-----

15 Responses to “Second part of “The Root of All Evil?”” 

1. 1 Sallibuc  Jan 17th, 2006 at 9:15 am

   I stumbled across your blog through Technorati. I try my best to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and so I guess you would put a label on me as a person who is in the religious camp.

   To be honest, I didn’t find that the ‘Root of All Evil’ program particularly facilitated dialogue in any way. It was merely a vehicle for Richard Dawkins to push his fundamentalist (yes, fundamentalist) ideas down people’s throats (as, I am sorry to say, generations of religions have done in one way or another).

   But some of your points brought thoughts to my mind (please bear in mind I do not want to start arguments or anything like that):

   1. Dawkins takes his cue from the extremeties, abnormalities and fringes of religious spheres to find instances to so-call ’substantiate’ his points. If the tables were turned and the investigation was done on the “aetheistic religion and philosophies”, where does aetheists like Hitler, Stalin, etc. stand? I agree with you - religion is the not sole cause. But I would go further and say that religion is not the cause. The cause is that men’s hearts have negative intents towards fellow men, which have caused them to use religion, philosophies, power, etc to satisfy their own selfish desires (the bible calls it sin).

   2. I do not agree that science and morality are of different spheres. I think in more recent centuries, people have starting to separate these spheres. And if you were brought up in an external conditioning and framework of thinking that way, it takes effort to break out of the box. This applies to people with a religious framework and those without. I personally do not view it as distinct. If one believes God created the laws of science, then eventually everything that is uncovered will point to His design.

   3. Dawkins blankets his attacks on all religions… That’s like making a blanket statement that all science if bad.

   3. Besides this, what makes Dawkins so cock-sure of the theory of evolution, if it is still a theory? Isn’t that what one would call blind faith?

   4. If you were honest with yourself, have you had a spiritual experience (that seemed real but can be rationalized away as merely a product of ‘evolutionary necessity’)? How does that stop you from seeing religion just as a concept and a thing in itself? I personally do not subscribe to institutional religion and rituals, but I believe there is something in an encounter with God as a living being which bears a reality which one can try to explain away but it may not be so easy to.

   6. Last one: What if one of the religions is true? What are the implications? This ‘what-if’ question is a very big one.

   Anyway, these are thoughts that came to mind when I read your blog.

   Peace
   -Sallibuc

2. 2 Krypto  Jan 17th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

   1. The problem is that religion stifles rational thought. Of course atheist societies would still have problems - human nature and evolutionary theory show why mankind has a tendency toward violence. However, we also have a brain, and can overcome these base tendencies with rationality and morality. Religion isn’t the root cause (although that reasoning can be applied to anything - it’s not my fault because the big bang created me and I wouldn’t be here otherwise) but it actively stifles rational thought and logic because of its insistence on the existence of something unproven. That’s the argument.

   2. I don’t really understand what you mean. Surely looking at the world only tells us how it does behave, not how it should behave? How can you draw conclusions about morality from the natural world?

   3. No, it’s not. When all religion stifles rational thought, it’s reasonable to attack it all.

   4. Because evolution has vast mountains of evidence. It’s a theory that the Earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa, and every assumption based upon this theory, every observation taken, has backed it up. Evolution’s exactly the same. It would be far more extraordinary for anything else to be the case. Nothing’s ever 100% certain in science, but when everything points you in one direction it’s reasonable to make the tentative conclusion that it’s true, unless other evidence comes along.

   5. No, I haven’t.

   6. What if the universe is just a flea on some giant cosmic pixie, and what we should be doing is all shouting as loudly as we can to make the pixie aware of us? We can all make up stories, but the idea of a deity has as much evidence as does Santa.

3. 3 Sallibuc  Jan 18th, 2006 at 12:15 am

   Hello! Good thoughts…

   Mine:

   1. How does religion stifle rational thought, when figures like Copernecus, kepler, Newton and Galileo- all of which were inspired towards their scientific discoveries by the conviction that they were revealing the intricate plan of a Supreme Being? (for more of this, see Point 3).

   2. To repeat myself: I do not agree that science and morality are of different spheres. I think that in more recent centuries, people have starting to separate these spheres. And if you were brought up in an external conditioning and framework of thinking that way, it takes effort to break out of the box. This applies to people with a religious framework and those without. I personally do not view it as distinct.

   Science (as we know it today) starts of with an arbitrary (and unquestionably dogmatic) decision that philosophical naturalism is true and that supernatural creation is false. I guess it is the “priesthood and prophets of science” that has made this dogmatic statement which their followers believe, which I do not subscribe to. From my own logical reasoning, if one believes God created the laws of science, then eventually everything that is uncovered will point to His design.

