This Evolution Thing, Seriously Now.

[Plaid Adder]

I started a joke thread about this last night introducing the theory of Spiteful Design:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3962087&mesg_id=3962087

This actually opened up some real questions about why this planet works the way it does and what could really be responsible, which got me thinking about my own difficulties with evolutionary science, or more broadly speaking scientific materialism in general. I'm gonna warn you right now this will probably get long.

I've spent some time working on the history of medicine, and anyone who has will tell you that the scientific method does not necessarily produce truth. There are theories and practices that become accepted by the medical community not because they actually cure patients but because they support some piece of the ideological, social, or theoretical framework that perpetuates the dominance of orthodox medicine. Reproductive medicine is one area in which this becomes fairly visible because for so long medicine was so male-dominated, and the scientists and clinicians alike were so, well, downright messed up when it came to reading and treating bodies that were built differently from their own. Even now, modern orthodox medicine still has a strong tendency toward interventionist, technological, pharmaceutical solutions that sometimes create trouble for patients. America still leads the world in C-sections, for instance, even though there has lately been a reaction against ordering up a C-section every time a delivery encounters an obstacle.

My point is that although science is supposed to be objective and 'factual,' in practice scientific materialism is a belief system like anything else, and creates its own blindnesses, biases, and distortions. There are things that were accepted as undisputed truth 50 years ago which are now considered complete bullshit. There are also, undoubtedly, things that are now accepted as undisputed truth which will be judged 50 years hence to be complete bullshit. We just don't know what they are, because these soon-to-be-debunked scientific theories support and reflect beliefs about human nature and human society that we are not ready to abandon.

I am not a scientist, and therefore when I talk about 'evolution' I'm really only talking about the popular understanding of it. And one of the things that has long bothered me about popular applications of evolutionary theory is that it provides support for what I consider to be completely outlandish justifications of human behavior on the grounds that it has its root in some principle of natural or sexual selection. I was, for instance, greatly annoyed by Jared Diamond's book _The Third Chimpanzee_, in which he uses evolutionary theory to explain, for instance, binge drinking among college students. (It's a compensatory behavior engaged in by males who wish to prove to the available females that they are SO physically and sexually fit that they can deliberately handicap themselves by getting falling-down drunk and STILL be studly. No, I'm not making that up, it's in the book.) What pissed me off about TTC, and about many popular applications of evolutionary science, is that they cannot explain homosexuality except as some kind of freak aberration. We don't fit into the narrative of natural selection very well, as we are a dead end from the point of view of species survival, and so evolution becomes just another way to make us all mutants.

Now, there have been studies done that actually show that homosexual behavior is more common among animals than was originally thought, and have come up with ways of explaining how this fits in with the principles of natural and sexual selection. But even that reveals one of my issues with evolution, which is that in the wrong hands, the principle of natural selection becomes as all-powerful and, in a sense, all-knowing as the God that the Creationists are afraid it will replace. It becomes the Inexorable Law that explains everything and makes sense of a chaotic universe; things that would otherwise seem bizarre and implausible make sense because they are all part of the process of natural selection. And being an equal-opportunity skeptic, I am always suspicious of any system that tries to make one principle the Prime Mover. And being an infertile lesbian, I am ESPECIALLY suspicious of any system that tries to justify modern gender-based behaviors and formations of modern society on the grounds that they are all rooted in the female's mission to produce as many offspring as possible and the man's drive to spread his seed hither and yon.

Now, this does not mean that I don't think evolution should be taught in a high school science class. The point of a high school science class is to enable students to understand, and eventually 'do,' if they are so inclined, science. As long as evolution is the accepted explanation of how life got to be this way, then that's what they should be teaching. The concerns I'm talking about would be more appropriate for a class in philosophy, literature, anthropology, or even theology.

At the same time, I do think there is some value in challenging the dominance of scientific materialism as the one and only belief system that shapes the modern understanding of the world. There are things that science still cannot and probably will not ever explain satisfactorily--and yet, science feels like it has to try. This is, IMHO, one reason for the problems we are now running into with malpractice lawsuits: there is this presumption that medicine should always be able to save us from anything, when in fact it can't. This is most obvious among those OB-GYNs who are sadly unable to share their love with American women because the medical profession still pretends that death is not and should never be an outcome of delivery. In fact, as a friend of mine whose partner's first baby was stillborn for no apparent reason found out, stillbirth is much more common than most people would imagine, and in many cases there is no satisfactory explanation. Death is part of birth as it is part of life in general; but one of the ways scientific materialism maintains its dominance is by promising to save us from it.

You could, of course, say all of these things and more besides about fundamentalist Christianity, whose appeal derives largely from the desire to be 'saved' (not just from hell, but from death itself) and which is even more wedded to 'natural' conceptions of reproductive and sexual behavior than scientific materialism.

Again, I'm not trying to put religion on an equal footing with science, or suggest that hospitals treat patients through prayer. When I'm sick I go to the doctor like everyone else, and though I often find myself unwilling to fill prescriptions, especially after seeing all the little logo-bearing gifts from pharmaceutical companies that litter my internist's office, I would rather trust her than trust someone who's going to realign my chakras and hope for the best. My point is just that I operate under the assumption that the world is always going to be too complicated and too chaotic to be truly explained by any one belief system. Everyone's got to pick one that works for them, because like the computers we've created we all seem to need some kind of OS in order to run our software. But it's worth it to remember that your OS has limitations, and to be open to considering others.

