In reviewing Maclouie's arguments I detect an angry apologist. Evidential Reasoning doesn't appear to me to be part of Maclouie's epistemology (how do we know what we know). However I hope he finds happiness in his LDS faith.
Maclouie stated:
"All this comes from a guy that was brought up catholic, then became aethiest because of evolution, then agnostic, then LDS."
I wish Maclouie felt comfortable posting her because I'm wondering (just wondering) if he left Catholicism because of the Catholic Churches following position on evolution:
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today[update], the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
Although the Churches positon is vague, I would really like to ask Maclouie why evolution is taught freely in BYU science classes.
In fact BYU prepared a packet stating: "Our religion is not hostile to real science". Click on this Link.
This packet was then reviewed and approved by BYU's Board of Trustees-consisting of The First Presidency, many members of the Quorum of the Twelve and other general authorities and officers.
How can Maclouie deny the ‘National Academy of Science' position supporting Evolution is both a scientific Theory and Fact not "real science"? Here.
As opposed to religion where ‘Truth' is absolute and eternal, in science a "Theory" or "Fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty, it is only tentative being subject to modification or even replacement based on overwhelming new evidence. For example Newton's law of universal gravitation was further defined/unified by Einstein's theory of General relativity.
I could be wrong but it appears to me Maclouie did not fully understand the article and is confusing the lay person's definition of the term Theory with the scientific definition of the term.
The scientific definition of the term Theory does not mean an idea created out of thin air, nor do they mean an unsubstantiated belief.
When scientists say "THEORY" they mean a statement based on observation or experimentation that explains facets of the observable world so well that it becomes accepted as fact.
Maclouie completely ignored Jeff addressing his issues, he seemed only wanting to vent his anger.
Thx, ...I will study with interest. I think I may have found a new hobby.
Alligators recently have strangely been employed at a few high altitude trout-farming hot spring ranches in Colorado, right next to theirfossilized relatives, too! They help to dispose of the scraps while creating interest for tours and leather bags, belts and things. They're back!
I know this is an old thread, but I found it really interesting.
A question from a complete scientific novice (ie Me!):
Could some forms of life "evolve to a point and stop", whilst others continue to evolve indefinately?
Maybe this is a stupid question, but humour me with a clever answer!
Well, not clever, but I can think of 2 angles why yes, that could occur.
a. Randomness. It's based on random premises. If I role a die 4 times, and I do that experiment a bunch of times, I might have results like this:
6-3-5-1
2-4-4-2
2-5-2-5
3-5-4-5
5-2-1-1
4-4-4-4
1-3-5-4
3-3-1-4
4-3-2-4
Getting similar results in a sequence is just as likely as any other specific combination. It just looks like it's not random because it's somehow "neat." Granted, if you're looking for a long chain of "sameness" in a pool of random variation, it's very unlikely. But it's exactly as unlikely as getting precisely the sequence: "5-1-4-3".
Think of crocodiles like the 4-4-4-4 row of numbers, and the millions of other species like all the other sequences. Something that is very unlikely to happen to one person is still very likely to happen to somebody at sometime within a large enough population. So with huge randomness and millions of species, it's almost certain that some species will have very little evolution, just by chance.
[ETA: is it likely to get angelic visitations and be a charismatic character? No. But is it likely that someone within millions of early Americans would have 'visions' and be charismatic? Uh, yeah.]
b. Selective randomness. It's more than just random though. Only the better results continue on while less-good ones die out. So to get the 4-4-4-4 sequence, we don't just role the die for billions of years and take what's left at the end. We intentionally discard anything that doesn't match. The "less worthy" experiments. We only start to count the number sequences once we roll the first 4.
So the crocodile, for example, may be about as good as you can get for the particular climate, lifestyle, etc. Variations may have happened just like with everything else, but those ones died out.
This happens with humans today all the time. Many children are born with pseudo-random deformities or other problems. In many cases, it makes the person unable to procreate at all, so the "random variation" stops at the first generation. Even in cases where it doesn't it often makes the person less "attractive" in some ways and so they still don't procreate or they procreate less. (This sucks, and it's insensitive to say... but it's true.)
Now if we could evolve into humans where the person's genitals fall off at age 18 unless they get at least 1200 on the SATs, we'll be on to something!
I know this is an old thread, but I found it really interesting.
A question from a complete scientific novice (ie Me!):
Could some forms of life "evolve to a point and stop", whilst others continue to evolve indefinately?
Maybe this is a stupid question, but humour me with a clever answer!
