Anyone see that article in the Irish Independent on Friday?

Steve01

It was an article by John Quinn titled 'Religion is as natural to man as his sex drive'. For some reason I can't find it on the Irish Independent website and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned on this forum yet, especially since it speaks out so much against atheists. The writer of the article makes numerous references to Richard Dawkins and the impact of his book 'The God Delusion'. Honestly I doubt the guy read the book since he totally misunderstood almost every major point Dawkins makes. Or if he did read it then he clearly misses the point.
Surely someone else must have read it?

Dave!

I'm afraid not, any chance you can scan it in?

Steve01

Don't have the paper, I read it in a cafe today. I'll head back there tomorrow and see if they'll give it to me. Rest assured it was an appalling article

aidan24326

Link to the article. Requires you to be registered though (it's free)

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1747003&issue_id=15045

And here is the artcle in full.

John Quinn wrote:

Religion . . . as natural to man as his sex drive

IF the clash between communism and capitalism was one of the big stories of the 20th century, then it looks as though the clash between religion and atheism will be one of the big stories of this century.

Certainly that's the way things were shaping up in 2006, with atheism deploying its big guns to take on the benighted forces of religion. This is good news for religious affairs commentators of course.

By now we were supposed to be out of business with nothing to report or comment on anymore. Religion was already supposed to be in the dust-bin of history by now along with other bad ideas like communism or glam rock for example.

Two hundred years ago, atheists were confidently predicting that religion would have died out in the West by now and would be showing signs of wear and tear in the rest of the world as well.

But no, religion is looking like it's going to be here for the long haul, the really long haul, and this is what has atheists in a panic. In fact, it's much worse than that. Long-term trend lines are starting to indicate that secularism itself might be the endangered species.

The response to this has been a call to arms by the world's most famous atheists - people like Richard Dawkins in Britain and Daniel Dennett in the United States.

Both have come out with best-sellers this year, with Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' hitting the shelves just in time for Christmas.

The book's thesis is that God is, well, a delusion and that us pitiable fools who believe in Him might as well believe in the tooth fairy. If you want to treat yourself to a sustained exercise in condescension, sneering and derision, then I suggest you read this book.

Then if you want to be sneered at some more, check out some of the atheists' websites because you'll find the same tone of utter derision and condescension.

These guys really, really hate religion and they really, really hold religious believers in contempt. Atheists are to religion what communists are to the class system and radical feminists are to men. Communists decided that the class system was the source of all our problems and set out to eradicate it.

Radical feminists blame not only men, but maleness itself for the troubles of the world, and want to eradicate the differences between men and women, including the natural ones which they deny are natural. For their part atheists have identified religion as the source of our woes and want to wipe out belief in God.

They attack it on two grounds.

They say it is irrational and they say it is immoral because it causes division and hatred.

On the first point, they are flogging a dead horse. If there were decisive arguments for or against the existence of God they would have been found by now. Both theism and atheism are reasonable beliefs although since I'm a theist obviously I believe that theism is more reasonable. Among the various questions I think atheists can't satisfactorily answer is this one: why is there something instead of nothing? It's reasonable to offer God as the answer to this question. Atheists simply haven't got a clue how to answer it.

As for religion being irrational and a cause of hatred, well, it can be.

But then, so can lots of things, including atheism.

For 200 years continual and sometimes violent assault has been made on religion by atheists. It has been subjected to a ferocious intellectual critique. It has been mocked and vilified. It has been brutally suppressed in country after country. Wherever communism took power, atheism became the official ideology and generations of school-children were taught that God does not exist and that religion is the enemy of progress. Countless numbers of religious believers have been locked up or murdered.

In the West, many people still regard religion with the deepest suspicion and every attempt is being made to make it irrelevant by driving it out of public life completely.

When the attempt is resisted, people like Richard Dawkins go berserk. But if you really want to know why religion will be with us forever it is this: religion is as natural to man as his sex drive.

Man has an instinctive and ineradicable need to believe in God or in some higher power. When we try to kill God we end up replacing him with ideologies like nationalism or Nazism or communism. Everyone seeks meaning and purpose in their lives and the effect of not finding it can be more devastating than sexual repression.

