Sunday, October 29, 2006

Warning, long winded entry

   Raven has posted an article about evolution in her blog, and, once again, my attempt to comment has got completely out of hand, and turned into a whole new blog post. Reproduced below are portions of Raven's post (in italics) followed by my comments. Note that Raven didn't actually write any of this, She has just copied and pasted it from elsewhere.

I found this article along time ago. I saved it in Word but the hyperlinks don't work so I cant track back to where I found this article. Anyway, I cracked up reading this because it really paints a picture about how silly some science can be.

   Or does it...?


The Fossil Record

Where are the failures in the fossil record? As far as I am aware, every fossil discovered has been a perfect example of its species. If this were the model of evolution, there ought to be 99 bad specimens for every perfect specimen, shouldn't there?


   This statement does nothing more than reveal the writer's colossal ignorance of the fossil record, and archaeology in general. There are 99 bad specimens for every perfect specimen. More, in fact. The vast majority of all fossils found are fragmentary. Why don't we hear about them? Well, because it's boring, that's why. Can you imagine reading a news report that said, "scientists today discovered 37 new fossils at a dig in Colombia. 13 are thought to be partial leg bones from some, as yet unidentified, four legged creature, 7 appear to be fragments of some kind of ribs, and seventeen are so small as to be unclassifiable." Now, can you imagine reading a news report that sounds just like that every day? The fact is, the finding of perfect, complete examples of fossilized skeletons is so exceedingly rare, that when it happens, it creates such a buzz that it gets reported widely, even outside of the dry world of scientific journals. That's when people like you, and me, and the guy who wrote the above, hear about it.
   Consider this: does your local TV station report on every single fender bender that occurs every single day? Of course not, but you better believe they have pictures at eleven of the thirty car pile-up on the interstate over the weekend.

What about Cross-Breeding?

There is only one animal I know of produced by cross-breeding two different species. Mules are the product of a union between a horse and a donkey. If this is an improvement, why are there still horses and donkeys? Hmm... As a matter of fact, is it not true that mules are sterile, and the only way to produce another mule is to cross another horse with another donkey?


   I have to admit that I don't understand this question. Yes, mules are the product of a union between an ass and a horse. So? Yes, mules are sterile. So? Why do you think this has anything to do with evolution? Why wouldn't there still be horses and donkeys? This is a smoke screen of a point. It neither refutes nor supports evolution. It is a complete non-sequitur.

What about the Eye Ball?

If you want me to believe that the Theory of Evolution explains how we started from some primal soup in which nothing living existed, you have to deal with the eye ball. So the story goes that in this soup, there were no creatures with eyes, and today many creatures have eyes. So somewhere in the billions of years of evolution, there was a day when the first eye ball existed, and yesterday there was none. I could just about squeeze out a moment of credulity where I can imagine some chemical accident that would cause an eye ball to exist for the first time. But the question is how that eye ball by itself could possibly improve the survivability of the creature to which it happened to be attached.

Let's face it, to be useful, that eye ball has to be connected by way of an optic nerve to the input receptors of a brain that is able to interpret the signals from that nerve and translate what is sees in that first generation of seeing creatures into motion commands for its extremities... Sorry, but I can't believe that a serious scientist or engineer could claim with any conscience at all that this scenario has even the remotest possibility of occurring.