   3. “Religion stiffles rational thought” - You have just made an all out philosophical, dogma-based statement, without any factual backup.

   However, on this related note, something I read comes to mind, as follows:

   A survey in 1998 conducted by Skeptics’ Society found that among highly educated Americans, the number one reason for believing God was seeing “good design” and “complexity” in the world. Design was cited by almost a third of respondents - 29% - while only 10% said they believed in God because religion was comforting or consoling. These results were quite surprising, especially for skeptics who had conducted the study, because it shot down the common stereotype that religion is nothing but an emotional crutch. On the contrary, for most believers, the ground for faith is an essential rational intuition: They are convinced that there is a God because the universe seems so highly ordered that it suggests the hand of a conscious Mind or Creator.

   As a note, this survey was conducted by Skeptic editor Michael Shermer and MIT professor Frank Sulloway, and though it was sent out to a random sample of Americans, for unknown reasons, respondents included a higher-than-average percentage of highly educated people. Results are reported in the book How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (2000) by Michael Shermer.

   So much for religion stiffling rational thought. I am not sure the evidences are there. Maybe if you could convince be otherwise through proper scientifically-based examples? No anecdotes like Richard Dawkins, please.

   4. “Mountains of evidence for evolution” - really? Can you give me a list? I only know about the Galapolos Islands; the experiments related to dysfunctional fruit flies bombarded with radiation or toxic chemicals (to try to reproduce mutations); peppered moths, and the now debunked Haeckel’s embryos. This list (at least that is the list of “evidences” that I am aware of in my non-expert view of evolution) hardly contitutes convincing evidence. Perhaps any more you could provide may help inform this interesting and somewhat intellectually stimulating discussion.

   I have to draw a distinction here between:

   Microevolution (minor variations and/or reversible adaptations of similar species according to its environment to allow it to survive e.g. Galapagos island finches, for which the birds’ beak sizes actually returned back to normal - no evidence that it continued to ‘evolve’)

   –VERSUS—

   Macroevolution (adaptations over time across-species in a single direction, “we are evolved from amoeba” type assertions).

   As far as the observable facts that evolutionalists often use, these all seem to be pointing to microevolution, which I have no issues with as a thinking person. But extending this to macro-evolution, that requires faith and that is exactly what I am saying - that Richard Dawkins has taken a leap of blind faith! And in the latter category of macro-evolution for which there is NO EVIDENCE, Richard Dawkins has no remit to impose this “philosophical proselytising” on us. And to me, this concept of extending small scale changes we observe today and EXTRAPOLATING it backward in time to postulate inter-species evolution is nothing but mythical storytelling.

   As I said, if you could provide other points from the mountains of evidences… I would be open to hearing it.

   5. I am sorry to hear that.

   6. If I am a flea on some giant cosmic pixie, and I eventually discover this “truth”, I would have, at the very least, be “deluded” in this lifetime to know divine LOVE and meaningful existence before disappearing into oblivion. On the other hand, if one finds out there is a Creator and Judge on the far side of a life that is this one, I would hasten to speculate on the implications… especially One that make all wrongs right and balances the scales of injustice that we see in our naturalistic world.

   Peace,
   -sallibuc

4. 4 Lil  Jan 18th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

   Hello! I’m really enjoying reading your debate and I don’t want to get tangled up in the whole thing, but I thought I’d put in my views on #4 =)

   I feel I would’ve been rather bored studying evolution for 4 years as part of my degree if there weren’t thousands of examples beyond the cliched textbook ones I can email you some if you like, with references of course =)

   Limited reversal in Galapagos finch beaks was seen only because selective pressures were reversed for several years - therefore this SUPPORTS evolution. Even after the huge droughts that caused it, all the finches on the islands remained as different species, and one of them has been developing tool use. If the positive selective pressures remain, the species will continue to grow apart - there could be some interesting changes over the next few thousand years!
   So yes, if you reverse selection pressures driving the early stages of micro-evolution, of course it may temporarily reverse speciation. But take related species like tigers and lions - you can put them together and they’ll breed, but produce infertile offspring - there’s no going back then!

5. 5 Krypto  Jan 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm

   1. I’m not claiming everybody raised in a religious environment will be unable to think rationally, but that as the idea is suppressed the result is that rational thought is stifled. I posted somewhere else about homepathy. There’s no difference between believing in a deity and believing that homeopathy works - both are based upon claims rather than evidence. Yet hundreds of people reject conventional medical help because of something they want to believe is true. When they have been told that they should simply take things on the basis of faith, that’s the result.