Which, of course, is exactly the principle that the fundamentalist Christians who are pushing "intelligent design" consider dangerous blasphemy, as the whole point of being a fundamentalist is that there is One True Way which is yours and any other belief system is a snare of the Devil. But I wonder sometimes if the rabidness of all this religious backlash isn't some kind of revolt against the apparently unbreakable dominance of scientific materialism--that because scientific materialism isn't particularly flexible when it comes to allowing room for non-materialist belief systems, the Christian right has decided to just break it once and for all.

I certainly don't want to see fundamentalist Christianity unseat scientific materialism as the dominant belief system in this country. Apart from everything else, it would soon consign me to the outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth; and the other thing is that most of the time, scientific materialism does appear to get the job done, whereas I have no faith that Pat Roberston would be any use when faced with an influenza epidemic. But my point is that one way out of the religion wars is to try to make scientific materialism more flexible and more able to coexist peacefully with non-materialist understandings of the universe.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[whistle]

1. Planet of the Apes

[bowens43]

2. Science is not a belief system. Evolution is not a belief system.

there is no room in science for anything that is 'non-material' or supernatural. There is no room for 'flexibility'.

The term 'Scientific materialism' is meaningless. It's something creationists use to cast science in a bad light. Anything for which there is not a hypothetical 'falsification' is outside the realm of science. Religion, ID, spiritualism etc can not be falsified therefore they are outside the realm of science.

[K-W]

4. Science has room for everything that proveably exists.

What they did is take something they believed to be true and got it tested.

When the test came out proving them wrong, they assumed science was wrong.

From this they assumed that science was inadeguate and there must be things that science cant detect that are true.

When, in fact, science is a method that can be used on anything.

[K-W]

3. Science is is a rational analaysis of evidence. That is all.

It means applying reason to everything we can observe.

So the only alternatives to science are being unreasonable or inventing evidence, which in fact, is what the critics of science do.

You want to argue that the humans who have and do practice science have been pretty freakin wrong and probably still are in many cases, of course, but that is one of the first things you learn about science, it can only test theories to the best of our abilities. We can only know things 'to the best of our knowledge'

But the trick is that it is impossible to know things with anymore certaintity than that no matter how convienent it would be, all we can do is observe and reason, anything past that will not inform you about reality because it will be corrupted by false evidence or faulty reasoning.

The failures of science are most often a lack of proper science. All of the ideology stuff you talk about, the biases etc is BAD SCIENCE. Science like anything else can be done badly, but mistaking bad science for science is a mistake.

And, by the way, nobody hates bad science more than good scientists.

[Beetwasher]

5. It's Not SM that's Inflexible

SM is incredibly flexible (in that it's self correcting) and in fact is quite compatible w/ spirituality and non materialistic belief systems. There are all sorts of questions that SM won't/doesn't and shouldn't touch. But anything objective and physical IS the realim of SM. Scientific Method is a tool, a tool that can be used badly. It's not SM that needs to be modified or adjusted, it's the people who use it badly who need to be adjusted.

[NuckinFutz]

6. Indeed, both science and mysticism have their place...

and it seems they overlap quite a bit. I've always thought that with creation/evolution theories, we're likely never to find the answer, because you can always keep asking the question "...and what did that evolve from?" ad infinitum. Some folks just take larger leaps of faith than others. (on edit: overlap isn't quite right. Scientific method allows for new knowledge, so as we learn more, accepted practices change. Pure faith usually doesn't require more/new knowledge, and is often not prepared for it. New knowledge that scares the faithful.)

On another point...I wonder if homosexuality has increased in the past century for evolutionary reasons, as a way to stem population growth. Mind you, this is just conjecture, I have no facts or figures. It just seems to me that 'mother nature' makes adjustments to protect herself. As Jeff Goldplum so aptly put it in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way."

[K-W]

10. There is no leap of faith involved.

Simply an understanding that our ability to know is flawed. Just because we dont know exactly how the first cells form doesnt mean it is a leap of faith to say they did form and then evolved.

That is simply the part of the picture we have evidence about, we dont have enough evidence about cell formation to know with any confidence exactly how it happened.

And homosexuality couldnt be evolving in the matter you suggest, at least not through natural selection. I think you are better off looking at the freedom granted to homosexuals by the existance of cities and larger communities as populations increase.

[NuckinFutz]

16. Leap of faith probably wasn't the right phrase...

What I meant to convey was that with science, there will always be another question, "where did that come from?". I think faith enters the equation to answer the unanswerable. Some people stop asking that question on less information than others. Thankfully, there are still those who keep questioning, for they are the catalysts for progress.

[K-W]

17. Yes, science doesnt try to guess randomly.

You are suggesting that when we cant rationally understand something it then becomes ok to believe in something unproven because it is better to have a bad answer than no answer?

It is a strength of science that it aknowledges the limitations of human understanding and observation.

[NuckinFutz]

24. I think, for too many people, a bad answer is better than none...

Many fundementalists would argue that evolution is just such a bad answer. The problem is, they stopped asking the question early on, and will not consider other possibilities. They're content with believing God created everything, and don't think we should be trying to figure out how it was done. Any science indicating humans are more closely related to the animal kingdom than the god who created them naturally is vehemently rejected.

[K-W]

26. That is certainly true.

The problem arises because bad answers arent really answers.

As far as evolution, we have ways of testing whether an answer is good or bad. So far evolution has proved a great answer.