Well, not clever, but I can think of 2 angles why yes, that could occur.
a. Randomness. It's based on random premises. If I role a die 4 times, and I do that experiment a bunch of times, I might have results like this:
6-3-5-1
2-4-4-2
2-5-2-5
3-5-4-5
5-2-1-1
4-4-4-4
1-3-5-4
3-3-1-4
4-3-2-4
Getting similar results in a sequence is just as likely as any other specific combination. It just looks like it's not random because it's somehow "neat." Granted, if you're looking for a long chain of "sameness" in a pool of random variation, it's very unlikely. But it's exactly as unlikely as getting precisely the sequence: "5-1-4-3".
Think of crocodiles like the 4-4-4-4 row of numbers, and the millions of other species like all the other sequences. Something that is very unlikely to happen to one person is still very likely to happen to somebody at sometime within a large enough population. So with huge randomness and millions of species, it's almost certain that some species will have very little evolution, just by chance.
[ETA: is it likely to get angelic visitations and be a charismatic character? No. But is it likely that someone within millions of early Americans would have 'visions' and be charismatic? Uh, yeah.]
b. Selective randomness. It's more than just random though. Only the better results continue on while less-good ones die out. So to get the 4-4-4-4 sequence, we don't just role the die for billions of years and take what's left at the end. We intentionally discard anything that doesn't match. The "less worthy" experiments. We only start to count the number sequences once we roll the first 4.
So the crocodile, for example, may be about as good as you can get for the particular climate, lifestyle, etc. Variations may have happened just like with everything else, but those ones died out.
This happens with humans today all the time. Many children are born with pseudo-random deformities or other problems. In many cases, it makes the person unable to procreate at all, so the "random variation" stops at the first generation. Even in cases where it doesn't it often makes the person less "attractive" in some ways and so they still don't procreate or they procreate less. (This sucks, and it's insensitive to say... but it's true.)
Now if we could evolve into humans where the person's genitals fall off at age 18 unless they get at least 1200 on the SATs, we'll be on to something!
b. Selective randomness. It's more than just random though. Only the better results continue on while less-good ones die out. So to get the 4-4-4-4 sequence, we don't just role the die for billions of years and take what's left at the end. We intentionally discard anything that doesn't match. The "less worthy" experiments. We only start to count the number sequences once we roll the first 4.
So the crocodile, for example, may be about as good as you can get for the particular climate, lifestyle, etc. Variations may have happened just like with everything else, but those ones died out.
This happens with humans today all the time. Many children are born with pseudo-random deformities or other problems. In many cases, it makes the person unable to procreate at all, so the "random variation" stops at the first generation. Even in cases where it doesn't it often makes the person less "attractive" in some ways and so they still don't procreate or they procreate less. (This sucks, and it's insensitive to say... but it's true.)
Now if we could evolve into humans where the person's genitals fall off at age 18 unless they get at least 1200 on the SATs, we'll be on to something!
This selective randomness makes things really interesting too, because it is random, ie blind, so a variation might produce useful or good results while having inintentional negative results as well - results that make an excellent argument for evolution while really calling intelligent design or creationsim into question.
Perfect example is some of the nastier anaemias - such as sickle cell. It's a debilitating desease and as far as I know the most effective treatment is frequent blood transfusions which are, unfortunately, beyond the financial capacity of many of the countries where the illness is most likely to occur. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder that results when two carrier parents produce offspring. The carriers don't exhibit the symptoms; having a single gene for the illness means it's not expressed (like haemophilia). In the offspring it can, if not treated, be fatal meaning that these particular offspring are less likely to reproduce.
So why does the illness continue? Why is it actually fairly wide-spread in Africa and other warm climates? Malaria. For some reason a carrier for the sickle cell gene is resistent to malaria and thus is more likely to survive to reproduce. This means there's a random (positive) selection for the gene that makes its survival more certain.
These genetic blood disorders make total sense when looked at through evolution - the particular mutation that makes survival more likely has a negative effect that is expressed only when two copies of the gene are present. The positive effect ensures the survival of the gene through natural selection, the negative effect tends to eliminate the 25% of offspring who inherit both genes.
From an intelligent design point of view (or a creationist one) it's instant trouble. Did God make a mistake and the blood disorder is an unintentional side effect? Does God hate 1/4 of all children of malaria-resistant adults? What explanation can creationism produce to explain Sickle cell?
b. Selective randomness. It's more than just random though. Only the better results continue on while less-good ones die out. So to get the 4-4-4-4 sequence, we don't just role the die for billions of years and take what's left at the end. We intentionally discard anything that doesn't match. The "less worthy" experiments. We only start to count the number sequences once we roll the first 4.
