I've seen both on both sides of the aisle. I've the religeous do this on the abortion argument, and I've seen athiests do this on the evolution argument.

Posted by Phelps on August 26, 2004 10:17 AM Link to comment

Skepticism is a critical reluctance to take anything as absolute truth, even one's own most cherished beliefs. (The same book)

Posted by Pony on August 26, 2004 06:38 PM Link to comment

Shedding your own "cherished beliefs" is one of the hardest things a person can do. Breaking with tradition and orthodoxy takes more "faith" (for lack of a better word) than sticking with them. Our problems stem not from what we believe but stem instead from what we feel we must force others to believe. I once saw a bumper sticker with 6 letters that say it all

I B I U B U

Those six simple letters sum up the philosophy that I try to live by.

Posted by Buck on August 26, 2004 09:23 PM Link to comment

Our problems stem not from what we believe but stem instead from what we feel we must force others to believe.

I think our problems stem from what others try to get us to believe, especially if we don't resist them.

I can find no objection to the remainder of your post, particuarly I B I U B U (unless you add " 'til death do we part" at the end of it ;-) )

Posted by smijer on August 26, 2004 09:37 PM Link to comment

Evolution - If it is true that mankind evolved rather than being created, well, how would you explain or account for man's sense of right and wrong or the consience. I don't mean yours and mine, teaching could account for that, right? But where do you think it comes from in the first place? Like knowledge builts and is recorded, taught, and handed down. Did you ever wonder why humans, if we are animals, don't have more complete animalistic nature? Where does compassion, love, caring come from?

Posted by Lilspring on August 26, 2004 10:06 PM Link to comment

Lilspring, I'm no evolutionary psychologist. I do recognize the fact that peopel have a Humanistic (rather than "animalistic") ethic. I do not pretend to know where that "comes from". Nevetheless, the evidence is beyond conclusive: people are very closely, genetically related to the other apes.

When you have reviewed the evidence for common descent, you will either accept it or reject it. If you accept it, you will look for future developments in evolutionary psychology to explain human nature as it stands now. If you reject it, it will most likely be because you cling to a non-rationalistic view of human nature. You will then explain human nature in terms of that non-rationalistic view.

Posted by smijer on August 26, 2004 10:54 PM Link to comment

I cut and paste the following from another forum for any of those interested to peruse and consider:

This is going to be a weird post. I'm copying an opinion from elsewhere on the net (public domain) that references an article elsewhere on the net (which is linked). Now, these opinions are from a pro-evolution standpoint, but they don't necessarily invalidate belief in the supernatural, or intelligent design either. But from either point of view, creationist or evolutionist, the hard science herein has some significant ramifications. The post following does a fine job of cutting through the felgercarb and summing up the salient points.

Here is the link to the article itself

************
Anyway...

The article I read focused on a specific "ubiquitous gene" known as Cytochrome c

Cytochrome c is VERY important. ALL living things have it, and nothing can live without it. It is very, very crucial for survival.

Scientists have taken a human Cytochrome c gene, and placed it in bacteria (which have had theirs removed), and the bacteria couldn't tell the difference. They've mixed and matched genes from a wide variety of animals (birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, bacteria, etc) and in each case, the "replacement gene" worked.

Again, this is pretty amazing, but it get's better still!

Why should Cytochrome c be so...universally functional? That is, why does it do the same job, no matter what organism it happens to be in?

Well, it turns out that Cytochrome c is comprised of about 100 amino acids, and of those, only about 1/3 really do anything.

Think of it like this: Take the numbers 1, 2, and 3...write them down in any order:

1+2+3 = 6
1+3+2 = 6
2+1+3 = 6
2+3+1 = 6
3+1+2 = 6
3+2+1 = 6

Anyway, no matter how Cytochrome c is sequenced, it ends up doing the same thing.

So, with a hundred amino acids, and 30 of them that can be placed virtually anywhere within that 100, you end up with a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences.

By way of comparison, this number is about one billion times larger than the number of atoms in the visible universe!

OK...so here we go.

What are the odds that any two creatures would have the EXACT same Cytochrome c sequence?

You guessed it: 2.3 x 10^93 to 1

I don't even know what you call a number that big. It's roughly a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion...to one.

Pretty slim odds.

And guess what?

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence!

Um, let me rephrase that...Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence!!!

There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

Therefore, it is absolutely, inarguably, rock-solid, you-bet-yer-ass, take-it-to-the-bank certain that Chimps and Humans shared a common ancestor at some point.

There is - quite literally - no other explanation!

********

Now, if you accept the theory of evolution, this is a windfall revelation. Many people oppose evolution because they have a primal, species-ist reaction against "being related to monkeys". But this rather conclusively proves that, whether evolution caused it or God designed it that way, we are related to monkeys in very significant ways. Even before this revelation, it was known that there is less than a 2% difference between humans and chimps. But this bit of sciences proves that these differences are not the random occurance of two species developing in parallel from disparate sources, but rather two species branching off from a shared origin. Of course, there is no way to know for certain if this is God's design or simply the laws of physics at work in the universe. That determination depends on your individual point of view. But it does make for some difficulty in the strict religious world, and it eliminates one of the emotional responses against evolution science as irrational.