[MsUnderstood]

7. I have a thought. . .with absolutely no validation. . .

Regarding homosexuality and the inability to prove it through evolution. . . ..

Back in college a gay friend of mine told me about research being done about why homosexuality in humans and the conclusion that came up was that homosexuals have in the past been the elite in the tribe/culture/environment. They were the medicine men, philosophers, etc and were gay because evolutionary speaking it was better to have a human focus on bettering society then breeding for it.

I think the researcher's conclusion was to focus more on the possibility of the "gay gene" which not only delivers sexuality it also delivers higher intelligence?

This idea, of course, does two things: it unfairly puts homosexuals on a pedestal of higher cognitive ability than heterosexuals which is impossible to prove. We can say with some proof that some societal elites= homosexuals but we can't say that all homosexuals were societal elites and it still fails to explain why homosexuality--it only shows an outcome of homosexuality in certain societies.

[Beaver Tail]

8. My Thoughts

Because I am not educated in medicine to medical doctrine I will refrain from speaking about something I know absolutely nothing about.

The whole issue I have with Christian Doctrine specifically is all the problems with the bible. The Bible is full of more contractions than I dare admit and the whole issue with religious theology is it cannot be tested. With all the disagreements in Christianity (if there were no disagreements at all then there would only be one or two religions) it makes it difficult to point out who is right and who is wrong (or maybe they are all wrong or all right).

Many years ago people had superstitions that were held as Religious Taboos. Today with science we have been able to debunk those superstitions and proven religion wrong on many occasions. This is because science can be tested.. There are plenty of examples.

Although we do not have answers today to many scientific questions, 300 years ago aspirin would have probably been considered a tool of the devil. Today because if science we know exactly what Aspirin can do and is not considered a devils tool but a medicine (think I am off base here? Just take a look at what Christianity did to the believers of pagan religions).

In short even though I am Christian I hold the bible at an arms length, as a GUIDE to better my life and not the absolute sent of rules that define what morality should and should not be. The bible after all says its ok to sell your daughter into slavery as long as you get a fair price.

EDIT HERE:

BTW. When Science is wrong it is usually another scientist who points it out then corrects it.

[K-W]

12. Evolution has no problem with homosexuality, that is an invented problem

Nature is chock full of behaviors that dont seem adaptive. It is a gross misunderstanding of evolution to think that everything and every behavior have to serve a purpose or even to have served a purpose. Especially not human behavior which has adjusted to social environmental changes so rapidly that genetic evolution does not respond, so you have an extremely dynamic nexus of genetics and environment which produces an immense diversity in behavior.

[bloom]

13. "medicine men, philosophers, etc"

It's not unlike priests and nuns and the idea that Paul put out about it being better to be celibate and give oneself over to God - focusing on spiritual matters...

And I suppose priests were on a pedestal for centuries - maybe they still are among some people.

[MsUnderstood]

46. Yes priests were put on pedestals

And that is an excellent point that the catholic church used this same idea that celebiacy made you a better person.

[fujiyama]

72. Homosexuality

has been observed in other species as well. There was an interesting article in the NYT about penguins and others animals observed to have shown homosexual behavior.

However human nature and its general bigotry against those who go against societal norms has caused many gays to be "in the closet" for many years and it was repressed.

[bloom]

9. Scientific materialism

"The belief that the universe is completely governed by natural laws"


Hmmmm. It sounds like what is underneath what you are saying is that you don't like that homosexuals are excluded from future evolving - assuming they are out of the reproductive loop.

Of course people can affect the world in different ways and not everything comes down to descendants.


I don't have a problem with natural laws. I rather like the idea. I don't see it as a fad or some nutty idea that is going to go out of fashion among the scientific community.

There will probably always be religious groups that are opposed to the idea, however.

[K-W]

15. There is no such belief.

Science makes no such metaphysical claims. Science simply says that to the best of our knowledge, this is how the universe seems to function. Science is, by definition, not garunteed to be true.

[sui generis]

11. sista you are drinking some gooood coffee

I think that Diamond's theorizing goes well beyond rational hypothesis and well into wild-ass speculation. I have my doubts that emergent behaviors such as binge drinking emerge from sexual selection games, because humans are pretty lousy at coding pre-defined complex behaviors in our genes. Occams Razor is calling on this one.

The point that scientific materialism is swayed by bias and closely held notions is perfectly acceptable - provided we're willing to acknowledge that any knowledge we have is liable to be replaced with better (or more appropriately biased) information as we acquire it.

The main difference between this "belief" system and ID is that scientific principle as a whole dictates that our theories of the world around us are subject to change with new, better, and repeatable (i.e., undeniable) information. We make the best guess and the best derivation we can with the information we have at the time we describe a system or process in the form of a scientific theory. ID is wild-ass speculation based on a rather extreme form of bias and no reference at all to emergent properties and behaviors. It is not subject to change, and in fact is ultimately unproveable under any circumstance.

Addressing one of the ills of "scientific materialism" though has to be, as you say, in our own perception. Why do we think we need an answer to whether there is or isn't a "super entity" calling the shots? Why do we think we need to have a comforting all-knowing god/science/doctor/faith/desktop just to get through the day? We create bad answers sometimes by looking for answers that will comfort us in our post-simian view of the world.

Ultimately, the correct answer is that humans will do more of what works, and less of what doesn't.

