mikeshelton ([info]mikeshelton) wrote,
@ 2007-03-11 16:33:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Myth of beginning - Myth of ending
Here's an interesting blurb from a blog of a friend of mine. I'm a math moron, but I still found this interesting.

For Darwin's theory to have a chance of being right, the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.



Here's something I found on Slashdot that also pricked my interest.
"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural - and not a human-induced - cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."


It doesn't bug me that so many believe in our culture's current myth of beginning (protein-to-man evolution) and myth of ending (global warming). What bugs me is that the proponents of these who have access to the raw data and the real numbers refuse to admit that their theories are still largely faith-based philosophies. I think I have a theory about that too: Protein-to-man evolution must withstand any scrutiny, because if it is revealed to be flawed enough, perhaps the unthinkable becomes more feasable - that a higher Being may have created and fashioned us. If this is the case, this higher Being may hold us accountable for our actions. If this is the case, we may have to re-arrange our lives so that it's not all about us any more. We would have to treat others right, and stop catering to our own selfish whims. This won't do. It's the same way on the other end: Global warming is the biggest problem that we face and it must be stopped. If we're not causing our own demise, what is our ending story? It can't be that "standing before God to give account" stuff, or especially the "God coming back" stuff. Nope - if that were the case, our "biggest problem" would change, again causing us to have to re-arrange or priorities and lives. I'm just a guy looking up stuff on the internet, but I have a sneaky suspicion that some of the lack of tolerance in our culture regarding other beginning-ending beliefs has more to do with dirty hearts and cloudy consciences than the scientific method.

(Post a new comment)

A bit offensive
[info]bigolerob
2007-03-12 02:30 am UTC (link)
Not to be argumentative, but you know i had to respond to this. (Sorry it’s so long.)

I'm a little offended by the fact that you are assuming that atheists and all other non-Christians are fundamentally immoral or selfish, which seems to me to be what you are claiming. Although I could be wrong. You said that you are bugged by "the proponents of these" who, if they gave up on their foolish non-Christian beliefs, "would have to treat others right, and stop catering to our own selfish whims." That is a ginormous generalization. Do i seem that selfish to you? And have you ever seen any non-Christians act selfish and self-centered? I sure have.

You said that you think “the lack of tolerance in our culture regarding other beginning-ending beliefs has more to do with dirty hearts and cloudy consciences than the scientific method.” Wow! Do you see me as intolerant? And as an intolerant person, I’m guessing that you also see me as having a dirty heart and cloudy conscience, right? To be honest, how can I not be offended when you’re saying that the reason that people won’t believe in Creationism or the Rapture is because they’re immoral people with dirty hearts who are scared to death to fess up to the truth? I really don’t know how to respond to that. Regardless, that doesn’t describe me and why I’m not a Christian at all. I’m not scared of what you think is the truth. I just have lots of evidence to not believe what you do. That’s all.

With regard to the Christianity Today article ("God by the Numbers") about math and Intelligent Design, i almost referenced that article in my upcoming book. I was actually looking at it earlier this week. The reason I almost referenced it is because it's so unfounded and doesn’t rest on reality (at least the part on evolution being statistically improbable). Basically, the obvious goal of the article is to disprove evolution by using abstract probability figures. It references no real physical evidence at all with that one point; it's all one big abstract probability problem that rests on false premises. Let me explain.

The article says, “Darwin thought that all life, including humans, arose from a one-celled organism. But to get from a one-celled organism to a human being with a least a trillion cells, there would have to be many changes. Darwin says these changes were produced at random, but they would have had to occur in the right order.” First off, the article assumes that evolution has a purpose, which it doesn’t. It’s not a physical thing that thinks or makes plans. In fact, it’s technically incorrect to say that our ancestors (whether protein or hominid) were becoming “more evolved”. We are not “more evolved” than other species; our brains are bigger, yes, but evolution doesn’t have a plan as if humans are the culminating climax at the top. This is a simple misunderstanding of evolution. And to be honest, the use of probability perturbations to prove how long it would take for humans to evolve from protein is seriously unrealistic and based too much on estimated statistics and guesswork. It’s all just mathematical masturbation.