 
   Before I talk about the likelihood of a sensory organ like the eye evolving, I'd like to point out one sentence from the above block of text. The writer says: "But the question is how that eye ball by itself could possibly improve the survivability of thecreature to which it happened to be attached." I had to read that three times before I could believe the person had actually written it. He fails to see how the possession of eyes could possibly improve the survivability of a species? I fail to see how it couldn't. Seriously, can you honestly say that you don't see how one creature, with an improved ability to sense its environment, would have an advantage over its competitors in both finding food, and avoiding danger? To me, that's elementary reasoning.
   Ah, the eye ball; the holy grail of Michael Behe and his cronies at the Discovery Institute. They like to crow about their concept of irreducible complexity, and hold up the eye as an example. But, as usual, they simply don't understand the topic. The fact is, the eyeball didn't come first, and then afterwards develop into an organ of sight. The organ of sight came first, and slowly evolved into an eye ball, because the was the most successful adaptation nature found. Think about the basic science experiments we did back in grade school. Plant some bean seeds. Put them in the window sill. They grow toward the light. Turn the pot so that they are facing away from the light. In short order they will move back towards the light. Every golf caddie worth his salt understands this.
   The sensing of light and dark is present in virtually all organisms on the planet. Is it so much of a leap to think that those creatures who developed the ability to sense it in a more detailed manner would have an evolutionary advantage? One of the problems with the discussion of evolution at a lay person level, as I mentioned several months ago in my essay, A defence of evolution
, is that it is so darned...scientific. Send someone to a link that explains some of the evolutionary forces behind the development of the eye, like this one: rhabdomeric and ciliary eyes, and their head begins to spin. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution isn't all that easy for those of us without a comprehensive science education to understand. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

The Bottom Line on Evolution

Secular Humanists cling to the Theory of Evolution like the Luddites of the Industrial Revolution. The only reason the theory is not in complete ridicule is that they can't tolerate the notion that a Supreme Being could exist with the intelligence to create the universe and all it contains. n apart  by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip

 

 
The above paragraph seems to be a fragment of the original (hmm, like many fossils - sorry, I couldn't resist). (edit- the sentence fragment that begins after "all it contains" does not appear in the original article. I suspect Raven accidentally pasted it in there from elsewhere. I think it is safe to ignore it) The sentiment it expresses about evolution, however, is simply untrue. The basic premise of it doesn't even stand up under examination. Recent polls in the United States show that an overwhelming majority of the general public believe in a god of some kind, and for over 70% that is the Christian god. If the theory of evolution was that easy to bring into ridicule, couldn't that strong a majority of people do so? The fact is, the theory of evolution is more strongly supported by direct physical evidence than any other theory in the history of science. Sure, there are some fuzzy areas, some parts that are questioned, but is there anything in the world for which that cannot be said to be true? Stop. Before you say, "The Bible," let me warn you. I will laugh out loud at you. Toddlers in Sunday Schools are capable of bringing up questions about the Christian god and The Bible that stymie even the most confident of theistic scholars. So a certain fuzziness and questionability lives everywhere. 
   But the test of any scientific theory is in its predictiveness. Here's a fun science story for you. Evolution says that land animals originally evolved from fish. There is a certain species of prehistoric crocodile-like reptile that scientists believe was only very recently (in its time) evolved out of the water. If, in fact, this animal did evolve out of a fish, scientists expect that there should be intermediate forms to be found; creatures that show some characteristics of lizards, and some characteristics of fish. As a thought exercise, imagine what kind of environment might lead to the development of such a creature. Probably a large delta area where water levels might vary from swimming depth to wading depth todry land on a regular basis. Examining the geologic record, scientists believe that the Canadian Arctic, at about the time period they believe such an intermediate form would be found, fulfilled those environmental conditions. So, they predicted, if such a "transitional fossil" was to be found, that is where they might find it. They went, and looked, and guess what they found? Tiktaalik.

   That's a pretty accurate prediction for a theory deserving of "ridicule" I think.


   This next section is so full of fallacies and misdirections that I'm going to have to take it a few sentences at a time.


Intelligent Design

 
Before reviewing the claims of the traditional creationist (of which I am one), let's look at Intelligent Design (ID). This concept has received (with some justification) a bad name in the media. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer from the claims of ID who the designer is. However, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some serious scientists view ID as another set of arguments that lead an open-minded reader inexorably to the view that Evolution is a terrible theory, and a biblical view of creation demands far less faith.