Yes there are "high priests" in every belief system, and they influence the very practices of those beliefs, including scientific discovery. The first time we try to stop an influenza epidemic by adjusting chakras or sitting around and praying to the Great Polymath in the Sky will probably be the last time the high priests of chakras and beatific prayer get to hold forth.

[KittyWampus]

19. Intelligent Design Simply States That Nature Has An Inherent Capacity

for Intelligence and Consciousness.

It is perfectly valid to posit that Physical Matter descends from Consciousness as it is to posit that Consciousness arises from Physical Matter.

Why not research ID rather than going on the crap the Creationists and Fundies are spewing?

They are intentionally misusing ID.

[mondo joe]

22. Now if you could just show some evidence to support that BELIEF.

[KittyWampus]

45. The Universe Is Proven To Be Non-Local.Excellent Supporting Proof

and Neo-Darwinists have ..... nothing to bulster their BELIEF that Material Reality is all there is, that Consciousness is merely an epiphenomena of Material Reality.

[mondo joe]

58. Sorry, but you've got nothing to support your claim. Thanks.

[K-W]

28. and it is not perfectly valid to posit that some magical conciousness

birthed the universe.

[KittyWampus]

42. Who Said Anything About "Magical". BTW, Do Some Reading On Dark

Energy and Non-Locality.

[K-W]

47. I said magical. And save the psuedoscience please.

Im not biting.

[sui generis]

31. I reject ID in its entirety

for the second word in the phrase: DESIGN.

At any rate, it's really not my cup of tea and can never be my cup of tea, and falls outside the definition of science anyway. It's a pleasant belief system for those who require it, but it's unproveable to a scientist, and therefore not scientific.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kraklen]

63. Sounds like he's got a clear idea what it is.

And what it is isn't remotely a science.

[Zhade]

71. Correct, but you'll never get cryingshame to admit this very real fact:

It's a belief system with no proof.

[ISUGRADIA]

65. Cite me some evidence for your ID claims from juried scientific

journal

[Zhade]

69. The problem is, you have absolutely no evidence for that.

As such, it is not scientific and cannot be proven to be factually true.

It's a fascinating belief, no question - but it's still just an unsupported belief, not a fact.

[Prism]

14. I see where you're going . . .

I think one of the biggest problems we have is that science has become politicized to some extent. Perhaps it was always this way, as history shows us people have used science to some frightening ends and not always in the most obvious ways. For example, when Darwin's "Origin of the Species" first came out, the upper-classes in America and England used "survival of the fittest" as a kind of personal motto, a horrid justification of their actions during the age of the robber barons. The first applications of modern birth control were actually with the aim of scrubbing society clean of African-Americans. It was all very researched and "for the public health and good."

Back then, people had faith in that. "It's Scientific Truth, so it must be right."

And so it is today. Every day there's a new scientific study saying one thing or another. What's important is how society puts it together. Look at dietary science. Red wine is good. No, bad. No, good. Wait, is milk ok? Yeah, it is. No, wait, it's not. Eggs will kill you! Wait, no, eggs are ok.

People pick and choose the science and go along with whatever. The scientists don't know. They know they don't know. It's the non-scientists who see a few studies and suddenly feel expert on a topic that become the problem.

I think that's the key. We should know what we don't know. Science, at its heart, is skepticism. Things must be proven over and over again. Instead, many people try to shoehorn the science to fit preconceived notions, both political and personal. When you start getting into issues like, say, global warming and homosexuality, people on both sides of the argument will cherry-pick and twist and only use the scientific evidence which is convenient to their point.

Which is the back asswards way to go about respecting science and using it for its stated purpose.

[wtmusic]

53. Great post Prism and

welcome to DU!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

It always amazes me that people don't look at the REASON behind why some explanations of natural phenomena are promoted.

I haven't seen anyone find another reason why Darwin devoted his time and energy to natural selection than pure curiosity. That always produces the best science.

Every theory that advances so-called 'Intelligent Design' leads back to religious dogma and the fear of death.

[Prism]

66. Thanks

=)

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

18. Fundies Are Pushing A Bastardized, Edited Version Of Intelligent Design

And it's the Scientific Industrial Complex which blindly adhers so ardently to Materialism and Reductionism.

It even has its bought and paid for 'debunkers' who carry out character assasinations on those who dare queestion the accepted framework.

However, the Universe has already been proven to be non-local.

There are plenty of respected physicists/scientists who have moved beyond Materialism.

Liberals need to stop their kneejerk reaction when it comes to those of us questioning Neo-Darwinism and its underlying Philosophical basis.

We could actually use Intelligent Design as a wedge to move society forward.

The same Materialism that lies at the base of Neo-Darwinism is the same Materialism that lies at the base of Colonialism and using people as objects.

Once again, I'm ahead of the curve waiting for Liberals to wake up.

[Zhade]

70. "However, the Universe has already been proven to be non-local."

Please provide two things:

1) some documentation of this (I'm curious to see the proof, it's new to me)

2) Why this "proves" your belief system.


"Once again, I'm ahead of the curve waiting for Liberals to wake up."

You're dreaming. Once again, you're positing claims with no proof.

[mondo joe]

20. I have frequently seen homosexuality explained through Kin Selection.

I think you're wrong.

[insane_cratic_gal]

21. What you've described

By most part is not the theory of evolution, but the Psychology of behavior on an evolutionary scale, progressing cavemen behaviors to our current behavior. I can understand the annoyance with the psychology of it. It often belittles humans into roles of gender, sexual orientation, and leaves little to suggest humans were individuals.

