- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Because evolutionary theory serves to illuminate an otherwise imperceptible complexity, many students exposed to it for the first time report an experience not unlike a religious conversion, wherein they begin to see the world in an entirely new light and find meaning and purpose in the most unlikely of places. Read More
You have some explaining to do Mister.
Amazing how someone can say that the way our minds naturally work is not the way they are supposed to work. I guess now we should stop teaching our children to eat with their mouths and listen with their ears. Obviously, there is a better way of doing it. Not to argue though, it just seems to me that if humans automatically think that they were created by something for a reason and obviously it has been that way for a very long time (as discovered artifacts show), and humans were evolved from animals then the animals, like humans, must have some inclination somewhere that they were created for a reason. It just seems silly for me to believe that humans just 'created' that thought process over the years to better fill the void in their lives. I, personally, would like someone to work out some kind of strange psychological tests to perform on numerous animals (your precious apes included) to determine weather or not their natural, tiny little thought processes point to a belief in creation and the need to be here for a reason. If scientists can figure out how a human's physical attributes were evolved, then someone please tell me how thought processes have evolved from that of the animals we are evolved from. How have certain feelings come into play? Have they evolved? I mean, certainly the 'less' evolved members of the primate family can not feel things as strongly or have even some of the same emotions as humans.
...
"Amazing how someone can say
"Amazing how someone can say that the way our minds naturally work is not the way they are supposed to work."
LOL!
Try reading the article again. There is no "supposed to", that's the whole point. What are you saying; evolution has predisposed us to think we were created, therefore we were? Hunh?
Re: Covert Transformationalists, I think the problem is in part linguistic. In a recent discussion on Pharyngula someone suggested we need to come up with a superpassive form to accurately express how the slow change to darker moths happens.
The moths alive at time A were lighter than the moths alive at time B. Even if they're several generations apart, saying "the moths got darker" isn't that much of a stretch, IMO. And yeah, a lot of books use that shorthand.
The problem starts when this (sloppy?) description leads to people believing in Pokemon evolution. It's easily done.
"Anonymous," YOU have some explaining to do
Why don't you do a little research or get an education instead of spouting fundamentalist diatribes (riddled with factual, logical, spelling, and grammatical errors) against phenomena of which you obviously have no understanding? If you'd take a look at the past few decades of peer-reviewed literature on empirical research, you'd see that virtually none of your arguments hold up. And, news flash: just because something has "been that way for a very long time" doesn't mean it's true! Unless, of course, you also believe the earth is flat because virtually everyone believed it for a "long time." Why don't you open a book once in awhile?
It certainly isn't easy
It certainly isn't easy to see the universe as being purely accidental, completely explainable by natural selection processes we can explain with 'provable' scientific theories.
To think intentions have nothing to do with how life on this planet has developed, to think that it's all to be explained by in a dawkinslike or darwinistic fashion is just as laughable as believing there is a god that has male characteristics and literally created the day in 6 days.
In fact it's just as ludicrous.
It's just as likely as picking a random kid to play the piano who's never played a note before and hearing him play mozart spontaneously.
I cringe everytime I see a so-called scientific scholar unknowingly do exactly what most people despise (extremist) religious people for doing. Cling to one belief and point other ideas to be stupid and wrong. But these people commit to the same ignorance by thinking they are on the side of scientific truth. Religious people see it as their personalised religious truth. And those that swear by science simply have replaced religion by a scientific dogma.
I think it's fair and recommedable to criticize any idea. If it has holes or needs defending then surely its just a limited belief. Science is just an updated belief system based on what we can find with measuring instruments that are limited to 3 dimensions and ironically the intentions of the scientists. But it's always good to remind oneself that any idea just is a belief and whenever you find yourself defending the one or despising/unclothing another you've just caught yourself with your pants down. Because from that stance you can't see the whole picture. You just see a tiny fragment.
Current scientific methods are inherently limited since it only sees a tiny fragment. It can only measure in three dimensions. So it can't even answer questions like consciousness, intention or other dimensions even if it wanted to. It can't prove there are just 3 dimensions or if there are more (although there are many scientists claiming up to 27). Some scientists are so convinced that since we can't measure it can't be possible and that we should figure out a way of explaining it has to fit in the mold of 'scientifically' proven naturalistic theories. Whatever is most plausible within a limited way of thinking. And currently some evolutionary scientists think its plausible that life on earth evolved by mixing a bunch of elements and having it grow to the current society on chance. It's not even a one in billion chance, but at least it fits a scientific thinking so it must be true.
Wouldn't that be the same as ascribing a natural disasters to a moody god who is punishing us?
Current science can't conclusively answer if there is more than three dimensions. It can't conclusively answer if there really is consciousness. Because these things are immeasurable with our instruments some just believe that it's not possible. In fact that is the scientists credo 'if it can't be measured in a repeatable condition it can't exist'. I call that just another form of ignorance is bliss.