   "Some" is an interesting word. It is, perhaps, the most vague, the least specific quantifying word in the English language. By "some scientists," what does the writer mean? He could mean several percent of all scientists, which would run into the tens of thousands, I am sure. He could mean three. I don't know what he means.
   I do know that there are several petitions out there purporting to be signed by scientists who support Intelligent Design, or at least have expressed doubt about evolution (note that those two things are not necessarily the same). In response to those petitions, The national Center for Science Education started Project Steve
, a petition to be signed by scientists who support evolution, but only those who are named "Steve" (or some variation thereof, such as Stefan, or Esteban). Apparently, the name Steve represents only about 1% of the general population of the world, yet with that restriction in place, Project Steve's petition has more names on it - 764 to date - than any of the creationist (or IDist if you will) petitions out there, despite the fact that they are open to 100% of the population of the scientific world. (The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin petition, for example, has approximately 600 names on it).
   Does that mean that the statement that "some scientists" doubt some facets of evolutionary theory is inaccurate? No, but it does indicate that those scientists represent fewer than 1% of all scientific opinions out there. Another thing to consider is the wording of the statement. The writer of this article has said that some scientists think that "evolution is a terrible theory." The Dissent From Darwin petition, circulated by The Discovery Institute is somewhat more mildly worded: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Again, not the same thing at all. How many of those 600 would have signed that petition if it had used the former language?

Just one example from the boundless ID examples available. If you take the evolutionist's view of creation, you begin with a bunch of random sub-atomic particles floating in space and over the course of a long time, these particles happen to align themselves in such a way as to assemble this earth and all its living creatures. Remember, either this is a vast collection of random events, or there must be some intelligent design assembling stuff...

   This is a wonderful argument to look at, because the writer has managed to combine two different logical fallacies into one statement! The first is called a false dichotomy. He has tried to get us to accept that the two options he presents - a collection of random events, or God-diddit - are the only two options available for consideration. The truth is that there are many different possible explanations we could throw around. For example, maybe God did some of it, and the rest was random. Or, maybe the entire universe exists just as it is, has always existed just as it is, and will always exist just as it is, and our memories of the past are simply hallucinations.
   Another possibility leads us to the second fallacy, our old friend the straw man. The writer would have us believe that the scientist's position is that everything happens randomly. That is not the case at all. Yes, the scientist would agree that we started with "a bunch of random sub-atomic particles floating in space and over the course of a long time, these particles happen to align themselves in such a way as to assemble this earth and all its living creatures." However, he would maintain that the process was far from random. It has been governed by the laws of physics that rule the universe. Laws like the conservation of matter and energy, the principles of thermodynamics, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These forces guide the way every single piece of matter and energy in our universe interact in very non-random and predictable ways.
   So the statement made above has no meaning as it is expressed. It certainly provides no logical support for Intelligent Design, or creationism.

...So you vote for random? OK, consider this. I want to build a house the Evolutionist's way. Since no design is permitted, I load up a truck with all the materials necessary to build the house, back it up to the job site and tip them into a pile. Did it make a house? No? OK, fetch another load. Or, I suppose you could just stir up the pile you have ... a few times ...!!!

   Ah, yes, the old hurricane in a junk yard argument, gussied up in a sharp new outfit. Let's compare the natural world to something that is, by definition, unnatural, and see if we can fool the readers into thinking our point is valid. See, no one, anywhere, claims that houses can build themselves, or slowly come together over a long period of time due to evolutionary forces. It's a bad argument. No more needs be said about it.

You say that you have a lot of time available? OK, check this link for an argument that shuts down that idea really quickly.
 