Evolution itself deals in facts. Psychology is speculation for why we behave as we do. So some Joe decided he wanted to explore the hunter/gather thing. He came to alot of speculative answers. Most for which I disagree with, as do you. But I don't allow that to turn me off from the science of evolution.

And as far as being gay, it is a natural occurrence in the animal kingdom. I will subscribe that we humans are animals. Do I believe that sexuality is biological? Yes I do, I believe it's hardwired somewhere in the 24/chromosome process when sperm are deciding what sex we will develop into. But not being a scientist, It's my own speculation. I believe it as much as I believe tolerance is subjective to how one is raised or the environment one finds themselves in.

As far as the female womb is concerned, most female critters tend to fight becoming pregnant(Including the female body). There is a set time and season that they will allow a male to approach. Some critters become so pissed off, after the act they eat their mate (widow spiders).
A biological clock for every woman is a myth. Some women never have the urge to have a child. So the psychology again is flawed.

Science has never been a flexible equation nor has the issue of faith. Is it not why they struggle against one another? One offers proof held against the invisible force of "faith" what the human Psyche believes(including faith of science) the will to submit ceases to surrender.

The might as well be different languages, with variants root words running through them. I say there is a root for both science & faith, humans are the root.

[RethugAssKicker]

23. That is the beauty of science

Science seeks the truth. It develops a rational theory, given current knowledge and the theory can/will be replaced by a new theory as our knowledge increases.

Religion on the other hand....Has all the answers already. Any research done, is just to support the already accepted answers.

[Plaid Adder]

25. Well, it's too late to edit the OP, so I'm putting the edits here.

Would have just deleted the whole thing, as this is clearly not the right place to post something I haven't entirely thought through, but it will just have to stand. I don't know what I was thinking exactly, unless I was motivated by some secret frustration with the fact that people here always agree with me.

ON EDIT:

I would like to point out that I did not mean to equate science with religion. The Spiteful Design thread I linked to above makes the point that there is a qualitative difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Back when I was taking AP biology, which I admit is as far as I got, my frustration with trying to understand the fluid mosaic model of the cell membrane led to me formulating the Elf Theory, according to which proteins and so on are ferried from cell to cell by specially trained elves. You cannot, of course, disprove the Elf Theory, since elves are not perceptible in the material world, so if you believe in elves, hey, it could be true. But it wouldn't make any fucking sense to teach that in a science course, because a) it can't be empirically tested b) it doesn't have any practical application and c) it is clearly a crackpot idea dreamed up by someone who finds it easier to fantasize about elves than to understand organic chemistry. A-C are all also true of the Theory of Intelligent Design, as far as I'm concerned, and that's why this debate about 'alternative theories' gets so ridiculous so fast.

I should have made clearer that when I talk about science as a belief system what I'm talking about is not science itself so much as the ways in which lay persons, for whom quantum physics is really as much of a mystery as the Trinity, have latched on to and manipulated it, in some cases creating a mythology around it that has some fairly magical elements.

When I talk about 'flexibility' I'm not talking about trying to account for divine intervention in a lab report. I'm talking about not jumping to the conclusion that because we know how atoms work, we understand the ultimate purpose of the universe. That's all I meant.

BTW, I don't actually drink coffee. Perhaps I should start.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Beetwasher]

27. "Ultimate Purpose"

See, that's one of the questions science should never touch, nor would it. I don't think any reputable scientist would ever suggest otherwise. But that's why science and spiritualism are and can be compatible. They each deal w/ completely separate realms.

[Plaid Adder]

30. Well this is my point.

The reason creationists assume that science and religion are incompatible is that their reading of the Bible is so friggin' literal. But that's another rant.

I do think, though, that there was a point in 20th century history where science became the dominant paradigm through which lay people understood the world, and that it sort of muscled out spiritual alternatives. This is not the fault of science itself, any more than it's Galileo's fault that the Pope freaked out when introduced to the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe. I think it is the fault of people being, for some reason, terribly inclined to fasten onto one paradigm and reject all the others, even ones that could be reconciled easily enough.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Beetwasher]

36. Yup, It's The Fault of Reactionary Assholes, Not Science

It was the reactionary assholes who saw the world as either religion OR science and then set up that false dichotomy. Science never set itself up intentionally as the foe of religion, per se, but religion immediately saw science as a foe and a threat, and I guess for good reason. Gallileo being a very good illustrative example of why/how that happened.

Science IS the foe of ignorance and superstition, unfortunately, religion relies very heavily on those qualities.

[Plaid Adder]

39. Well, you know, ALL religion is not reducible to superstition

and ignorance. Fundamentalism certainly does rely on ignorance and superstition, but part of what I'm trying to do is to get people to stop equating fundamentalism with religion. I think that's something that has actually done the progressive cause a lot of damage, but again, another rant.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[NuckinFutz]

44. It's kind of sad, really...

The vehement rejection of science by the fundies shows how precarious their faith really is.

Religion did come from ignorance and superstition. The difference is that some of them evolved, and some didn't...

[Beetwasher]

49. Well, That's Debatable I Would Say, Though I Won't Debate it

:evilgrin:

[bloom]

52. To some extent...

people need to trust their own observations.

For instance - if I notice that my mind is clearer and I have more peace after doing yoga and some "scientific" report were to come out and say I was just "imagining that" or something - I would just figure it was bogus or figure - so what :shrug: .

