Question about Evolution

For you to debate.

Does it matter? Does it really matter in most of our daily lives whether or not we humans were created by God or evolved from monkeys.

Does it change who you are? Does it change how you live? Does it affect whether or not you can get a job or be educated?

Alot of people get hung up about it, because it's not good science, not provable (Edit: Took out personal bias, want to stick to the discussion), but at the end of the day... does it really matter whether or not you believe in evolution or not?

^ I agree, schools should teach other theories.

Not religious theories though, because there is nothing substantial to back them up. It's based on faith, not fact. So I would keep them out of the Science department.

Those sort of things are better of being discussed in a Philosophy course. That way people don't get confused, and are able to separate fact from myth (or faith/personal belief, you get what I'm saying.)

Original Post by m0m6:

"The main theory of how we were created is Evolution. A vast majority of scientists support this theory, but there are other theories out there, like Creation."

I honestly don't have a problem with presenting different ideas to kids in school, I just wish it would be presented accurately (and it appears your teacher did not).  Creationism is not a scientific theory, the ToE does not address the origin of life, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

fwiw philosophy is science

however philosophy does not belong in a biology class, where one would discuss evolution.

Original Post by m0m6:

This is along the lines of what my 7th grade G.A.T.E science teacher told us.

"The main theory of how we were created is Evolution. A vast majority of scientists support this theory, but there are other theories out there, like Creation."

I can't remember everything she said, but this is a rough memory of what the lesson started out as. She just mentioned the name of the theory. If a student has a question about it, then the teacher can tell them where to find more information. Like a citation page or someting. Information in of it-self isn't "religious." It's how it is interpreted. That's my take on it. I just want to have the power to choose!

at a 7th grade level, this isn't inappropriate.  but you can't expect to get through high school without a minimal understanding of evolution.  whether or not you accept the theory is choice, but schools would be terribly negligent not to teach it.

this idea of choice sounds lovely and democratic, but some parents don't think it's particularly important for their kids to read classic literature, learn basic computer skills, or be able to run a mile.  should those be parents' choices too?

Original Post by mrneville:

Very nice discussion pgeorgian. So here's a question: does the christianity suggest a hierarchy in the world?  Isn't evolution about hierarchy?

Mr. Neville

 hey mr neville - sorry - my internet was down for a few days.

does christianity suggest a hierarchy?  it doesn't suggest it; it lays it out very clearly.  god is at the top, then men, then women, children, and animals.  the last three are provided to meet the needs of men, and men are to serve god.

i see evolution as the opposite: rather than a pyramid with a single all-powerful being at the top, it's a tree, with each (surviving) branch, leaf, and bud more refined than the branch it grew from. 

Original Post by ignayshus:

fwiw philosophy is science

however philosophy does not belong in a biology class, where one would discuss evolution.

Yes, technically philosophy is considered a science.
...wasn't science a subset of philosophy...? I could be wrong on that one..

There are however, major differences between contemporary science and philosophy (which was what I was getting at,) but I'm sure you already knew that.
I believe there's been some debate over that issue during the past 100 years.

ANYWAYS, I think most people were able to get my point....

I'm a lil' tipsyispy, I hope that made sense....

We agree. Philosophy is science, however science in the context that you were using it (biological science) is not the forum to discuss religion or any other issue that is best discussed in a philosophy class.

I just was pointing out that philosophy is science and does in fact rely on evidence, primarily logic, with the validity of the assumptions and the construction of the logic being the primary methods for assessing the relative accuracy of a statement.

Anyway, carry on and enjoy your drunken debauchery :)

So I think that good science can definitely go hand in hand with very good science. In fact, lots of prominent scientists today (although I will need to look up their names - sorry!) are actually creationists.

 I'd be interested to see those names because, to my knowledge (as a working scientist/university instructor who keeps up with the current scientific literature in other fields as well as her own), there are *no* prominent/respected scientists who are creationists.  There are respected scientists who believe in God.  There are respected scientists who believe that God had some role in starting/guiding evolution.  But there has been no peer-reviewed work supporting creationism or intelligent design, and there are no respected scientists working in this field.

What there is is a cottage industry funded by extremely conservative/right wing fundamentalists who misuse statistics in such a way to mislead the public into thinking evolution is impossible.  They misrepresent various scientific principles (with the second law of thermodynamics being a favourite) in order to further this cause.  They talk about how evolution is "only a theory".  Yet they don't seem to have a problem with the theory of gravity - nor does anybody else I've ever met.  The number of scientists in this group is minimal; honestly, the Newsweek figure of 700 surprised me as being seemingly high. 

Anyone with a sound understanding of physics and chemistry can see through the creationist literature (which has never been published in peer-reviewed journals because it's completely unscientific).  Heck, I could do it as a high school student!  I had a fundamentalist biology teacher who decided all on her own that we should be taught the two side by side and made us read the "evidence" for creationism.  It was laughable and essentially consisted of twisting and misrepresenting science in an effort to match the bible.