   Clearly, this link has gone missing from the original article. Luckily I have mad Google skillz, and have tracked it down. This link
goes to a pdf document that appears to me to have originally been a PowerPoint slide show meant to accompanya lecture about Intelligent Design. You can go and check it out if you want,but it doesn't say anything new or interesting, and it certainly doesn't shut anything down really quickly.
   It's part of the Discovery Institute's propaganda about "Inferring Design." It goes on and on about how one goes about inferring design in things, but in the end it comes to the same old conclusion. One can conclude that things are designed because they seem that way. Another wonderful logical fallacy to kick around called the argument from ignorance, or the argument from personal incredulity. It is the platform the entire ID movement is based upon: "I can't conceive of a way that a world this complex could come about without the intervention of a higher power."
   And finally we come around to some truth in the discussion. Creationists believe in what they believe, because they believe it. It doesn't matter where one begins in this discussion, the endpoint is always exactly the same. When asked why they believe in evolution, a scientist can quote a hundred and fifty years of real world, practical, hard evidence to support their claims. When asked why they believe in divine creation, a creationist can only say, "because it is what I have decided to believe."
   In fact, if you visit the web site where the original article appears
, you will see that this writer has decided to believe in a number of interesting things, including his very own interpretation of the book of Genesis, and a pre-Garden of Eden bible story that he has completely invented all by himself. This is certainly a source to which it is worth paying attention (sorry, a little bit of sarcasm leaked in there).

EVOLUTION - A word with so many meanings. This web page <www.creationism.org> for example, is evolving in content and breadth. This is to say that it is undergoing change and directed (non-random) improvement...

   I have snipped this part of the entry because it is nothing more than more building of straw men. You can read it in Raven's blog, or in context at its original web site here:
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm. I wouldn't waste too much time on it, though, as it is nothing more than another misrepresentation of the scientific concepts involved in the study of our natural world.

OK, here's the last bit.
 
I found this on the Internet. Again, I dont have the link for it.
 
I attended a lecture by Dr. Stephen W. Hawking on November 7, 2005 in San Jose. His spiritual presence seemed to surround and captivate the audience as his eyes pierced through eyelids that gently flickered to the sound of his computerized voice announcing, "God chose, for reasons we cannot know, the moment of creation, but it began 15 billion years ago when all galaxies were clustered."

As I sat in row seven, seat thirty-seven, I soon realized that the wheel chair carrying Hawking’s frail, listless body contained one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th and 21st century, a soul’s lifetime journey into the origin of the Universe. Stephen Hawking's heartfelt proclamation to us, "We are quantum fluctions in the universe." And, he briefly mentioned that ‘extra dimensions are curled up like a donut’!

After his lecture, a very young girl appeared in the audience carrying a fresh bouquet of red roses with sprigs of baby breath. She proceeded to walk-up the stairs onto the stage then placed the flowers onto the lap of Stephen Hawking. It was a moving experience which he immediately responded to her gesture by saying, "God bless you." Everyone stood up and applauded!

   I don't get it. What is that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to demonstrate that Steven Hawking believes in God? He might. That wouldn't change in any way the value of the work he has done in the scientific community. Still, I don't think the story really does demonstrate that at all.
   See, here's the thing. When I am with my family, and my wife, or my son sneeze, I say, "God bless you." Does that mean I believe in God? Clearly not, because there is no secret about the fact that I do not. That's just what you say when someone sneezes. I've thought about it quite a bit, and I can't even put into words exactly what the sentiment is we are expressing with that statement. Originally, it was to prevent evil spirits from invading one's body while one's defenses were down. Today we know how silly that is, but we still say it. Even when a Christian says it after a sneeze, it is still meaningless. It's just what you say.
   In the same way, Dr. Hawking may simply have been being polite to the young lady who gave him flowers. Whether or not Stephen Hawking believes in God is, at best, uncertain. He has made different statements at different times some of which have been ambiguous, and some of which have been contradictory. One Christian writer expounding on the topic said that Hawking's beliefs would most likely be described as agnostic, or deist at best. Arguing that science is wrong because Stephen Hawking might believe in a god is a silly thing to do anyway. It's like arguing that cooking with butter is bad because Julia Child once mentioned the word margarine.