In extreme cases it can result in suicide. Religion provides the ultimate sense of meaning and purpose.

And if you want proof of the sheer depth of the religious instinct, then check out Richard Dawkins' own website (www.richarddawkins.net). It is a shrine to the man. His followers revere him like Christians revere and worship Jesus . . . It's ironic really, but it's an irony that is utterly lost on Dawkins and his band of devotees.

Zillah

Ugh. A couple points demand a response.

The book's thesis is that God is, well, a delusion and that us pitiable fools who believe in Him might as well believe in the tooth fairy. If you want to treat yourself to a sustained exercise in condescension, sneering and derision, then I suggest you read this book.

I agree. Dawkins is not a people person and he's not going to convince many people with his attitude. Even if he's completely correct and justified in his attitude, its still not going to convince religious believers like the correspondent.

Rule number 1 of argument: If you want to win, allow your opponent the chance to back down without losing face.

These guys really, really hate religion and they really, really hold religious believers in contempt. Atheists are to religion what communists are to the class system and radical feminists are to men. Communists decided that the class system was the source of all our problems and set out to eradicate it.

Typical. Atheism is not a religion, judging any atheist by the actions of another is an exercise in idiocy. There is no church to which we subscribe.

On the first point, they are flogging a dead horse. If there were decisive arguments for or against the existence of God they would have been found by now.

I think this is best seen, quite amusingly, in the context of this:

Among the various questions I think atheists can't satisfactorily answer is this one: why is there something instead of nothing? It's reasonable to offer God as the answer to this question. Atheists simply haven't got a clue how to answer it.

"Reasonable" to completely invent an answer just because we have no current evidence?

Idiot.

For 200 years continual and sometimes violent assault has been made on religion by atheists.

1 - Atheism is not a doctrine, you can't judge any atheist by the actions of another.
2 - Religions do possess doctrine, therefore you can judge believers based on what the church they are loyal to has done.
3 - Religious institutions have caused ridiculously more suffering than any "atheist" institutions.

When the attempt is resisted, people like Richard Dawkins go berserk. But if you really want to know why religion will be with us forever it is this: religion is as natural to man as his sex drive.

This is true. This makes me sad. People do indeed have a biological bias for inventing supernatural nonesense.

And if you want proof of the sheer depth of the religious instinct, then check out Richard Dawkins' own website (www.richarddawkins.net). It is a shrine to the man. His followers revere him like Christians revere and worship Jesus . . . It's ironic really, but it's an irony that is utterly lost on Dawkins and his band of devotees.

Hero worship, of a living person whom you respect is quite different to religious worship of a supernatural being you invented. I still think its quite unwholesome but its not the same.

Steve01

I agree. Dawkins is not a people person and he's not going to convince many people with his attitude. Even if he's completely correct and justified in his attitude, its still not going to convince religious believers like the correspondent.

Have you seen Dawkins in interview? He was a guest on The Panel a few weeks back and I thought he came across very well. He states his points clearly and in a way that certainly isn't condescending. He even shows a sense of humour about the whole religion/atheism divide as jokes from the others on the panel were well received. He states in the book that he treats the concept of religion with the exact same mindframe as he would treat any other hypothesis. So he doesn't tread lightly on the subject and us such probably won't win favour with the vast majority of Catholics, but I can respect this method

Zombrex

Quinn wrote:

Long-term trend lines are starting to indicate that secularism itself might be the endangered species.

He almost sounds like he approves. Articles like that make me weep for the future of secular, free, society

Quinn wrote:

If you want to treat yourself to a sustained exercise in condescension, sneering and derision, then I suggest you read this book [The God Delusion].
....
When we try to kill God we end up replacing him with ideologies like nationalism or Nazism or communism. Everyone seeks meaning and purpose in their lives and the effect of not finding it can be more devastating than sexual repression. In extreme cases it can result in suicide

Irony, thy name is John Quinn :rolleyes:

I love this bit ...

Among the various questions I think atheists can't satisfactorily answer is this one: why is there something instead of nothing? It's reasonable to offer God as the answer to this question.