What really gets me is that, while there may be many atheist/agnostic scientists, there are lots of religious ones too.  God plays no part in evolutionary theory, but (s)he's not excluded from it either.  Creationism has been discredited; God hasn't been.  So, why do some religious groups portray science and evolution as being anti-God?  It's not.  God isn't science.  (S)he can't be proven or disproven.  So, (s)he doesn't belong in science class.  But that should be a good thing from their perspective - because it means that nobody's going to be taught that there's no God.  At least, not in science class. 

My personal opinion on how to deal with differing beliefs:  If you want your kid to believe that God played a role in creation, talk to them about what they've learned at school.  Tell them your beliefs.  Help your child to understand the difference between faith-based beliefs and evidence-based beliefs and that they can both be valid but that they come from different places.  Help your child to develop their faith, but don't insulate them from the world and pretend that everyone else agrees with you.  Isn't faith supposed to be stronger in the face of adversity anyway?

I shall, even though I'm still extremely confused.

I really don't know much of anything about philosophy, but I didn't think it had to have evidence to back its ideas up.
I thought questions that philosophers proposed and were provable were then considered science.

You know the whole, scientists are observers and philosophers are thinkers, type deal.

...but I mean, I know nothing about science ( or religion for that matter,) so what do I know :)

Here is a link to a great site that deals with evolution vs. creationism. There is a forum where people get really riled up. Several hard line creationists hotly debate the hard line evolutionists. In the main part of the site there is a lot of very useful information on the history of evolution, creationism, arguments to avoid for both, history of science, etc.

http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/evol utionindex.msnw

Original Post by jblarghp:

I shall, even though I'm still extremely confused.

I really don't know much of anything about philosophy, but I didn't think it had to have evidence to back its ideas up.
I thought questions that philosophers proposed and were provable were then considered science.

You know the whole, scientists are observers and philosophers are thinkers, type deal.

...but I mean, I know nothing about science ( or religion for that matter,) so what do I know :)

 My Uncle is a Dr. of Philosophy. I could ask him what he thinks, if that would offer some insight into this discussion?

Original Post by jblarghp:

I shall, even though I'm still extremely confused.

I really don't know much of anything about philosophy, but I didn't think it had to have evidence to back its ideas up.
I thought questions that philosophers proposed and were provable were then considered science.

You know the whole, scientists are observers and philosophers are thinkers, type deal.

...but I mean, I know nothing about science ( or religion for that matter,) so what do I know :)

the primary way to test the accuracy of a philosophical argument is to test the accuracy of the assumptions and the structure of the logic.

but you are correct, philosophy is one of our tools for understanding the unobservable.

Since you asked for a Ph.D.s opinion.    Philosophy, literally means love of wisdom of knowledge (From the Greek: philo - love & sophia - wisdom).  So a philosopher is a lover of knowledge.

In the context of most academic degrees, a "doctor of philosophy" is a "teacher of philosophy - from the Latin, I believe.  However, that "philosophy" is one specific to a subject.  So, for example, a doctor of philosophy in Chemical engineering (like myself) has made it through a program in which he or she is then qualified to teach that science and closely related ones to others.  I view the Ph.D. as a license to learn, as that is what you should be doing, learning how to learn about and answer open ended questions.

Philosophy as a subject in and of itself consists of various branches: Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, Epistemology, Politics, etc.  On this specifically, perhaps you should ask a philosophy major or read the wikipedia entry for more inormation.  In general, for most people, I think this is a nice summary from Ayn Rands view of philosophy:

"The science of philosophy studies the fundamentals of human thought and action. It asks and answers questions such as: What kind of world do I live in? Do I control my own destiny? What do I know? Can I prove it? What is the good? Should I be selfish and pursue my own interests, or should I devote myself to serving God or other people?"  (1)

So, loosly, Philosophy should guide an individual on how to lead their lives.  Problems obviously arise when various philosophies clash.  (Warning, this may be biased from here on as I am a student of Objectivism  ) Many would catagorize christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, etc as philosophies.  However, I believe most students of Objectivism would discount these as primitive pre-philosophy attempts to answer the questions of how individuals should live their lives and interact with one another. (2)

The philosophy entry at Wikipedia mainly supports the above, and specifically defines it as a systematic, reasoned approach to answering the questions (as opposed to many religious approaches which rely on faith - "just believe it because the religious leader says so").  So, a specific subject may have an associated philosophy (philosophy of science, history, mathematics, etc.)

"Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, justice, beauty, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument" (3)

References:

1) Ayn Rand - importance of philosophy: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagena me=ayn_rand_ideas_importance_of_philosophy

2) Rand on Religion: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagena me=media_topic_religion

3) Philosophy entry at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_philos ophy

For those interested in Ayn Rands Objectivism:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagena me=objectivism_intro

In my opinion, Rand was one of the greatest minds since Jefferson.