   2. I don’t know what you mean by philosophical naturalism, but it’s entirely untrue that the falsity of supernatural creation is assumed. The only assumption in science is that everything that can affect the universe is detectable. That follows from logic - if it’s not detectable how can it affect anything? Science just looks at what’s out there and comes to conclusions, there’s no anti-deity agenda. It’s just that as the evidence has come in that which has previously been explained by supernatural phenomena turns out to have a rational and logical explanation. You may well believe that a deity created the laws of science, but it’s that that you need to back up. If you have an initial mathematical equation that turns out to be incorrect, then any arguments that follow, no matter how logical, will be irrelevant. I’m not saying you can’t use logic, I’m saying that the initial belief based upon no evidence is irrational.

   3. I don’t see your point. Before the theories of natural selection and evolution were developed, it was entirely reasonable to think that complexity must have arisen from design. But evolution and natural selection explain how that could happen without the need for a deity, and the aforementioned mountains of evidence back this up. That lots of people still think the former is irrelevant. There is vast amounts of evidence for natural selection and evolution, and none for a deity, therefore it’s reasonable to tentatively claim that the former is true. People ignoring this is exactly how religion affects rational thought.

   4. Lil has happily handled the evolutionary issues you discuss. Which is good, because I’d have had to do research otherwise I take issue with your ’single direction’ comment - there’s no plan in evolution, it’s just the way things happen. Also, macroevolution is supported by evidence of the fossil record, plus DNA.

   6. My point is that there an infinite number of possibilities, and I’m not going to live my life according to any one of them unless somebody can provide evidence. With no evidence, a ‘Creator and Judge’ is just as likely as a giant Monkey appearing from the other side of the galaxy and using the Earth as a marble.

6. 6 Sallibuc  Jan 19th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

   Lil — Yes, please post some of the more pertinent evidences from the “thousands of examples”, with references of course. I will even send it to Richard Dawkins for verification. But seriously, I keep hearing mountains of evidence, thousands of examples… but only in assertions. Remember, I am asking for ones that are related to macroevolution. Microevolution I have no issues with.

   Btw, I especially like that assertive statement of faith that you made — “there COULD be some interesting changes over the next few thousand years!” =) I mean people who are aetheists often say they do not have faith, but that is one huge statement of faith if I ever saw one. Are you going to say next that the finches will evolve into fish and swim away in order to survive? Common guys - give me something based on the facts you so claimed in your statements, please. That IS the tenet of the science of evolution, isn’t it?

   Peace
   ~Sal

7. 7 Lil  Jan 19th, 2006 at 10:18 pm

   Hehe obviously I can’t provide you with thousands of examples as my boss might notice me not turning up for work for the next few months But I will certainly post as many as possible (wish I hadn’t left my uni notes at home!)…

   Can we just clarify definitions, because you jumped from small adaptations to ‘amoeba to humans’ with no inbetween in your first post… The fact that finch beak sizes are changing over generations (ie. gene frequencies are changing) is micro-evolution - like you said, they’re adapting to their environment. This continues and leads to macro-evolution - new, separate species (then genera, then families, etc.). They’ve already split from one ancestoral species (the first finch on the islands) into 14 species - and if selective pressures continue, the little hybridisation that still occurs will disappear (like lions and tigers).

   Obviously the main ‘modern scientific experiment’ examples of creating new species (ie. macro-evolution) are of organisms with a short generation time (e.g. flies), so that a new species can be created before the human has to retire I will also use studies of the fossil record and DNA - YES the fossil record is incomplete, but all that means is that I can’t give you a huuuuuuge family tree of every species that has ever lived. I can still show a study of eg. An animal fossil (Latin name Primelephas gomphotheroides) where morphological and DNA tests have shown that it is the ancestor of both modern elephant groups.

   I said there COULD be some interesting changes because it all depends what on what the selective pressures (the main driving force of evolution) do! The pressures could stay as they are and the species could continue separating. There could be more extreme weather events that select for a new species that is adapted to drought eg. extracts water from its food more efficiently. Average temperature could increase and select for a species with a bigger surface area/volume ratio. A new plant could colonise the island and a species could arise that is adapted to eating its fruit/seeds… Or of course the islands could be obliterated by rising sea levels/nuclear bombs!

8. 8 Sal  Jan 19th, 2006 at 11:12 pm

   Interesting? Could my account be blocked?

9. 9 Sal  Jan 19th, 2006 at 11:16 pm

   Are there problems posting on this site?

10. 10 Sal  Jan 20th, 2006 at 9:02 am

    Ur…. pardon my ignorance. So you have given me examples of microevolution.