   It was my intention to respond to the comments Raven made here following my A poor argument entry of last week. I copied and pasted all of them (there were six) into a text document, and spent some time poring over them, but really couldn't make much sense out of what they seemed to say. I'm really not sure why she contends that, in order to believe there was a "big bang" it is necessary to believe that there was "nothing" prior to it; that the universe came into being at that time and that there was nothing extant before that. I understand the argument she is trying to make, but I don't accept her basic opening premise, so I don't think her argument is valid.
   In essence, Raven's argument is exactly the same as what I have talked about above. She believes what she believes because that is what she believes. It is not possible to equate an acceptance of a scientific theory that is very strongly supported by hard evidence with a belief in the existence of a supreme being for which there is no evidence of any kind.
   You are welcome to try again, Raven, but don't try and tell me what I "must" believe again, OK?

tags: ,

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would never try and tell you what to believe...we both are debating our beliefs and its never a personal attack to me at all to disagree...I'm going to write an article this week on the Faith behind the universe START....look forward to your comments....the argument is quite valid...many have written on this very thing...-Raven

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,
hi!
I was reading your previous essay reguarding evolution. You mentioned that you believe in the findings of scientists who have certain years of experience ina certain area of study; in other words you think that theyare more qualified than others to render conclusions to scientific studies: is this correct?
natalie

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,
I was thinking about a different subject that you mentioned ; along with Kate.
Physics as it concerns the cosmos. Are you aware that the old theories about the actual nature of the cosmos ( physics of how it operates) are now under review? and that we no longer hold certain theroies to be relevant?Thes theories do concern how the cosmos unfolds and how gravity exists or not in the cosmos.
natalie

Anonymous said...

It always amazes me how ID'ers and creationists always ignore one very relevant issue when it comes to this debate.
In fact Natalie seems to be trying to use this issue as a counter-point to what Paul is stating.

When it comes to science and scientific theories, the scientific community has always been and will probably always be it's own best watchdog.

Contrary to religion, which seeks to unify, codify and maintain one particular notion or idea, the scientific community is competitive.

When a new concept is introduced, others from the scientific community will begin testing that idea for flaws, looking for ways to disprove it and looking for ways to show that the original studies were biased or pre-determined.

Science is always about questioning what we believe we already think is fact.
For that reason, there will always be some who publish papers and give lectures about what they see as flaws in established theories.
If there is strong enough evidence of flaws in a theory, it is discarded and new theories are searched for to replace the one which has been disproven.

Evolution may have some doubters, but none have produced anything close to strong evidence against it.
More like questions about minor segments which change nothing when it comes to the theory as a whole.

Religion has not and will likely never take this introspective look at itself.
With any church if you question the "gospels", you are accused of blasphemy or at the vary least the flaws are played off as "parables."
Questions are frowned upon. Doubters ridiculed or ostracized.

In science, manufactured and/or falsified studies or ideas are always found out and disproven relatively quickly because...

Science is about looking for factsand answering questions.

Religion is about faith and believing what you are told.

Brent

Anonymous said...

Actually I have to disagree with Brent's point in one respect. There is a great deal of questioning and study and alternative theory in the fireld of religion as well.  Old documents are pieced together ad compared with other old documents, new translations are done, early Christian beliefs are studied developmentally and placed in historical context, etc.  A group of religious historians even votes periodically on which quotations in the Gospels Jesus is likely to have said!  Some of this scholarly work would shock the heck out of fundamentalists, but it does exist, and some of their work does seem to eventually filter through to mainstream religious institutions. - Karen

Anonymous said...

Thanks for writing this entry Paul. I wanted to do a similar post, but you have said it all for me! Scientists are better qualified to understand evolution. Why? Because they are scientists and have studied science. In the same way, lawyers are better able to understand the law!!!
Kate.
http://journals.aol.co.uk/bobandkate/AnAnalysisofLife/

Anonymous said...