Same with other similar things.

To some extent I think people believe what they want to believe because they notice that it makes them feel better and so that's fine.

As far as believing in a purpose to the universe that is outside of scientific observable reality - I think it falls along the same lines of what makes people feel better - not necessarily what is scientifically "true". It could be true for them and it might be the best thing to believe from a peaceful mind standpoint.

It might also be what is best for society - but as the fundies know (or the scientists for that matter) - you can't make everyone believe what you believe - though the evangelicals may try.

[NuckinFutz]

34. The problem is that when explaining some things,

the how(science) often leads straight to the why(spiritualism). On many questions, science can't keep from bumping into that "ultimate purpose". Throughout our history, for most people, the how hasn't been enough; we need the why. In most explanations, how and why intertwine.

Consider the brakes in your car...what good is knowing how they work, if you don't know why you need them?

[Beetwasher]

37. Eh? Science Never Attempt To Explain "Why"

People read that into it.

[NuckinFutz]

38. Okay...it's a different why than the spiritual one

and often at odds with the spiritual one.

[Beetwasher]

48. Not Really. Remember "Why" Is Practically Infinitely Reducible

A question like "Why are we here?" is not answerable by science. But the question "Why do women have ovaries?" is answerable by science. But, for instance, it gets to the point where you might ask "Why do we need to survive as a species?" and that's NOT answerable by science.

[NuckinFutz]

51. that's the point I was trying to make in my first post on this topic.

the conflict comes because everyone has their own point at which they stop asking and are satisfied. Most answer that last 'why' with faith that a deity made it that way, and that's good enough for them.

[sui generis]

32. heh heh Bow Before the Mighty Works of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

ALL YOUR NOODLES ARE BELONG TO ME!!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. It sounds as if you reinvented Maxwell's Demon

http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm

So, not such a silly concept after all... ;-)

I haven't read The Third Chimpanzee, so I don't know exactly what Diamond said. But general posing and boasting, including doing stupid and dangerous things to impress others, are universal traits of young men, which definitely look like the displays of many other species; and the binge drinking culture ("I can drink you under the table") isn't that far off it. I wouldn't say it's been specifically selected for in genes; more that it's a modern manifestation of something that was selected for thousands, or maybe even millions, of years ago.

As far as selection of genes that produce homosexuality goes, I'd be wary of anyone who claims to have the whole thing worked out; but selfish gene theory would say that a non-reproducing sister who helps look after children in a family group is getting just as many of her genes reproduced as a grandmother who is no longer having children. In a complex group, like that of any human, having a minority of women not actually reproducing at their maximum rate may not be a disadvantage, if they still cooperate with others. On top of that, genes that may produce a homosexual preference may also be linked to other traits that are advantageous for the group overall. I don't know what the latest work and theories are.

[msmcghee]

43. Leonard Schlain outlines this view very well . .

. . in "Sex, Time and Power". Also, the "Alphabet vs. the Goddess" is a very good read along these lines.

He brings left-handedness, male pattern baldness and male color-blindness into the equation. Very interesting read.

[K-W]

35. Mythology was being created long before science.

It used to be the extent of human knowledge, and the fact that it persists within science to a much lesser degree is a sign that science has not come far enough, not that science is going too far.

And remember, all science is is evidence+reason. Anything past that is someone's interpretation of what evidence and reason are.

[msmcghee]

40. Don't apologize for one of the most interesting posts I've . . .

. . seen in a long time at DU.

Sometimes wisdom (or a new path to better understanding) is found in the meandering rather than the deliberative mind. Or, the intuitive rather than the analytical mind.

The shaman/berdache/seer theory has credibility in my opinion. I suspect that gender-sex-variant minds posses a greater potential for combining intuitive with analytical information than "straight" minds generally do. This results in a unique kind of problem solving ability that can be functionally integrative - that models reality itself, which consists of neverending layers of both sequential and parallel procceses, connected by chance (or perhaps by design) at critical points of inflection - while "straight" minds tend to follow one path to the detriment of the other.

The human mind is just getting started along this (self-conscious) evolutionary trail. Gender-sex-variance could be the easily observable effects of an evolutionary gambit toward greater human enlightenment. Hopefully, we'll find out before we destroy everything. But I'm prejudiced. The universe doesn't really care.

And that was the tail of the dragon you were pursuing. Please don't stop.

And I'd like to add on edit that this whole topic is full of some very intelligent posts. What a treat.

[XemaSab]

29. Jared Diamond

is a hack.

[Tsiyu]

54. Oooh, I got slammed for expressing the same opinion

when I was a very new DUer.

For some, Science is GAWD ALMIGHTY, and any questioning of science or modern evolutionary theory marks one a fundy or a crackpot.

I appreciate your taking the time to write your thoughts out. There are fanatics on both sides of the fence.

In my opinion, both science and faith have had their successes and failures. I'll trust my mechanic to fix the car (rather than praying to Jesus to "heal" it) because I understand the science - the physics- of the automobile. But I trust the herbs humans have used for thousands of years to keep me healthy (have not been to a doctor in eleven years) even though the scientists claim that is irrational and ignorant.

[fujiyama]

73. I don't understand

why you think people are viewing science as "Gawd Almighty".

People have "trust" in science, because it's a method. It's a tried and proven method. Observations and experiments must be repeatable - that's one of the fundamental tenats of how theories are formed.