Who knew until last century that by simply observing an experiment we change it. A surprising discovery made by entering the unexplicable subatomic world where all our convential ways of thinking cease to exist. We've known this for decades but some still pretend it never happened.
If I'd decided to hit you in the face because you decided to cough at another person's comment (the one above this) as a way of responding to a person, I would call that a conscious action. I think you'd have a hard time finding a way to trace that back to scientific/evolutionary theories. Especially with only one good eye.
And can we please cease the need for scientists feeling the need to educate people with their thinking when the one's they are talking about(for instance those that believe god created earth in 6 days) aren't even in the same room. It's just replacing one belief with a better explainable belief anyway. Doesn't make you a better person.
I've never been religious and I'm a trained researcher. Thank 'god' I know the limitations of current scientific methods and I don't carry it like a religion like some phd's do without even knowing it.
grammar
excuse me for the grammar/spelling, no edit button to correct.
YOU'RE a trained researcher?
YOU'RE a trained researcher?
Holy frack, we're all doomed!
You sound profoundly confused about science to ME, and I'm just a desk monkey with an ARTS degree!
I think I really like you.
LuvU2, you look adorable in
LuvU2, you look adorable in that picture. ;)
Pity...
As a fellow initiate of the scientific method, I find your comment well written and well thought out, Peter. I think it's depressing that people here don't seem to understand your passage, especially a certain anonymous desk monkey with an arts degree. I also think it's surprising Bering here has his PhD, considering he seems to think that evolution and God are the antithesis of each other and completely incompatible; anyone who knows the scientific method should be able to tell you that since science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, and can only explain or study the observable, it lacks the ability to make judgments about the supernatural.
No one can wrap themselves in the mantle of scientific atheism; it doesn't exist. Atheism is as much about faith as any religion. Science is agnostic. It cannot quantify holiness; it cannot measure divinity. It merely says 'Religion is outside my ability to explain. Because I cannot provide evidence for or against the existence of the supernatural, it is equally likely to me that life was conceived by God, gods, aliens, random chance, or a turkey salad sandwich.' This is, of course, not to say that individual scientists cannot hold opinions regarding the nature of the divine, ranging from the devout to the fervently atheistic. However, those that try to say that science tells them that there is no God are pitiably mistaken. Their own preconceptions tell them that. To say that "[...]evolutionary theory will rightly strip you of your soul[...]" is as faith-based a statement as "Jesus is the only road to salvation.". Rather, the scientifically correct statement is "Evolutionary theory will provide evidence that suggests that creationism is a flawed idea.".
Personally, I believe that a divine entity may (or may not. I can't say for sure any more that Bering can) have seeded life and steered the course of evolution. I do believe that there is such a thing as a soul. I believe that there is an afterlife of some form or fashion. I believe that there is more to life than the mere biological pattern of Birth-Reproduction-Death. Note all of the times I used the word 'believe'. I understand and accept that these opinions are based on faith; I do not tout them as being right or as the only ones out there.
Unfortunately, I also understand that it is entirely scientifically possible that the earth was created in six days and that geology and fossils are merely here to test our faith. All science knows is that there are these canyons, and it appears as though they were formed gradually by a process of erosion. Science can't say that there isn't an invisible sky wizard that made everything in a manner that merely APPEARS to be the result of eons of gradual change; it lacks the ability to observe such phenomena.
Ultimately and most importantly, I realize that science can NEVER EVER EVER EEEVVVEEERRR prove or disprove anything. It merely provides evidence that suggests a particular hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Any extrapolation done with that data is the work of our (conscious and intelligent) minds.
All the best,
-SleepingOrange
PS, I apologize for repeatedly personifying science, but it saved a lot of words in this already extremely verbose post.
a *yawn* is a step up from a *cough*
<< double cough >>
<< If I'd decided to hit you in the face because you decided to cough at another person's comment (the one above this) as a way of responding to a person, I would call that a conscious action. I think you'd have a hard time finding a way to trace that back to scientific/evolutionary theories. Especially with only one good eye. >>
Er, no, Peter, I wouldn't have a hard time at all. Even if you punched me in both eyes. And, by the way, please do, I could use the money to re-tile my bathroom.
By all means
Then please make a counterpoint rather than being a self-important, condescending snob. If you're going to talk (or cough) down to people, at least demonstrate that you have the ability to make a cogent argument, rather than merely dismissing someone with a conflicting point of view. I'd say I look forward to reading your response, but from what I've read of your work before, I'll just end up disappointedly wading through half-thoughts and self-righteous bloviating. Do TRY to make an effort, please. Just because we're on the internet doesn't mean you shouldn't treat people with at least a modicum of politeness, even if they can't spell, tell the difference between homophones, or express themselves well. I'm finding it difficult to think of a more refined word to describe coughing at someone's post without even addressing their points than 'douchebaggy'.