    The finches have adapted (changed) but are technically still finches, but different variants (as with many animals of the same family). Sounds like microevolution.

    The fruit flies which the ‘main modern experiements’ have created are mutated, and by the way dysfunctional fruit flies which eventually die. But still fruit flies. Sounds like microevolution.

    The animal fossil (Latin name Primelephas gomphotheroides) is still a type of elephant. Sounds like microevolution.

    So where are we really finding evidence for macroevolution, the ability to cross species boundaries? Sounds like it’s certainly not in factual evidence of history or recent observations / experiments. The only assertions I hear so far (but without facts to back it up) are:
    – “…could be more extreme weather events that select for new species…”
    – “…average temperature could increase and select for a species with a bigger surface area/volume ratio”
    – “…new plant could colonise the island and a species could arise that is adapted to eating its fruit/seeds”

    But where is the scientific evidence?? Otherwise, these are what I would call fictional postulation.

    The essence of Darwin’s theory is that minor adaptations can be EXTRAPOLATED over vast periods of time to explain major differences between taxonomic groups. But since 1980, it has been known that small changes simply don’t add up the way the THEORY requires.

    Let me explain:

    In a Newsweek article that year about a landmark conference titled ‘Macroevolution’, held at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, paleontologists bravely told the biologists what they least wanted to hear: that the fossil record does not, and never will, support the Darwinian scenario of a smooth, continuous progress of life forms, nicely graded from simple to complex. Instead, the rocks show a pervasive pattern of gaps: New forms appear suddenly, with no transitional forms leading to them, followed by long periods of stability during which they show little or no change at all.

    What made the Macroevolution conference so significant was that many paleontologists finally seemed to be throwing in the towel. Since Darwin, fossil hunting has been carried on intensively for more than a century, but instead of filling in the gaps, new findings have actually made the gaps more pronounced than ever. Why? Because the fossil forms tend to fall WITHIN the existing groups, leaving clear gaps BETWEEN groups - just as there are clear gaps between modern animals like horses and cows, dogs and cats. Put another way, variation tends to be limited to change WITHIN groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another.

    Here’s a quote from that article:

    “The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.”
    –(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

    The science of evolution was touted as, and built on the tenets of being scientific. SO WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION THE WAY THAT EVOLUTIONALISTS HAVE POSTULATED?? I am open to it, but have not heard it despite asking so many times.

    Peace,
    ~Sal

11. 11 Krypto  Jan 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    Sorry, been busy for the past day or two. I’ll respond properly once I’ve done some research, but I want tt clarify that your account isn’t blocked Don’t know what happened to stop you commenting (it doesn’t appear to have been caught by the spam filter or anything), but it wasn’t anything to do with the config, as far as I can tell - you’ve certainly done nothing to warrant anything like that!

12. 12 Krypto  Jan 20th, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    The evidence you’re looking for is described in great detail here.

    It is a requirement that scientific theories make predictions which can then be confirmed or rejected based upon empirical evidence. The theory of macroevolution makes many predictions which can then be tested, and these are explained in the talk origins article.

    The author first explains each prediction, shows the empirical confirmation (providing peer-reviewed sources), then details the kind of discoveries which would effectively disprove the theory of macroevolution. If any one of these was found, the theory would be thrown out. The predictions from the theory of macroevolution are independent of the mechanism of evolutionary change (even Larmackism would produce the same results) as well as not assuming the truth of macroevolution a priori.

    I hope this is what you are looking for. Much of the article was new to me, and I hope you find it as fascinating as I did!

    (I don’t know what to say about that quote, by the way. The only references I can find to the article are that particular quote, and I can’t seem to track down the authors. It doesn’t tally with the findings of other paleantologists, as far as I’m aware. I would guess that it’s an out-of-context quote that’s in relation to punctuated equilibrium - an alternative idea of the rate at which evolution progresses.)

13. 13 Krypto  Jan 20th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Oh, just wanted to pick up on one more thing

    “I mean people who are aetheists often say they do not have faith, but that is one huge statement of faith if I ever saw one”

    Lil said ‘could’, not ‘will’ But I see what you’re saying. The ‘faith’ I have in science is my belief that every effect has a cause. If I witness an effect from a cause, and the cause is repeated without any variables changing, I expect to witness the same effect again - at least until you get down to the level of quantum probabilities. Nothing in the universe has ever suggested this isn’t the case, and the whole of science follows from this definition of logic. I think.

14. 14 Sal  Jan 21st, 2006 at 9:06 am

    I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry after reading the link you sent.