Why is it utterly impossible for those who use this argument to realise the ridiculous paradox of this. If "something" has to be created by a god to exist in the first place, then why does said god not have to be also created.

Turtles all the way down

Zillah

Steve01 wrote:

So he doesn't tread lightly on the subject

Exactly. On a subject like this, one needs to tread lightly if the goal is to convince them.

Personally, if I get into an argument with some obnoxious Christian I have no problem offending them and exposing how ridiculous their church is. But thats because I get a kick out of it, my goal isn't to convert anyone.

Dawkins' is. And unless he changes his methods he isn't going to score many successes.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

Personally, if I get into an argument with some obnoxious Christian I have no problem offending them and exposing how ridiculous their church is. But thats because I get a kick out of it, my goal isn't to convert anyone.

Rofl

Stephen

I love how he Godwins himself right at the end there

John Quinn, you lose.

aidan24326

Zillah wrote:

Dawkins' is. And unless he changes his methods he isn't going to score many successes.

Not sure that he really believes he will 'convert' the masses tbh. He knows many religious believers are simply not open to change anyway. He is mainly hoping to sway some of the middle-grounders, and to expose the hocus pocus nature of much of what passes as religious doctrine.

Why should he pussyfoot around the issue though? Some of the beliefs that religious people subscribe to are so absurd as to be scarcely deserving of any respect. To have the reality waved in front of you, and just carry on deluding yourself anyway, is cowardice.

As for that Quinn fella, some of what he says is not entirely untrue tbf. But he still doesn't get it though. He still doesn't see the pointlessness of playing the god answer like pulling a magic rabbit out of a hat, and the fact that this really explains nothing at all, as we still don't know where the rabbit came from. Heard him on the Tubridy radio show and he is quite nauseating to listen to. He is all the things he accuses Dawkins of and worse.

o1s1n

Personally I find Dawkins as bad as any fundamentalist Christian, Muslim and so on. Every time I see him on television I gag. He has this sneering arrogance I absolutely despise. Such a firm conviction in anything is flawed. At this time in human history, We simply do not have the answers. Science is always changing. I'm sure in a few hundred years we'll be looking back at the concept of evolution and laughing, just as we do at people who believed the earth was the center of the universe.

aidan24326

o1s1n wrote:

Personally I find Dawkins as bad as any fundamentalist Christian, Muslim and so on. Every time I see him on television I gag. He has this sneering arrogance I absolutely despise. Such a firm conviction in anything is flawed. At this time in human history, We simply do not have the answers

You have a point and it's something that is turning some people off Dawkins, that maybe he's a little bit too sure, when as you say we still don't really have the answers.

Science is always changing. I'm sure in a few hundred years we'll be looking back at the concept of evolution and laughing, just as we do at people who believed the earth was the center of the universe.

Indeed science is always changing, but people in 300 years will certainly not look back and laugh at evolution. It will go down in history as a landmark in our understanding of the world we live in. There is a weight of evidence to back it up.

Of course it may be modified and tinkered with here and there like all scientific theories, as new data comes in, but your comparison with the idea of a cosmo-centred earth is not a good one. That had no evidence at all to back it up, and was merely down to us humans bestowing on ourselves a little more importance than we're actually entitled to, a self-important notion that evolution theory has helped shatter.

Zillah

o1s1n wrote:

Personally I find Dawkins as bad as any fundamentalist Christian, Muslim and so on. Every time I see him on television I gag. He has this sneering arrogance I absolutely despise. Such a firm conviction in anything is flawed. At this time in human history, We simply do not have the answers. Science is always changing. I'm sure in a few hundred years we'll be looking back at the concept of evolution and laughing, just as we do at people who believed the earth was the center of the universe.

That was a very amusing post.

First you say that such firm conviction in anything is flawed, and then go on to say that you're sure one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories science has will be laughed at.

At least Dawkin's has a defensible position, regardless of what you think of his demeanor. He could literally vomit on religious believers out of arrogant disgust and it wouldn't make his position any less valid.

Zillah

aidan24326 wrote:

Why should he pussyfoot around the issue though? Some of the beliefs that religious people subscribe to are so absurd as to be scarcely deserving of any respect. To have the reality waved in front of you, and just carry on deluding yourself anyway, is cowardice.