Raven: but you did try to tell me what to believe. You tried to tell me that, in order to accept the big bang theory, that I *must* accept the premise that *nothing* existed prior to that big bang. That statement is flawed.

Natalie: As Brent stated in his comment, every scientific theory that exists is "under review" at all times. That is the basic nature, and strength, of the scientific method. It works because any theory is subject to being dismissed or changed if someone can present compelling evidence to support such changes. That being said, your comment is meaningless unless you can tell me which scientists are questioning what theory, what alternative they are offering, and what evidence they have to support it. Simply saying that a theory is being questioned does not weaken that theory. In fact, it strengthens it. Either that theory will be strong enough to withstand the challenge, or it will be improved by the new evidence presented.

Karen: The only problem with your assertion is the fact that one thing is never questioned, and that is the part of religion for which there is no actual evidence: its basic premise.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Ah, the "god bless you" sneeze Habit. Yes, we need to insist on breaking the god Habit. God has become a Reflex. If we keep accepting "god" sprinkled onto every little thing, the notion of god stays. There's "trust god" on U.S. money. My child recites the pledge of allegiance in school and has learned the god-spangled banner song. These things offend me. They are part of the mind control I grew up with. I would love to see the god Habit broken in my lifetime, but I doubt that generations of mind control can be broken that easily.

Paul, any hints on raising a godcult-free child are appreciated. Thank you for being a deity-free island in this crazy ocean I've been swimming in for so many years. I never knew there were so many like-minded heathens (haha) out there! I feel much SAFER now. Maybe I can stop being so timid about my dis-belief.

Peace,
Cin

Anonymous said...

Sometimes as eyeball is just an eyeball ~Mary

Anonymous said...

And a snake is just a snake. Or lunch if you're really hungry.

Anonymous said...

I have saved, and occasionly re-read, a delightful essay by Einstein given in 1941.  He could probably be said to have been a deist and I share a lot of the same sentiments he espoused.

The core of the essay is summarised early on and discussed in greater depth:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Simon

Anonymous said...

After reading your entry, one word comes to mind.........

Amen~

Rebecca

Anonymous said...

Simian,

Love the quote.   For the recored I have avoided this one... but, religion and faith are not the same to me.  And, I do not find that science and my faith are at odds at all.

Raven however obviously leans to the Christian fundamentalist Bible as fact place and there is no way to reach anyone in that mind set, at least that has been my experience.  I think it is so cute that Paul even tries...

be well,
Dawn

Anonymous said...

Hi Paul,
I have just gathered the evidence to support your arguments and posted a whole host of links in my blog. I know that people cannot convince the Creationists that the Bible is not pure unadulterated fact, but I have enjoyed gathering the evidence that proves conclusively that the Creationist stance is based on ignorance and narrowmindedness!
Kate.
http://journals.aol.co.uk/bobandkate/AnAnalysisofLife/

Anonymous said...

Dawn: I understand that convincing Raven will be nigh on impossible. However, the debate is an important one to hold for other reasons. As Alec said to me in a private email, it is important to let the silent bystanders know how things stand. Skeptics engage in these frustrating and repetetive debates for that reason, because there might be someone reading who is on the fence, and can make good rational use of factual information.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I've always thought Paul does a fantasic job of relaying critically thought-out arguments for the positions he holds and counter to those he disagrees with, without degrading conflicting opinions.  As he mentioned in the comment just below (*waves!*), it IS important to make known your stance when it's something you strongly believe in.  Too often silence is construed as agreement.  A vocal minority can do irreparable damage to a silent majority.

Simon

(PS -- I've always thought Paul was kinda cute too.)

Anonymous said...

Paul - I know... the debate is good, I just don't have the energy to join in right now... I would so totally be on your side with this... Creationism makes me nuts, one of my pet peeves.  

Simian -  Well, he is just so cute, you can't resist!  lol

be well,
Dawn

Anonymous said...

