Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#81

Post by dazbradbury »

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

    how do you reconcile the use of 
    evidence for establishing belief 
    in one domain, and then not require 
    this in another?
Scientists regularly believe in a theory, or concept, that is not yet proven. Many scientists spend their entire lives proving something. Hence, I wouldn't suggest belief in science has historically relied on evidence or proof.

Now onto the main point, the difference lies with what is provable and what isn't. Many religions believe in a being that is not provable. Or believe in teachings for the betterment of society. These aren't provable or disprovable theories (whether you believe that is their nature or they are intentionally designed that way!) There are religions where one of the central tenets is that science and reason must be in agreement with the religion itself.

Personally I think the two can be seperated, and the problem only comes when religious leaders preach science. Religion, for me, covers a set of unprovable concepts.

I also wouldn't say people are too quick to diffuse the science vs. religion argument, I think pg has a few comments on what causes flame wars! (And a rather excellent essay relating to labels / identity [1]).

[1] - http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#82

Post by archagon »

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

It's pretty darn easy to hold two seemingly-contradictory beliefs. The trick is to stifle the urge to resolve them.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

davidgerard wrote: post #57
aray wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).

It's only recently the Catholic Church has gone so nutso right-wing - in even recent decades they were heavy on the social justice, relatively speaking.

The Catholic Church (including its heirarchy) has always (at least, since it became established within the Roman State) included both factions that are extremely pro-elite and those that are extremely social-justice oriented, as well as everything in between.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#84

Post by robomartin »

Well, as far as I am concerned it is a simple matter of people not being intellectually prepared to understand the theory. I am not saying this to be elitist. Not at all.

I had a conversation with a guy at a xmas party last year. I don't have a clue how we went where we went but we ended up talking about how "human wizards" can figure out the position of the moon every day and write an app to show you. To this guy this was no different from magic. There is no way in the universe that anyone is going to make a good case in favor of the theory of evolution to this person until he elevates himself a few rungs in the educational ladder. That's just a fact.

What about scientists who claim to believe in creationism? For the most part I see it this way: If you are a nobody scientist with no hopes of becoming anyone at all, what is the easiest way to become someone? Thank you Jesus! I've met and have spoken to a few such "scientists" who, for example, teach at religious schools. You can see right through them. They are virtual gods within those organizations. They are elevated to prestigious standings within that community. They are held as proof that someone crossed the proverbial isle and, by the way, he is a honest-to-god scientist. No, they are not. They are business men. And quite smart if you ask me. If you don't see an upshot to your scientific career, go to a religious university and proclaim you've seen the light. They'll have you writing books in short order.

Then there are guys like Ben Carson, the ex-Johns Hopkins surgeon republicans are parading around. The guy is obviously very smart yet he is religious to a ridiculous degree. I like a lot of his ideas. The problem is that every third sentence is about religion. I don't know much about him so can't really opine beyond saying that people who are constantly praising god and talking about how everything is preordained and that they are god's tools, etc. scare the crap out of me. Not a huge step from there to Iran. Is he playing a mental game because of his political aspirations? Maybe. Republicans need to realize they are loosing a huge chunk of the population for putting the bible in front of everything they say and do. I digress.

I am looking forward to the lecture [0] at Caltech on the 20th given by Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. Should be interesting. Anyone going?

[0] http://www.richarddawkins.net/events/2013/10/21/fall-book-to...

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#85

Post by ThomPete »

meric wrote: post #56
dismiss21x wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.

I think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.

That does not allow you to conclude that evolution is true the way that you can conclude gravity is true/factual.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#86

Post by mikeash »

dismiss21x wrote: post #36
RK wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the " theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observ…

I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.

Nobody has observed gravity either, only its effects.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#87

Post by ThomPete »

mikeash wrote: post #86
dismiss21x wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.

Nobody has observed gravity either, only its effects.

Nobody observed the effect of evolution.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#88

Post by johnchristopher »

Udo wrote: post #69
johnchristopher wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment). Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ? [1] external influences [2] the ability to fre…

No, that is sort of what I meant to say, except that I would never use the word bliss for describing the state of a host brain. You could argue about the meaning of ignorance, but I really don't think this catch phrase fits well with the statement I tried to make. Competitive inhibition is a more apt term for what's actually going on.

Ah, yes! It just hit me. [Here was an incoherent rambling from someone who really should go to sleep]. Your explanation fitted my biased model but I focused on my beliefs, not yours. My mistake, sorry. Don't know if I made much sense, really sleepy now :]

On a related note, I remember Dawkins spoke about memes and how ideas can be seen as some kind of virus that are subject to evolution.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

pmelendez wrote: post #66
aray wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?) I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).

>"I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play " Because is a religion with the same Genesis book on the bible and it's an example of at least one religion (the root of Christianity) that doesn't believe in teaching Religion as a science

> Because is a religion with the same Genesis book on the bible

But not the same view of the role of the Bible in the religion -- sola scriptura is a doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#90

Post by toasterlovin »

pmelendez wrote: post #52

> "Bacteria, HIV, malaria, and cancer have evolved resistance to our drugs." Honest question... if HIV is a virus, and virus are not living forms [1], how can they evolve? In that case wouldn't be the host cell the one that evolved? [1] http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/

Evolution is about replicators. Living things tend to be replicators, but not all replicators are living.
Post reply on HN