The one question that pops into my mind is this:

We know that chimps can learn language, have long term memory, can think, figure out puzzles, and preconcieve of things before they happen. They can be taught right from wrong. They can make art. They essentially have the mental faculties of a five-year-old child, maybe more. So what is to stop a chimp from believing in god? Has anyone tried to teach a chimp religion? Would Christians believe a Christian chimp goes to heaven?

That really leads to the ultimate question:

How does god define "human"?

And why?

Pretty interesting stuff for those who like to consider such things.

Posted by Buck on August 27, 2004 01:28 PM Link to comment

Tangentially, Koko the Gorilla, recently used sign language and pointing to indicate that she had a toothache. She was duly treated.

Posted by smijer on August 27, 2004 08:20 PM Link to comment

You know, actually I can't just ignore the rational view that man is natured very differently than animals. It seems more rational to me to consider that man does have characteristics that are unknown in other species. Isn't it being a little non-rational to ignore that part of man that cannot be explained by evolution, yet we know exist? Do we have to ignore what we can't explain or what we don't like the answer to?

Posted by Lilspring on August 27, 2004 08:28 PM Link to comment

It seems more rational to me to consider that man does have characteristics that are unknown in other species. Isn't it being a little non-rational to ignore that part of man that cannot be explained by evolution, yet we know exist? Do we have to ignore what we can't explain or what we don't like the answer to?

I would be interested to know what characteristics humans hav that are unknown in other species. I am having difficulty thinking of a single one.

I would also be curious to know what part of human nature cannot be explained by evolution or other naturalistic forces.

Lastly, no: we shouldn't ignore the questions we don't have the answer to or don't like the answer to. In the same vein, we should not shrug our shoulders and give the non-answer "goddidit" when confronted with something we can't explain. We should knuckle down and look for answers, and then we should try like hell to prove our answers wrong. If we can use them to make specific and testable predictions, and if those predictions test positive, even though they could test negative and prove us wrong, then we should take a rest and start looking for more unanswered questions.

Posted by smijer on August 27, 2004 08:51 PM Link to comment

Perhaps we should also recognize that mankind before us had many of the same questions. Some spent their lives considering the questions. We must surely realize that our short span of 70+ years is a vapor. While some might not like the answer 'goddidit', perhaps we should go back to the old wristwatch analogy. There is an intelligence at work. Man certainly did not do it. The laws and order of the universe indicate an intelligence of a magnitude so much greater than our own that we have to at least notice. Perhaps if 'goddidit' is not the answer, then
'God did it' might be worth considering. I guess what I am saying is this, does it make any sense to rule out the possiblity of God when you have nothing to offer except more questions? If you were to prove evolution is true, that explains such a small fraction of the knowledge and wonder of the universe. If you want to find answers, why rule out the only thing that really makes any sense in explaining the order of the universe. That is the thing I do not understand about people who want to find answers. How can they, with one stroke of their pen, rule out so much and such great possiblity? Regardless of what has been written about the possiblity of an ape understanding salvation, I see a broad gap between the ape and mankind. We can pretend it doesn't exist, or we can admit it. It is not going away just because we ignore it.

Posted by Lilspring on August 28, 2004 10:45 AM Link to comment

Lilspring, no one is ruling out the possibility that some incredible intelligence set the universe in motion. You are overstating your level of knowledge when you say that the properties of the universe "indicate" that it happened that way, but it can't be ruled out either.

But that doesn't really answer much, even if it is the case. There are so many things that we can really understand: like the evolution of life, or the life cycles of stars and galaxies, or the inner workings of the matter that makes us up. "God did it" is just a name. The bigger questions of how and why remain mysterious --- and even more mysterious is where this entity of infinite intelligence came from... So no matter which approach you take, there are lots of questions unanswered. Its simply a matter of whether we let guesswork stand in the place of answers until we get evidence. I tend to prefer not to.

Posted by smijer on August 28, 2004 05:26 PM Link to comment

What if this Super Intelligent Being simply used and is using evolution as a tool of creation? I have never understood why you could not believe in God and and still consider the possibility of evolution at the same time. In my opinion creation is not something that happened it is something that is happening. I have never believed that there was a beginning or that there will someday be an end.

understanding salvation

Do you have to understand salvation to experience it?

Have any of you guys ever studied the writings and studyings of a group called Urantians?

Theirs is a religion on acid but they have some fascinating opinions of what came from where and when.

Don't put me in the evolutionist corner just yet Lilspring. I try not to "believe" anything because as soon as you start believing you stop questioning.

Posted by Buck on August 29, 2004 12:21 AM Link to comment

Good for you Buck. But it sure sounds like some people who "accept" evolution feel they have to "reject" creation. At that point, they close a door to all sorts of possibilities. Why would a truth-seeker do that?

Posted by Lilspring on August 29, 2004 07:45 AM Link to comment