All the best,
-SleepingOrange
"bloviating"
somewhere your emotions took
somewhere your emotions took you captive. to even think that the monkeys you worked with looked like your great . . grandparents is completely proposterous.
Micro-Evolution is a major hoax, the very instructers that you trusted with even your soul have deceived you.
You are created in the image of God - and that is reality. you will not be persuaded here, but keep this in the back of your mind. one day your soul will be required of you and your knee will bow - either to Darwin or to Jesus - its up to you!
Since when is Darwin the opposite of Jesus?
What are you on?
I guess that means Darwin was created in God's image too, right? And since when do we entrust our "souls" to instructors? And why do you think evolutionary theory and Christianity are incompatible? Don't you think an omnipotent God is capable of creating life in such a beautifully complex and wonderful way as through micro-evolution?
WWJD? BDSM, apparently
Bowing? Submitting? On my knees?
That's SO Pan troglodyte of you. If you're going to sublimate the very evolutionary impulses you deny into your religious eschatology, at least think outside the box.
Me, I'm looking forward to some soothing GG-rubbing when Jesus descends from the clouds.
Predestination
Rather, these forces themselves depend on certain propensities of the human mind. On this account, the persistence of creationist beliefs in a population attests to their cognitive affinity as well as their public availability
I love all things predestination. Theists, it seems from this article, are predestined to believe in God...
Thoughts?
Fatalism is just another example of teleological promiscuity...
Damn, I knew you were too
Damn, I knew you were too hot to be straight.
Oh, that's just a little
Perhaps earlier than 6th grade?
I'm not certain it's necessary to even wait until sixth grade. I will have to do some further experiments on my daughter (who is just five), but I think she was able to grasp at least broad concepts of phenotypical genetics and natural selection last year, when she was four. We had many conversations about wolves and the great variety of dogs (and the relatively bland selection of humans) and how humans arose from other great apes as well as how those honeybees in the hive at the science center learned to flap their wings to keep the hive cool, all of which touch on Darwinian though. She does know that she can't get any darker (and so has to put on the dreaded sunscreen) but that if she moved to India that maybe her children's children's children might turn out better off to be in the sun (though probably only at a level of improved fitness, not down to the ideas of reproductive rates). Still, there's probably some benefit in teaching what's age appropriate; her kindergarten class does solicit guest lecturers in science...
I will have to see what she says about _why_ clouds exist - that's very interesting. I have observed that she does find her grandmother's tales of angels and gods alluring, but she does recognize that daddy explains everything to her satisfaction until she runs out of questions while so many of grandmas's explanations are far less interesting ("because that's how god made it"). It's really hard for her when the two of us are in obvious philosophical conflict, but isn't that the great lesson of Science?
"I'm a gay atheist born to a
"I'm a gay atheist born to a Jewish mother, so I don't think the evolutionist bit in my judgment day portfolio will make much of a difference."
This wins an award for the best line I have read on a blog - ever.
It has been added to the top of my list of favorite quotes. :-)
From a member of the BDSM Community
Now I understand why it is that those in positions of Dominance tend to "SUBMIT" to another of the either same and/or opposite sex to relieve themselves of the daily burdeens of dealing with spineless, ego-centric men and women who think in a 2-Dimentional mindset.
God (and/or Goddess) have nothing to do with what a person feels within themselves. As a human being, we have free will to do whatever feels good to ourselves. And don't tell me that when your in your bedrooms at night with your boyfriends/girlfriends or husbands/wives that you don't pin their arms to the headboard of the bed as your sexual arousal escalates. Or tie him/her to the bed with scarves/silk ties, blindfolding or gagging them with a pair of underwear or socks to hide the noise from the children in the next room or down the hall.
Imagine the cops coming to YOUR door and arresting YOU for your abnormal behaviors, and taking YOUR children out and placing them with people they don't know because they don't agree with how YOUR living? You wouldn't like that. Trust in that. In New York State right now, a woman is being Court Ordered to take a psychologial evaluation because a Child Welfare worker believes she's not fit to take care of a teenage child who is Bipolar w/ADHD. What goes on in an adult's private life is no business of anyone elses but those involved.
Just because BDSM (especially how it is listed in the DSM-IV) is not what some consider as a "normal" lifestyle to be in, does not mean that one should not explore what is inside themselves. The world is and always will be changing. What are you going to do?
I know as a human being that I am free to think and feel, but I will fight for what I believe in my heart. I deal with men and women who have submissive tendencies. Many of them in 'positions' that would make a normal person's head spin. You know what... THEY "SUBMIT" WILLINGLY.
Post new comment