So the crocodile, for example, may be about as good as you can get for the particular climate, lifestyle, etc. Variations may have happened just like with everything else, but those ones died out.
This happens with humans today all the time. Many children are born with pseudo-random deformities or other problems. In many cases, it makes the person unable to procreate at all, so the "random variation" stops at the first generation. Even in cases where it doesn't it often makes the person less "attractive" in some ways and so they still don't procreate or they procreate less. (This sucks, and it's insensitive to say... but it's true.)
Now if we could evolve into humans where the person's genitals fall off at age 18 unless they get at least 1200 on the SATs, we'll be on to something!
This selective randomness makes things really interesting too, because it is random, ie blind, so a variation might produce useful or good results while having inintentional negative results as well - results that make an excellent argument for evolution while really calling intelligent design or creationsim into question.
Perfect example is some of the nastier anaemias - such as sickle cell. It's a debilitating desease and as far as I know the most effective treatment is frequent blood transfusions which are, unfortunately, beyond the financial capacity of many of the countries where the illness is most likely to occur. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder that results when two carrier parents produce offspring. The carriers don't exhibit the symptoms; having a single gene for the illness means it's not expressed (like haemophilia). In the offspring it can, if not treated, be fatal meaning that these particular offspring are less likely to reproduce.
So why does the illness continue? Why is it actually fairly wide-spread in Africa and other warm climates? Malaria. For some reason a carrier for the sickle cell gene is resistent to malaria and thus is more likely to survive to reproduce. This means there's a random (positive) selection for the gene that makes its survival more certain.
These genetic blood disorders make total sense when looked at through evolution - the particular mutation that makes survival more likely has a negative effect that is expressed only when two copies of the gene are present. The positive effect ensures the survival of the gene through natural selection, the negative effect tends to eliminate the 25% of offspring who inherit both genes.
From an intelligent design point of view (or a creationist one) it's instant trouble. Did God make a mistake and the blood disorder is an unintentional side effect? Does God hate 1/4 of all children of malaria-resistant adults? What explanation can creationism produce to explain Sickle cell?
Very good point, Clio! So to hold up "intelligent design," we'd have to explain why God, ahem the Designer would do that.
For human problems, I guess I could buy the "we need problems" argument. But it's much harder to explain things like disadvantageous mutations in non-human species. What, do squirrels need to be tested in this mortal probation too?
Very good point, Clio! So to hold up "intelligent design," we'd have to explain why God, ahem the Designer would do that.
For human problems, I guess I could buy the "we need problems" argument. But it's much harder to explain things like disadvantageous mutations in non-human species. What, do squirrels need to be tested in this mortal probation too?
Well, on the surface I think the "testing" argument works but as soon as you look at it it falls apart. Just what is wracking pain in a small child meant to test? Chronic pain and fatigue from an inherited disorder that can, in countries it arose in, result in death. So the child becomes stronger? Because of its suffering? What lesson, exactly, could that child only learn through agonizing pain? Keep in mind that God set up the parameters here, God (or if you're Mormon, the uber-God, the originator of the whole thing, the top of the eternal pyramid scheme) designed the system and in His eyes it was good that people could only learn lessons through pointless pain - people who are innocent (pre-age of accountability). The lesson would appear to be one of the following:
1) Life is horrible. And unfair.
2) Bear your sufferings strongly and, while you'll continue to suffer (unless you are very lucky and live in a country that can provide treatments that might possibly give you a better outlook) and likely die young, your loving Heavenly Father who in his wisdom set up the genetic system that gave you this disorder will be with you for eternity.
3) Actually I can't think of a third one. Honestly - tiny children, in pain, because of a genetic disorder. It's dreadful enough without adding the burden of believing it was intentional.
So is it the parents who are to learn the lesson by watching their child's suffering? Do they learn the lesson that God suffers watching us suffer? But then we're back to the eternal plan thing which makes us realize that our suffering is by his plan... so why do we have to learn how much he suffers when he set it up that way?
This is exactly why the manichaeist doctrine comes up again and again - it lets God off the hook by placing evil and pain in the realm of a second entity; it lets God be entirely pure and good and loving. I'm a bit surprised the Mormons didn't hop on the concept actually as they moved towards polytheism - there are historical problems with allying yourself somewhat with the albigensians and the Cathars but hey, if you're going to make man into God why not also partition evil off and give Satan a more starring role?