Oh Paul! I am enjoying so much the way you argue! this is fun and sport like, and you sound like you know your stuff. Ok, I am curious now, what do you do in life?
I will be back to read this post more thoroughly at a later time. I need to switch perspective when reading it and slip in one I am not used to. I'll try and see if I can answer something without any books or links on my laps. Anyway, they are all in boxes.
Love to you,
Valerie

Anonymous said...

I was back Paul, and I feel very very little... all those words "evolutionary theory" and "creationist" were well above my head... I think it would have been really useful if someone (at least yourself) had taken a two-line time to define in simple words what the Evolutionary theory is claiming. You did more or less much later in this entry. I am completely with you. Also, I do believe in both. I think humans know more than they know they know. I think that we still have a reptilian part within our brain which is the one of instincts, one that has not evolved in itself but is still there, one that cannot be looked at as we can see wings or legs, but one we still have. I believe in the Evolutionary Theory. And I believe in God too, but I separate them somehow. In my imagination, I don't think that God and Evolution have to be attached, or that it has to be one or the other; I believe in both; one makes sense to me because I believe highly in science, I just love science although I am not a scientific and regret deeply, and I believe in a human's spiritual side for I have many times felt things or were connected to the space, the environment, some kind of spread empathy beyond my own imagination. I need both sides of the story.
I still need to visit all your links. Thank you for your effort to find for us all those links. They look precious to me and I definitely want to read them. I want to be intelligent, it is a hard job for me :D
Valerie

Anonymous said...

B O O !

Anonymous said...

  Thank you for your comment, Mr. Sockpuppet. You will notice that I have not deleted it. Unlike you, I am not afraid of dissenting opinions. Unlike you, I do not immediately delete any comment that expresses doubt over, disbelief in, or disagreement with my ideas. Unlike you, I welcome all discussion and discourse. Even that generated by a hate filled, adolescent mind...like you.
  Have a nice day.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

OMG... I cannot believe that... people are unfreaking believable!

be well,
Dawn

Anonymous said...

Far more diplomatic than I'd have been Paul.  I applaud your restraint.  

-Dan

Anonymous said...

I am a relative newcomer to blogging, starting in early September '06, so I am visiting journals and finding out what people are saying. I read this entry plus the comments.  I have been to the blog where source links are provided for those interested in studying evolution.  I have read Raven's blog, Rebuke the World.  
  My own approach to the journals is to take it slow.  But at the same time I like to say something challenging in a comment or in an entry.  I have not discussed religion very much in my journal, thus risking controversy, except on the subject of legalized abortion. I have been writing on that topic extensively for years.  Although hardly any of the newspapers I wrote my protest letters to printed them.
  In regard to this divisive issue, this was the first time in my life, intellectuals, liberals, people I had once considered the more enlightened talked to me as though I were an ignorant right wing fanatic. All I had to do is say I didn't believe in legalizing abortion, and I found out what it was like to be on the receiving end of insults about my intelligence.  I would point out that the females of any species have been giving birth for eons without being called religious fanatics. I would say I thought abortion an aberration that surfaces from time to time in the history of man. People can be misled by the enlightened as well as by the religious fanatics.  My comment must be short, but perhaps you get the point I am trying to make.  Gerry
http://journals.aol.com/gehi6/daughters-of-the-shadow-men/        

Anonymous said...

Um, no, Gerry, I don't. My entry wasn't about abortion. Would you like me to write one on that topic?
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Oh sheesh... Paul... don't open up that can of worms or you may get lots and lots and lots of psycho stalkers....

be well,
Dawn

Anonymous said...

what are your beliefs surrounding the time periods for which there are as of yet no records, Paul Simon and Kate?
natalie

Anonymous said...

Natalie,
  I'm not sure what you are asking. There are many, detailed records about the time period of Paul Simon (which extends to the present, as he is still recording, and released a new album this year, in fact). I would need more information, though, to discuss this Kate of which you speak.
;-)
-Paul

Anonymous said...