Honestly, the “God by the Numbers” argument is just one of many arguments posed in order to disprove evolution without actually confronting any of the “raw data” as you said. Here’s a couple other typical arguments I’ve seen.
1. Darwin recanted his theory of evolution on his deathbed and became a Christian. Therefore, evolution is false. (FALSE)
2. Darwin mentioned that if one particular thing proved to be wrong about his theory of evolution, such as the existence of DNA (or something to this effect), then it would fall apart. (ALSO FALSE)

Continued...

(Reply to this)


[info]bigolerob
2007-03-12 02:30 am UTC (link)
...
One of the big give-aways that this article is farcical is that it says “Darwin says.” Typically I’ve found that creationists resort to Darwin saying something about evolution, and then the creationist counters that statement with some new discovery or something, such as points 1 and 2 above. It doesn’t even matter what Darwin thinks about evolution or even if he suddenly rejected it near the end of his life, which he didn’t. The evidence for evolution is still there despite what Darwin later thought. There are tons of theories that “disprove” evolution, but most are either false or lie upon faulty assumptions. If you have a chance, please take a look at the Wikipedia entry on the evolution of the modern horse, which is the most documented animal with regard to fossils and whatnot. There is just so much evidence that illustrates how it and its ancestors evolved over time.

But with regard to the other points in the article, I don’t have much of a problem. I admit that the universe “seems” fine-tuned, but I don’t think it’s because of an all-knowing Creator. I invoke the Anthropic Principle, in which we should not be surprised that all these things in the universe “appear” to be fine-tuned. Why? Because if those physicals constants were not exactly the way they are, then it would be impossible for us to even exist. Galactic and stellar evolution couldn’t have happened and we ourselves wouldn’t have evolved like we did on a habitable planet if those constants weren’t exactly the way they are. So if those constants didn’t seem “fine tuned,” then we wouldn’t even be here to think about them.

It seems that you are thinking that evolutionary biologists are in denial that evolution isn't true because they're deathly afraid that they might have to convert to Christianity. That is not the case. I would say that those biologists honestly probably don't care either way. If evolution were proven false, no biggie for them; they'll just try and find another reasonable explanation that can be based upon empirical data and scientific methods. They're not worried about having to admit there is a God or have to change their lives and become more moral, as you seem to think that they need to be. And btw, not all evolutionary biologists are non-Christians.

As an addendum, I should say that evolution is not a "faith-based philosophy" as you seem to be presuming. It is backed by a mountain of evidence. Even new genetic evidence in the past decade or so has more or less proven that we share identical genes (not similar, but identical genes) with other animals. Therefore we can safely assume that we and those animals share a common ancestor who once carried those genes. By calculating how genetically similar we are to other animals, we can actually get a close estimate as to when our concestor (i.e. our shared ancestor) existed in the past.

And regarding your lack of belief that we are causing global warming, please see An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not sure why people try so hard to not believe it's happening. Don't forget that an international panel composed of THOUSANDS of scientists agreed that global warming is real. You absolutely cannot deny that. Thousands. And besides, the Slashdot article admits that global warming is happening, but that perhaps WE are not causing it. Nevertheless, it's still happening, so we still need to think about what we can do to prepare for the calamity that lies ahead.

Anyway, sorry this is so long, but I wanted to respond to your post not just in a reactionary way, but I wanted to also present my case and show that we non-Christians are not all the same and that many of us actually have some decent reasons for believing what we do. I respect you a lot, Mike. If you actually took the time to read this whole “comment”, then I appreciate it. You’re a good guy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mikeshelton
2007-03-13 02:09 am UTC (link)
It's fine that you responded. I almost decided not to post all that and put it off for a bit thinking, "Man, Rob is gonna hate this." But then I thought - nah, it's only Livejournal.



The fundamentally immoral or selfish thing - yeah, you nailed it. But broaden your scope. I feel that way about most of humanity. Intolerant? Yes. Dirty hearts and clouded consciences? Absloutely. Jeremiah wrote that the heart of man is "deserately wicked. Who can know it?" Ditto. But that sentiment doesn't just come from my world view. Lots of very vocal non-Christians like Mark Twain, Bill Maher, and George Carlin, just to name a few, all have a complete lack of faith in the goodness of humanity and don't mind saying so. Sorry if you internalized it. I can't speak to your perceptions. You're right that it is a ginormous generalization, but keep in mind that millions and millions of people believe or claim to believe in what I have referred to as myths of beginning and ending. It's a broad brush I'm painting with.