The herbs you use are very much worth investigating using the scientific method. It's very possible that there are healing effects for what you have used. The only reason a scientist might claim that using such things is ignorant is because it hasn't been studied - but that's not a fault of science. It's the fault of the humans (namely those with money like pharmacuetical corps) not spending the capital in researching such natural drugs.

Questioning theories is one thing (science isn't about providing all the answers, because it's constantly changing), but ultimately, quantitative and qualitative provability is required to be considered scientific. Stements that don't have those properties cannot be considered scientific which is why ID is not science - the idea of the material universe having consciousness is neither provable nor unprovable.

[Tsiyu]

74. I suppose both science and religion are benign until practiced LOL

And empirical evidence has actually been given for herbs, though not always in labs and released in NEJM.

If we say that science is: positing a cause/effect relationship, as one example, then proving that relationship to be repeatable enough
times, I have done some science right here.

I know for a fact that a certain herb gives me an appetite with very mild side effects. I know for a fact that that herb calms me down, helps me focus, lessens my anxiety, etc. But many scientists, and our own government, claim that there is no medicinal use for this herb. They are scientists. Using science. But I choose to disagree with them, even when they tell me their science is superior to my personal experience. You see, it's not science I reject when I use plants, it's the arrogance of scientists, and their insistence on being right even when they are wrong.

Many herbs have this same historical and effective use; around 25% of pharmaceuticals have as a component a plant-based material, and that figure is probably too low.

I have no use for fundies who keep their sick kids from receiving medical care when there are medicines that would heal them. I have no use for poeple who explain the effects of global warming by claiming it's "Gawd's punishment for our fornication." They are idiots. I believe there is a physiological cause for homosexuality that has no moral or immoral component to it, no more than brown vs blue eyes means anything morally one way or the other. It's not a mutation, just another variation in the realm of humans, in other words.

But I can understand why some folks turn their backs on scientific practice today - when it is often more about $$$$$$ and prestige than in using science to help mankind..

[Kraklen]

55. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

I think you're confusing explanation with justification. There's nobody saying that binge drinking, or date rape, or gang violence is justified; their just making the most logical conclusions based on the evidence. Al Kinsey ran into that kind of wrong headed thinking. He was studying sexuality that people didn't like to think about in the forties and fifties: homosexuality, bisexuality, maritial infidelity, etc. and things people still don't like to think about, like child molestation. He just wanted to study it and report his findings, but people thought that by doing so he was condoning such behaviour. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Scientists are human, I think you're confusing the scientific method with human fallibility. Yes, medical treatment of women by male doctors was historically horrible. But that wasn't the problem of the scientific method, that was the problem with the society that forbid male doctors from examining and studying female health. If you've studied the history, then I'm sure you've seen the old drawings of "obstetricians" wearing blindfolds and keeping sheets between the mother and himself while delivering the child.

I think you're also confusing scientists with medical practitioners, there's really a big difference that a lot of people tend to ignore.

[blindpig]

56. Kin Selection

Homosexuality is nicely explained in natural selection by kin selection. Essentially non-breeding adults promote their genes by aiding the reproductive success of their near relatives. Particularly in situations where resources may not be available for all potential breeding adults to successfully raise young having a few "aunties" and "uncles" around could really make a difference.

Consider: if all breed and resources are poor then few or no genes are advanced to the next generation. But if fewer young are produced and those young receive additional support from their non-breeding "aunts" & "uncles" then those young survive, each carrying a portion of the genetic code of those "aunts" & "uncles". The non-breeding sexuality of those "helpers" is the mechanism that makes this strategy work.

I suspect that homosexuality was SOP for the human species until agriculture came along, that is to say for 99% of humanity's existence. Agriculture produced surplus food, reducing the potential for breeding failure. It also led to patriarchy and armies, the leaders of which probably looked dimly upon feeding mouths that were not producing cannon fodder.

Although we cannot imagine living without agriculture today I suspect it was our biggest mistake. Back to the Pleistocene!

[Lexingtonian]

57. I think your argument

is an attempt to say that all major advances in knowledge get occultized- raised up to false authority over the minds of the susceptible, pretended to be The Key To The Universe, the Sole Knowledge That Matters. This is true of scientism and it is true of fundie religion. The true problem is that there are all too many people who still reject Kant's citation of Horatius's guiding maxim as the guide of Enlightenment, Sapere Aude. Dare to think for yourself. The desire to submit to Authority, any authority, that claims to possess magic is still too deeply engrained.

Medicine historically suffered terrible ill repute among the stronger scientists. Never forget that the disease called cancer is named for the constellation of the Zodiac that is imputed to resemble a crab, and goes back to a time when the twelve illnesses considered major in European medicine were assigned the 'signs' of the Zodiac and astrology was performed to give the patient his/her prognosis. Or look at Edward Sapir's letter to Alfred Kroeber in 1919, after Sapir (the world's most famous linguist and anthropologist at the time) had decided to do what amounted a stint as a doctor and psychologist- where Sapir says he believes practically no science has ever been done in medicine, that everything seems merely to be the result of empirical trial and error, with no effort at rigorous thinking or testable theory, passed down from one practitioner to the next. Truly scientific medicine actually begins around World War 2; the Nazi studies to prove a rigorous link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer, while ideologically motivated, are something of a major step. But what I saw while working at a famous American medical school in the early 90s was that there is still a generation of MDs out there practicing and teaching medicine whose mode of thinking is orthodox empiricism. The medical community knows this, knows its reactionary impulses, and the essential reason for the MD-PhD programs is to change this sociological reality more than actually produce progress.

