Yale Scientist abanding Darwin's Evolution

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Now people will say, that science can't detect something immaterial. Well, we know we are a buildup of atoms, so we as a buildup of atoms should interact with the spirit? So why can't we detect this bond between our atoms buildup and spirit?

You have said it yourself. Science cannot detect the immaterial. When we consider the bond between physical atoms and consciousness we are in the realms of etheric matter which is currently beyond scientific measurement. One day science will catch up.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Altair,

To each his own. Trying to intellectualize spirituality is most likely a dead-end.

I don't think that will always be applicable. For example, we now have a better understanding about the causes of disease or disorders such as epilepsy. Pre-modern science it was common to believe (some of) this was about demons, and you had to be 'healed' by priest or prayer. If things didn't work out than the demon is either too strong or you lack faith. That's how it often works in religion: If things go your way you simply have faith or good karma, if things don't work out you must review your faith and blame yourself. That's where we can end up when we discard the intellect.

Originally Posted by iamthat

At a conservative estimate there are 2.3 million stones in the Great Pyramid weighing on average 2.5 tons each. Supposedly the Great Pyramid took 20 years to build. If they worked around the clock for 20 years then each stone would have been put in place in under 5 minutes. If they only worked in daylight then it would have been one stone every 2.5 minutes, all just using ropes and sleds and timber cranes. For me at least, these "facts" do not make sense. But that is the orthodox view because there was supposedly no other technology available. Any alternative possibilities mean revising our understanding of human history.

I haven't done the calculations, but one could suggest that it took more than 20 years. If it's unresolved that still doesn't give credence to there being advanced tech. You brought up this example, but how it relates to evolution or natural selection is a mystery in itself, because even if they actually had advanced technology that still wouldn't matter or change the fact that those people were homo sapiens.

Originally Posted by Altair

I don't think that will always be applicable. For example, we now have a better understanding about the causes of disease or disorders such as epilepsy. Pre-modern science it was common to believe (some of) this was about demons, and you had to be 'healed' by priest or prayer. If things didn't work out than the demon is either too strong or you lack faith. That's how it often works in religion: If things go your way you simply have faith or good karma, if things don't work out you must review your faith and blame yourself.

If someone has faith or belief in something and it's not harmful to themselves and others it's my opinion that's their business and who am I to impose my worldview on them. Belief and experience are uniquely personal and no one can look inside someone else's heart and mind.

"First do no harm" unless it prevents a greater harm and is the only viable way.

Concerning the topic at hand, if someone wants to believe in creationism or Young Earth even though the evidence against such beliefs is massive and incontrovertible that's fine with me. Where I would draw the line is trying to introduce such beliefs into government policy or education.

It just seems to me shattering someone's faith or belief which they derive comfort from or simply introducing doubt is inflicting suffering upon them, of which there's far, far too much in this world.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

I haven't done the calculations, but one could suggest that it took more than 20 years. If it's unresolved that still doesn't give credence to there being advanced tech. You brought up this example, but how it relates to evolution or natural selection is a mystery in itself, because even if they actually had advanced technology that still wouldn't matter or change the fact that those people were homo sapiens.

The original comment which gave rise to all this was that the evolution and development of humanity is well understood. I suspect that much remains to be understood and explained.

Another anomaly is the Piri Reis map of 1513, compiled from older sources, which seemingly shows the outline of Antarctica free from ice. Supposedly Antarctica was not known until discovered in 1840. If maps of Antarctica existed before it was covered in ice, then again all our ideas of human development have to be reconsidered.

But the orthodox view will resist alternative ideas until something is discovered which will change everything.

Peace

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Concerning the topic at hand, if someone wants to believe in creationism or Young Earth even though the evidence against such beliefs is massive and incontrovertible that's fine with me. Where I would draw the line is trying to introduce such beliefs into government policy or education.

It just seems to me shattering someone's faith or belief which they derive comfort from or simply introducing doubt is inflicting suffering upon them, of which there's far, far too much in this world.

I agree people are entitled to their beliefs, but they're not entitled to misuse science or brainwash children. If that ''shatters'' their faith than that is their problem to deal with. I may believe in the Easter Bunny and if others tell me that's nonsense I can go play the sad panda or I can mature up and the face reality that there likely isn't an Easter Bunny. I don't think the comfort around faith/belief means they should be immune to questioning or investigation.