Speaking of perceptions, let me clear a few up (here come the bullet-point tags - my favorite).
  • I believe in evolution. Of course species change over time. I just don't believe my origins derive from there.
  • I believe that global warming is happening. I just am not convinced that civilization is the culprit.



    So again, I don't believe in those beginning / ending stories, and yes, I really do feel that it's being shoved down my throat in a haughty way. I feel silenced and mocked and I'm not going to be silent about that. I don't share your view that pro-evolution voices are a neutral, amicable group. It's as if it's not OK to disagree, and those who do voice other opinions have to either go away or be silenced. It's intolerance on a geometric scale, thus my post.



    I will check out the Wikipedia modern horse link, and I'll tell ya' what else (gulp). This weekend I'll watch "An Inconvenient Truth" as long as I can have unlimited eye-rolls. Lots of folks have criticized the questionable conclusions in the movie, but I'll try to lay that aside. It can't be any worse than his book "Trashing the Planet" that had so many errors in it that even environmentalists eschewed it. Al Gore is a good-hearted guy who is trying to make a difference. That's worth my time.



    Please continue to post anything you want about anything you think, on your blog or in response to mine. I love the freedom of this forum and I think you're a great guy whom I respect as well. Your thoughts are always worth reading.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    •

    [info]bigolerob
    2007-03-13 06:40 pm UTC (link)
    Mike, please don’t hesitate to post anything on LJ just because you think I won’t agree with it. I love to hear your views and ideas. Btw, I could never “hate” anything you wrote, although I might not agree with it.

    I understand where you’re coming from when you talk about humanity as being generally selfish. I don’t completely disagree with you. People are not perfect, but I rather choose to view individuals as generally having a capacity for doing good rather than viewing them as horribly wicked as you do. I like to think I’m a generally good person, despite what my religious views are. But it’s still hard to not be offended when you bluntly state that I along with all of humanity has a dirty, selfish heart. I’ll get over it though. Of course, you might not like it if I called you or someone in your family a dirty whore and meant it. But that’s how I kinda took the comment. Sorry if I’m sensitive. Like I said, I know where you’re coming from because I’ve been where you are as far as beliefs and religious views, but I’m starting to open my eyes about how ugly and negative and offensive it can be to just call people naturally dirty and selfish and fundamentally evil. I never did like the whole Original Sin thing. Instead, i try to see the good in people and the amazing generosity that can spew forth from them.

    I’m sorry that you feel as if the topics of evolution and human-induced global warming is being shoved down your throat. I hope I don’t add to that and hope that you don’t feel that I somehow oppress you. I know exactly what you mean about having things shoved down my throat though. I’ve always felt that way about Creationism and prayer in schools and the 10-commandments-in-the-courthouse thing and with people shoving their moral agenda on my gay friends, who are constantly denied basic civil rights in our society. I know you probably disagree with all that, but I wanted you to know that I feel like people shove stuff down my throat too. You’re not the only one. It apparently goes both ways.

    I hope you enjoy An Inconvenient Truth; if not, then that’s fine too. I myself was very skeptical of it before I watched it. Luckily, it tries to put forth a lot of data and evidence, which some people find very boring, but I thought it was interesting. Regardless, I’m sure you agree that God wanted us to take care of the earth rather than trash it. Here is a CNN article on that international panel of scientists that found global warming to be “very likely” to be caused by humans. I thought it might be helpful since you’re interested in these issues. CNN Article link.

    I’m glad that we can talk about things like this, Mike, without getting upset with each other. I think that there is virtue in being able to civilly talk about our contrarian viewpoints as friends. I hope you make more posts in the future. I certainly enjoy reading them.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    [info]kidfear
    2007-03-18 03:45 am UTC (link)
    Wow! I enjoyed this. Seriously.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    Create an Account
    Forgot your login or password?
    Login w/ OpenID
    English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…