There is still an awful lot of bad science out there. The question is really where you set the bar between speculation, bad interpretation, and desire to believe. Given that research is now an industry, it will only be producing more of all these things in the foreseeable future.

Real science is a humble business, and it is really all about rigorous thinking- persisting on what the evidence genuinely warrants, despite ideological/occultic desires otherwise in society at large, and daring to remain inquisitive. Real science has always been a very small business and no industry, and revolutionary without a design to be so.

As for what underpins your argument, the problem of the biological causation and evolutionary and social adaptive aspects of human homosexuality, my own excursion into the problem suggests that its relatively high frequency relative to other creatures' is ultimately a consequence of human migration into new climes with new immunological challenges to female genital system health. The molecular biological part is pretty complicated to explain in detail but the theory predicts that male homosexuality rate increases greatly when a population moves into a novel environment, and the hotter and the wetter the climate the more so. Female homosexuality probably increases in the very long term due to linkage to selection for genetic changes that de-feminize male foeti.

The model predicts a roughly similar rate of lesbianism worldwide but regionally high rates of male homosexuality among recent (or relative) immigrant populations and relatively low rates in long term desert populations. Places like the American South would be expected to have very high rates of male homosexuality whereas the American Great Basin could be expected to have pretty low (or at least falling) rates. Desert Saudi Arabian tribes would be expected to have low rates, the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq would not. Similarly, a north-south gradient for China (but that's too greatly perturbed by Han colonization from the Two Rivers' valleys to be easily seen) seems reasonable. There could or should be a west-east gradient among Aboriginal Australians.

Kant said we do not live in an Enlightened world in his famous speech in which he quotes Horace. And that we wouldn't for a long time yet, but that there was hope. He gave it in 1786, iirc. I read it occasionally, and what he says about the (Prussian) State still applies to our present condition in American politics all too well. But there is hope.

[DaveJ]

59. Great post!

Scientific methodology uses assumptions, and one assumption later found to be false can bring a theory down.

But this raises the question, why pick on Evolution? Why not pick on chemistry, medicine, or rocket science? If fundies wish to teach alternatives to evolution, why not teach that rain comes from God's tears, rockets are propelled by angels' wings....

It makes little sense to single out Evolution among all other sciences.

I think it's important for kids to learn early on the imperfect basis of scientific methodology, but not at the risk of teaching them it lacks merit.

[Plaid Adder]

61. Well, I'll tell you why they pick on evolution

It's because it seems to them to undermine human dominionism/exceptionalism. If we're genetically descended from animals, that might mean we have some kind of, like, responsibility to them, and to the other lifeforms to which we're all related. Whereas the fundamentalist reading of Genesis stresses the idea that man was created to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, etc.

For them, evolution isn't science so much as a competing narrative. They have one story about how the world was created and they don't like someone else telling what they see as a completely different one, especially since everyone outside of Kansas believes the competing story.

Rocket science isn't a story in the same way (or it least it's a story that non-rocket-scientists don't understand very well).

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[NuckinFutz]

64. They get just as ticked when you mention big bang ....n/t

[newyawker99]

67. Hi djohnson!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[H2O Man]

60. I believe in science and religion.

One should be taught in public school, the other at home and in the church or temple. Human beings are not able to grasp all of the laws of the universe, but that does not take away from the value of science. We should all be concerned with efforts to blur the distinction between church and state.

[ismnotwasm]

62. So right.

It's funny, but I'm an atheist,until I consider the possibilities physics opens up. Then I become an agnostic. No religion ever got me to that point. Part of the problem is the partial scientific education most folks get.(like me, but I read a lot independently, and taken basic science courses) I love the search, the wondering, the potential of knowledge science offers. Some seem to follow another, I guess you would call it mystical path, a believe in a Deity, or whatever, that can never be "proved" only anecdotal evidence. Word of mouth, and for some an unshakable feeling of "knowing" I guess they call it faith. This does not belong in a classroom, not as fact, although anyone can take an anthropology or social science, or even ethnic diversity class and be taught about how different belief systems affect culture.

[pmbryant]

75. Medicine is not science

I have many, many disagreements with your original post, but the biggest is your implicit equation of medicine with science. Medicine is a craft, some of whose practices are based upon the results of scientific investigations, by many of which are based upon rather different criteria, such as cost, tradition, authority, trial-and-error, educated guess-work, etc.

Science is far bigger than medicine and medicine is far bigger than science. The two only overlap in a small area.

--Peter

[Tsiyu]

76. Huh?

Okey Dokey, Friend. I'd have to disagree with that.

Why don't you give us your explanation for what science is, cuz they sure made me study a bunch of science back when I was going pre-med, and last I checked, anatomy and physiology, microbiology, physics, chemistry and biology are all sciences and all are used in the practice of medicine.

by your criteria, any practice of science is not really science :freak:

*bhg scratches head*

[pmbryant]

77. Using science is not being science

Science is one tool used in medicine, but there are plenty of others tools used as well. And science extends far beyond the field of medicine.

by your criteria, any practice of science is not really science

Applying ideas discovered via scientific method is not science. Engineering is another example of a field that requires its practicioners to know a lot of science and to apply scientific knowledge in their practice. But engineering is, rightly, not considered the same as science. Why is medicine so considered by many?

--Peter