@iamthat; There's nothing to suggest the Piri Reis map shows Antarctica. It's much more likely to be an inaccurate representation of South America. Animals as well as sea levels prove that the two continents have been separated for a very long time.

If you want to use that map as basis for your beliefs, than you must content to the fact that it, for instance, cuts of the southern part of Portugal.

Originally Posted by Altair

I agree people are entitled to their beliefs, but they're not entitled to misuse science or teach brainwash children. If that ''shatters'' their faith than that is their problem to deal with. I may believe in the Easter Bunny and if others tell me that's nonsense I can go play the sad panda or I can mature up and the face reality that there likely isn't an Easter Bunny. I don't think the comfort around faith/belief means they should be immune to questioning or investigation.

So people are entitled to their beliefs so long as their beliefs don't conflict with yours? To be clear I'm speaking of personal beliefs that are not being imposed on others through force of government.

You used the word 'parsimony' in a previous reply to me. Seems to me that applies to your take on confronting other people's beliefs that don't comport with yours. Maybe that's something to reflect on?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

So people are entitled to their beliefs so long as their beliefs don't conflict with yours? To be clear I'm speaking of personal beliefs that are not being imposed on others through force of government.

I thought I wrote clearly, but allow me to rephrase my sentence and clarify: ''I agree people are entitled to their beliefs, but they're not entitled to misuse science or brainwash children.''

I would say people can believe whatever they want in their free time, but they aren't entitled to misuse science or teach falsehoods, such as flat earth, young earth, or what have you. Neither are they entitled to tell children they should believe in this or that god otherwise they'd burn in hell or are stuck reincarnating until they do believe..

You used the word 'parsimony' in a previous reply to me. Seems to me that applies to your take on confronting other people's beliefs that don't comport with yours. Maybe that's something to reflect on?

Please check what it means, and how it relates to describing natural phenomenon.
It is simply non-parsimonious to add another layer, i.e. ''god'', when observing and describing species and changes.

Originally Posted by Altair

I thought I wrote clearly, but allow me to rephrase my sentence and clarify: ''I agree people are entitled to their beliefs, but they're not entitled to misuse science or brainwash children.''

I would say people can believe whatever they want in their free time, but they aren't entitled to misuse science or teach falsehoods, such as flat earth, young earth, or what have you. Neither are they entitled to tell children they should believe in this or that god otherwise they'd burn in hell or are stuck reincarnating until they do believe.

Does that include religious schools or bible studies sponsored by religious institutions? Are parents not allowed to determine what in their opinion is best for their children, or is that your responsibility?

Originally Posted by Altair

IPlease check what it means, and how it relates to describing natural phenomenon. It is simply non-parsimonious to add another layer, i.e. ''god'', when observing and describing species and changes.

Doesn't the same apply when attempting to strip that layer from a believer? You're looking at it strictly from your perspective (scientific) and dismissing other perspectives (religious). Isn't that being stingy (parsimonious) with compassion and isn't compassion a core of spirituality whether religious or otherwise?

On a personal level I once dated a woman who was a strict Born Again Baptist and was raising her triplet 10 year old boys after that fashion. She was also an IT techie like myself (we were coworkers) and very intelligent as were her boys. One night we were watching something on TV and it was related to cosmology and one of her boys scoffed at the idea of a 13.8 billion year old universe, saying it was only six or seven thousand years old. They also attended public school and I really couldn't fathom how they reconciled what they were taught at home with what they were taught in school, however it really wasn't my place to point out they were wrong.

From an ethical perspective I don't feel the need to correct people's deep-held religious beliefs. They are free to proselytize and science is also free to educate and let the audience decide which worldview they subscribe to. I think both perspectives can be accomplished in a way without being accusatory or dismissive.

By the way, good discussion. It allows me to float these concepts around in my head, and regardless whether I come to a new understanding or reinforce my existing understanding is beside the point, so I do appreciate the civil discourse.

[Altair]

This is turning into a discussion on whether religion should be imposed on children and other people. I'm a strong supporter of a secular society, and keeping religion in the private sphere. While I actually wouldn't mind discussing it further, SimpleGuy, I don't think this is the right thread for it..

Originally Posted by Altair

This is turning into a discussion on whether religion should be imposed on children and other people. I'm a strong supporter of a secular society, and keeping religion in the private sphere. While I actually wouldn't mind discussing it further, SimpleGuy, I don't think this is the right thread for it..

Fair enough and I respect that. It's not proper forum etiquette to hijack a thread.