    Cause I realize that we are going down the exact same road when creationists and evolutionists debate. And the outcome of this debate cannot be decided by facts alone cause both sides have facts and scientefic evidence depending on what assumptions each has made at a starting point.

    Consider this simplistic example.

    You have amnesia and have walked into an empty garage full of different types of cars, motorcycles and bicycles and these objects are totally foreign to you (for illustrative purposes, you can still reason things). The science of common descent establishes the fact that all these items have shared components that are “similar” but with variations - shafts, gears, steering wheels, tyres, etc.

    (Please don’t argue with the analogy - it’s not perfect but you are smart people so you know what I am trying to get at).

    In this hypothetical example, how you get to the conclusion based on that same observable facts is determined by what assumptions you make at the start. And there are two starting points that one has to accept as fact i.e. by FAITH:

    1. That is happened by some naturalistic means or chance, but not created.

    2. That these objects were there by design and someone created them.

    Let’s be clear: These two are “statements of faith” which one has to take as “given” at the starting point as a basic premise. The people who are theists state “by faith” that these objects are created (and assembled); whilst aetheists
    state “by faith” that there is no way there can be a creator who placed the objects there.

    Depending of which one of these assumptions you chose to make, what conclusions you draw from observations of the SAME items can be different. So each side will have evidences (and lots of them, both sides can have scientific evidences e.g. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html — yes, even people who believe in God do practice science and logical thinking. And I have learned a lot from this site as well).

    If you choose to believe that there is absolutely NO WAY that somebody designed and built those cars, motocycles and bicycles, you will be smart enough to come up with stories around the data in order to come up with a story to support your initial assumption. I work with market research people a lot: And so I know that one can look at the same data and can tailor your story around the data.

    So if you have made that absolute assumption that there is no creator, you will conclude that because there are common parts and functions to these “family of objects”, and there is a progression of the simple-to-the complex, therefore cars must have evolved from a motorcycle, and a motorcycle from a bicycle from millions of years of bring a the garage, being subjected to whatever environmental factors (except a creator/designer). Perhaps the wheel must have evolved into two wheels, and three and then four (macroevolution). You get the picture…. You will find interpretations that explain your initial assumption.

    My point here is that somewhere at a starting point of the theory of evolution, an assumption has been made (by Darwin?) which cannot be supported by science: in this case, the absolute refusal to believe that God can play a role in the equation (because science can neither prove nor disprove God - inferences of judgement can be made, but not 100% conclusions). In this vehicle example, no matter how many experiments you do on these cars, motorcycles or bicycles you can always explain it as caused by nature or by random forces - even if the creator signed a signature as long as the DNA code, you can say that environmental forces did it!

    I quote from God’s truth in the bible (which I am sure you will refute or have things to say on, but at least let your mind be open and read it!):

    “For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes.” So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.” (ROMANS 1:19-25, NLT)

    Please note that what I say about starting points apply similarly to the assumption that there is a creator. There will be stories and interpretations of scientific evidences that point to design and the handywork of an Intelligent Creator (as in the websites I have referred above).

    To conclude: As I said to someone recently, I cannot convince a person just by reason / facts alone. And as I alluded, it does require faith. The only difference is what is the OBJECT OF THAT FAITH. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim “no faith”, but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind’s superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it.

    Anyway, I thank you for your thoughts. It has been fascinating having this ‘debate’.

    Peace,
    ~Sal

    p.s. my quotations based on the article from John Adler with John Carey is in Newsweek November 3, 1980. It certainly will not be heavily publicised by proponents of evolution just by the virtue of its sensitive nature. Please do get back issues of Newsweek, you’ll find it there.

15. 15 Krypto  Jan 21st, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Like I said in the other thread, that’s a complete and total misunderstanding of the scientific process. The link I sent contains vast amounts of evidence for macroevolution, but you’ve ignored it all and made a false statement. Science does not assume anything, all theories are based upon evidence. There is no big conspiracy here, it’s simply looking at the world and seeing what comes of that. I have no idea why people think that evolution bases its assumptions on the non-existence of a deity. It’s just that the evidence shows there’s no need for a deity in the process, just as there’s no need for pixies with magic fingers that transport the DNA from place to place. There is no need for ‘faith’ in something that follows logically from evidence. Science is the complete antithesis to a faith-based belief system.

    The bizarre thing is that evolution is completely compatible with religion - you can just decide that some deity put the evolutionary mechanisms in place if you like. It’s this blind belief in baseless ideas that is what started off this argument in the first place, and hence why I think religion stifles rational thought.

-----

Leave a Reply

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.

There was an error with your comment, please try again.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Track with co.mments

(comments may take ~20 seconds to process due to anti-spam pixies)