]

175. I know one guy that doesn't see the link with *

http://www.internetweekly.org/2004/11/cartoon_bush_fossil.html

[Andromeda]

183. That is just too weird...

but people who have a religious fundamental upbringing have a hard time wrapping their minds around the science of evolution. They picture themselves being direct descendants of monkeys and they can't deal with that. It doesn't fit in with their image of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden -- the perfect human pair created whole and without blemish.

Studies have shown that we have 98-99% of the same DNA as primates even though we are not direct descendants. We did, however, have a common ancestor going back gazillions of years.

I studied physical anthropology in college and I found it fascinating. I have no problem with evolution because I understand it and in no way does it dispute a belief in God or of some kind of divine influence in causing events that created life on earth or the univeral energy that formed our planet.

Fundies want to keep everybody as dumb as possible because that's the only way they can control their "flock." That way they narrow the gene pool and produce more people like themselves.

[CanSocDem]

184. If a couple of physicists showed up at my door peddling....

...their view of the world they'd get the same rude dismissal I use on other annoying cults. A couple of years ago I had to fight off the crown jewel of the science cult, the institution of Medicine, who arrogantly insisted I accept THEIR beliefs......

Over the years I have witnessed the power of "belief". There is too much evidence that a person sees the world ACCORDING to their beliefs, to dismiss just the crackpot ones. If it wasn't for the various cults and the social pressure to join, mankind would be free to perform all sorts of meta-physical tasks.

Science has trouble explaining many things....for instance:

http://www.coralcastle.com/home.asp

"...The coral that he worked on was sometimes 4,000 feet thick. Incredibly, he cut and moved huge coral blocks using only hand tools. He had acquired some skills working in lumber camps and came from a family of stone masons in Latvia. He drew on this knowledge and strength to cut and move these blocks..."

...efficacy of placebo's, UFO's, northern lights, American voters.:D

[frustrated_lefty]

194. Scopes trial. (e/o/m).

[nytemare]

211. National Geographic has a great article on it this month

The cover says "Was Darwin wrong" and when you get to the article, it says "NO!" Very informative article.

[hyphenate]

214. Let's face it:

These kind of moronic things are getting worse and worse because sane people no longer hold the reins to our country. We're going to be the new third world nation in a hundred more years, while Japan and China rule the world. And France, Germany--in fact the entire EU, will be the new up and comers. It's the way it's going to happen--self-fulfilling prophecy. The idiots and the droolers (and I mean the radical right) will have brought our country to the pit and the abyss, and they STILL won't get it.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

217. I don't, I don't

Darwin's Theory is still unproven and still therefore just a "theory". Hey, I don't really like the word "believe" much because it implies faith in something that can't be proven, the basis of "belief" is faith, so, I don't actually "believe" in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. To be sure, I don't "believe" in creationism either, that theory had to be immediately tossed for just being too silly. Looks to me as if all the evidence points toward Darwin, or, if not his theory, a variation thereof. The breeding of domestic animals seems to operate on the principals Darwin set forth, and yet, we do not see what causes some of the radical sudden leaps in evolution, and what keeps those leaps limited to certain groups, and certainly something must, for there are still chimps, and we are not them. (Except Shrub, of course, who is an obvious throwback!) So, Darwin's theory seems incomplete to me, or perhaps, just a hair off the mark, a work in progress, far more logical than creationism, but, perhaps not finished, and, also, not to be "believed" in.