Do you believe in evolution?

[brokeplex]

I'm sorry Broke but the majority of the scientific community and the courts have reviewed ID materials and arguments and they've all concluded that it's just rehashed Creationism.  The ID people have introduced nothing new and nothing that can be considered a science.  ID proponents are trying to force academia to accept ID as a science since that will give credibility to their position not because they have a credible position in the first place.

oh, by the way, Happy Floralia!

what courts? how could this possibly be a legal issue? what we are talking about is just an academic debate and the attempts to "legally" silence it by peer pressure within academia. I don't think that anyone has seriously charged the academic left with criminal behavior, and that is not seriously mentioned in the Stein's film, at least that I saw. 

[serious crayons]

I not only believe in physical evolution, I believe in evolutionary psychology, a far more controversial theory.

Also, it seems quite possible to me to believe in both evolution and God. I'm agnostic, but if there is a "God," what's to keep him/her from coming up with the idea for evolution and then getting it rolling? The system is complex and unpredictable and amazing enough to match all the other stuff God created. If in fact s/he did.

I know this is going to sound horribly offensive, and I wish there was some way to soften it, but what's with the propensity of people to "dumb down" their concepts of God's work? I mean, creationism just seems way too simple and obvious. Just like the concepts of heaven and hell seem too simple and too obvious. If you look around at all the other things that a God, if there is one, would have been responsible for devising -- galaxies, light, our brains, an ant -- everything is exponentially more complex than creationism, heaven, hell, etc. I guess I'd just give God more credit than that.

Note: I'm not directing this last line of inquiry to any specific poster here, and I hope no one has been overly offended.

[Mikaela]

Since religion by and large thrives on keeping people as much as possible in ignorance and on providing them with simple, clear-cut solutions to life's and death's complex, unresolved (and therefore frightening) questions, in exchange for not being inquisitive, following their leaders unquestioningly and never challenging the "truth" as written and preached - of course it has to, as you say, "dumb down" natural science and everything amazingly complex and dauntingly challenging in the world and the universe. That's the whole point of religion. The comfort of simple certainties, rituals and superstition in the face of the (yet) unknown, (yet) incomprehensible events and the petrifying seeming randomness of life and death.

Just my opinion, of course.

[delalluvia]

oh, by the way, Happy Floralia!

Thanks, It's one of my favorite holidays! 

what courts? how could this possibly be a legal issue? what we are talking about is just an academic debate and the attempts to "legally" silence it by peer pressure within academia. I don't think that anyone has seriously charged the academic left with criminal behavior, and that is not seriously mentioned in the Stein's film, at least that I saw. 

ID has gone before the courts in some areas - I quoted a bit in one of my last posts - because ID proponents are trying to force it into schools, misrepresenting what ID actually is, which is illegal.  I'm sure Stein & company wouldn't mention the court cases, because ID keeps losing.

"In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program

Read more on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

[delalluvia]

Since religion by and large thrives on keeping people as much as possible in ignorance and on providing them with simple, clear-cut solutions to life's and death's complex, unresolved (and therefore frightening) questions, in exchange for not being inquisitive, following their leaders unquestioningly and never challenging the "truth" as written and preached - of course it has to, as you say, "dumb down" natural science and everything amazingly complex and dauntingly challenging in the world and the universe. That's the whole point of religion. The comfort of simple certainties, rituals and superstition in the face of the (yet) unknown, (yet) incomprehensible events and the petrifying seeming randomness of life and death.

Just my opinion, of course.

Well said.

I tried to find Carl Sagan's quote, but I couldn't so I'll just put his meaning as best I can.  He was continually surprised that religious people didn't take in the awe-inspiring discoveries of science and exclaim how BIG their god was - much bigger than they'd thought - and embrace the idea.  Instead he found that people felt threatened and wanted to keep their god small and so would say "No no no, it's not that way at all", in the face of facts.

[serious crayons]

Since religion by and large thrives on keeping people as much as possible in ignorance and on providing them with simple, clear-cut solutions to life's and death's complex, unresolved (and therefore frightening) questions, in exchange for not being inquisitive, following their leaders unquestioningly and never challenging the "truth" as written and preached - of course it has to, as you say, "dumb down" natural science and everything amazingly complex and dauntingly challenging in the world and the universe. That's the whole point of religion. The comfort of simple certainties, rituals and superstition in the face of the (yet) unknown, (yet) incomprehensible events and the petrifying seeming randomness of life and death.

I see your point, though you state it more negatively than I would.

I agree that religion helps people with answers and rituals in the face of the unknown, the incomprehensible and the random.

I don't agree that religious people are required not to be inquisitive, to follow their leaders unquestioningly and never challenge what they say. That happens, of course. Probably among athiests, too. But there are many intelligent, inquisitive religious people who question and challenge their and other religious beliefs as they would anything else. They just happen to wind up believing anyway.

But yes, the comfort of simplicity is one good explanation. The explanation I had in mind was more about the limits of human imagination.