One night only:  Paul Simon and Kate live at the Orpheum Theater.  

Anonymous said...

dear Paul
ah.. me thinks a little banter for the chicka
:)
natalie

Anonymous said...

what about the element of doubt?

Anonymous said...

What are you trying to say, Nat? Spit it out.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

I did Paul ..:).. I did...
Do you allow for the existence of doubt?
The true scientists, philospohers and writers whom I admire always allow for the existence of doubt with any theory or any postulate...so?
Let me know...
natalie

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,
when you read this, please come over and comment
nat


http://journals.aol.com/lurkynat/Interface/entries/2006/11/11/doubt-does-it-exist-do-you-doubt-your-theories/1247

Anonymous said...

ps the earlier comment?
what ahppened before the timeperiods of which we are aware...
natalie

Anonymous said...

Nat,
  I did go over to your journal and comment on your question about doubt. As for your other question, please define the phrase, "before time periods of which we are aware."
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Paul, so is it safe to assume you have evolved into an asshole?  I have to say, there are people in this world that should succumb to the process of evolution, like the person who made that comment.  Here's a new one for someone to fuss about.  What's wrong with evolution and creationism going hand in hand?  Why have one and not the other?  What ever happened to shades of grey?

Anonymous said...

Debbi,
  There are many Christians who believe that evolution is the way humans are capable of understanding creation. What I am arguing against here is that particular delusion known as "Young Earth Creationism." Some things are impossible to disprove. The idea that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four hour periods less than ten thousand years ago is not one of those things.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

Paul, I respect your views, as always, but what makes you think that a day in the eyes of God is 24 hours long?  In my opinion, the Bible, where creationism has its beginnings, is a book written for man in the most simple terms possible to describe things we cannot conceive.  And man created religion, but God created faith.  So, why do I believe in the resurrection, you might ask?  Because of faith, and because, to me, this life is a stepping stone to the next one.  If you read the works of Joseph Campbell, he states that one thing that he found unique, is that most cultures, independent of other cultures, all included some form of the resurrection, life after death.  How does this tie into creationism?  It just illustrates that to apply the reasoning of man to the reasoning of God is futile.
deb
http://ramblingsfromtheoutsideofnowhere.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

  I'm sorry, Debbi, but you are simply not reading what I am saying. Those people who want to interpret the creation story by saying, "hey, maybe God's days are longer," or, "maybe the word 'day' in the bible creation story is a metaphor for something the writers were unable to understand," are not the people I am quareeling with here. The fact is, there are those people who contend that the world was created in SIX LITERAL TWENTY-FOUR HOUR PERIODS LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND LITERAL YEARS AGO.
  Stop. Go back and read that last sentence very carefully. Some people actually believe that. They believe that God created the world some time between 6,000 and 7,000 years ago, and that it only took him 144 hours, as we understand hours today. Now, if God exists as the Bible describes him, then he certainly has the power to have done that. In fact, if God is as modern Christianity understands him to be, then he could have done it all in the blink of an eye. Who needs an eternity of 144 hours? He's God, right?
  But, the evidence that we collect every day disputes that hypothesis. We have solid evidence - a whole hell of a lot of it - the places the age of the earth at almost 5 billion years, and that life first arose over one billion of those years ago. So, again and again I say this, I am not - in this essay - disputing the existence of God. I am simply expressing the view that those people who adhere to the specific *YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM* idea, are mistaken, and are spreading mis-information about it.
-Paul

Anonymous said...

I see your point.  An absolute literal interpretation of the bible is something I do not recommend.  All of this, in my eyes, points to fanaticism.  And those very same people have evidently not read the book of Timothy, where women, to say the least, are considered unclean.  Any form of fanaticism is the stepping-stone to war and injustice.  I hope you do read Joseph Campbell, he is an anthropologist, or was, but his writings are fascinating.