I think of this situation as similar to the fact that the aliens in Star Trek (at least the first version, the only one I'm really familiar with) are almost always humanoid. Anyone who believes in evolution (as, I would guess, Gene Roddenberry did?) knows that the odds are, well, astronomical against creatures of a distant planet having a head with hair, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, teeth, tongues, two hands with five fingers each, etc. (Let alone speaking English!  ) But I think that coming up with realistically exotic yet intelligent aliens on a weekly basis was too difficult.

[brokeplex]

I not only believe in physical evolution, I believe in evolutionary psychology, a far more controversial theory.

Also, it seems quite possible to me to believe in both evolution and God. I'm agnostic, but if there is a "God," what's to keep him/her from coming up with the idea for evolution and then getting it rolling? The system is complex and unpredictable and amazing enough to match all the other stuff God created. If in fact s/he did.

I know this is going to sound horribly offensive, and I wish there was some way to soften it, but what's with the propensity of people to "dumb down" their concepts of God's work? I mean, creationism just seems way too simple and obvious. Just like the concepts of heaven and hell seem too simple and too obvious. If you look around at all the other things that a God, if there is one, would have been responsible for devising -- galaxies, light, our brains, an ant -- everything is exponentially more complex than creationism, heaven, hell, etc. I guess I'd just give God more credit than that.

Note: I'm not directing this last line of inquiry to any specific poster here, and I hope no one has been overly offended.

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm not a creationist either. When I go to church I just sing hymns and doze thru the rest. Natural selection has always seems logical to me.
As I said earlier, I don't have a dog or even a sling shot in Stein's hunt.

What is evolutionary psychology? Does it involve meditation, brown rice and quartz crystals?

[serious crayons]

I'm not the least bit offended, I'm not a creationist either. When I go to church I just sing hymns and doze thru the rest. Natural selection has always seems logical to me.

Well, I didn't mean you specifically. I know you've got a pretty thick skin.    But I hate to reinforce the stereotype of all liberals as scorning religion. Especially because I told you a week ago or so that I don't do that.

What is evolutionary psychology? Does it involve meditation, brown rice and quartz crystals?

No. If it involved brown rice, it would require more sacrifices than I'm willing to make.

I'll take the lazy way out and quote Wikipedia:

Evolutionary psychology (abbreviated EP) is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, that is, as the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection. This approach brings an adaptationist way of thinking about biological mechanisms such as the immune system into the field of psychology and approaches psychological mechanisms in a similar way. Evolutionary psychology focuses on how evolution has shaped the mind and behavior. Though applicable to any organism with a nervous system, most research in evolutionary psychology focuses on humans.

Evolutionary psychologists see human behavior as having evolved to suit the primeval human environment, in which ancestors of modern humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa. They conclude, for example, that humans have inherited special mental capacities for acquiring speech, making it nearly automatic, while inheriting no such capacity for reading and writing. Other adaptations, according to these theories, might include the abilities to read others' emotions, to discern kin from non-kin, to identify and prefer better mates, to reciprocate help, and so on. Evolutionary psychology describes organisms as in conflict with others of their species, including mates and relatives. For example, mother mammals and their young offspring sometimes struggle over weaning, which benefits mother more than the child. Humans, however, have a marked capacity for cooperation as well.

Evolutionary psychologists see those behaviors or aspects of society that are nearly universal, such as parent-child conflicts, as more likely to reflect evolved adaptations. On the other hand, aspects of human behavior that vary considerably, such as what language one speaks, are understood to be products of culture.

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in the 19th century. Modern writers such as Desmond Morris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker have popularized evolutionary psychology. Closely related fields are human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory, and sociobiology.

If anyone is curious enough to read a whole book about it, an excellent intro and overview is Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are."

[brokeplex]

Well, I didn't mean you specifically. I know you've got a pretty thick skin.    But I hate to reinforce the stereotype of all liberals as scorning religion. Especially because I told you a week ago or so that I don't do that.

No. If it involved brown rice, it would require more sacrifices than I'm willing to make.

I'll take the lazy way out and quote Wikipedia:

If anyone is curious enough to read a whole book about it, an excellent intro and overview is Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are."

What I see here in the Wiki article makes sense to me. So I guess you and I are on the "same page" on that issue. (that is kinda scary)

The human brain is just another gland secreting hormones and a variety of communicator and interceptor chemicals used to send "information". It makes sense to me that our psychology is very heavily influenced by our biological being.

Ennis was not only taciturn, shy and largely uncommunicative and negative because of his background of deprivation, he was probably naturally a shy negative person.
Jack was a demonstrative and hopeful person, probably because he was naturally that way.

That doesn't mean that the environment has no influence. Ennis and Jack are also products of their geographical reference.The culture of the rural Rocky Mountain west arose in response to the geography of the area. How people are able to make their livings, and adapt to the forces of nature, affects the culture. This is called geographic determinism - E Annis Proulx seems to be a believer in geographic determinism. I think that is one of the chief reasons her stories have such a truthful impact.

So, the same self reliant individualistic culture shaped the two boys, but they turned out to be different in many ways. Why? Because of their psychological differences rooted in their biology.

Don't you like the way I linked this comment right back into Brokeback?

[ZK]

Yep I do believe in evolution. As to Adam and Eve my late Father suggested they were the first to be "enlightened"