My position is as follows:

- Dawkin's wants to convince people to be atheists.
- His methods are not conducive to convincing a significant percentage of his audience to become atheists.

Its that simple. If he wants he could throw eggs at a priest giving a sermon for all I care, im just observing that it won't achieve his goal.

As for cowardice, yes, the majority of his audience will indulge in complete intellectual cowardice and run from his horrible bright light logic.

o1s1n

Zillah wrote:

That was a very amusing post.

First you say that such firm conviction in anything is flawed, and then go on to say that you're sure one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories science has will be laughed at.

Heh, nice observation. When I said "I'm sure", I didn't mean it in a "this is what I believe and that's that, this is my only conviction" way. It was more of an Irish "to be sure, to be sure"

One of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories? This is what annoys me about pro evolution atheists. There is simply too little evidence to support evolution being fact. It's simply a theory. The theory of evolution. There are many many scientists who believe it to be untrue.

If it were true, there'd be lots and lots of "intermediate" fossilized remains being found. You should have many intermediate fossils for every stage of animal that evolved right. Where are they? Did creationists dig them all up and hide them somewhere? Even if you say "well, such and such fossil shows signs of etc", that's not enough. There should be millions of them. There aren't.

Mutations in species result in sterile animals. Nature works against mutation. It is seen as something bad. When we think of the word mutation, we imagine some thing bad. I've never come across a beneficial mutation.

Then of course we can get into female giraffes having shorter necks then males...how would evolution explain that?

I am in no way religious. But I also think that believing evolution is the be all of how we got here is ridiculous. It does even explain how life came into being in the first place. You still have a point in time where there is an inanimate object, say, a rock floating in space, that somehow spawns life.
Its as bad as believing in a Creator being.
"how did we get here?" "oh, god made us" "what made god?" "?"
"how did we get here?" "evolution" "what preceded evolution? "?"

Why can't people just realize that at the moment, no, we don't have the answers. We have some interesting theories. But please, stop calling them facts.

Sangre

You seem to have a poor understanding of what evolution entails and the huge data and research supporting it. Have a read of the massive thread on Creationism vs Evolution on the Christianity board, great stuff.

Theory =! little evidence. Nearly everything in science is a theory because it is practically impossible to prove in something in every imaginable circusmtance.

Crucifix

o1s1n wrote:

I am in no way religious. But I also think that believing evolution is the be all of how we got here is ridiculous. It does even explain how life came into being in the first place. You still have a point in time where there is an inanimate object, say, a rock floating in space, that somehow spawns life.
Its as bad as believing in a Creator being.
"how did we get here?" "oh, god made us" "what made god?" "?"
"how did we get here?" "evolution" "what preceded evolution? "?"

I'm no biologist, but from what I've read there are ways that life could've come into being without God though. That is to say a rock floating in space somehow spawning life is entirely possible.

pH

Quinn (and others) are fighting a rear guard action against modern atheism. The goal of this is not to convince anyone through rational debate, the goal is to try an give theism an intellectual veneer.

We're approaching the point where belief in a supernatural deity (whether the deity exists or not) is being seen as silly or ignorant.

This is the position that Quinn and others can't stand, they want their belief in God, but also want to be seen as intellectual and terribly clever for having that belief. Dawkins (and others) are undermining that position, yes you can have your supernatural beliefs but don't pretend there's anything big and clever about them.

Quinn's pathetic signoff is typical

And if you want proof of the sheer depth of the religious instinct, then check out Richard Dawkins' own website (www.richarddawkins.net). It is a shrine to the man. His followers revere him like Christians revere and worship Jesus . . . It's ironic really, but it's an irony that is utterly lost on Dawkins and his band of devotees.

It's rubbish, pure and simple. In this day and age of celebrity and superstardom, to suggest that this has any religious connotation is a desperate form of straw-grasping. Britney Spears is a Jesus substitute? All our modern celebrities are filling a Christ-shaped hole in our hearts? I suggest Quinn has it backwards, Christ filled a celebrity-shaped hole in our pysche in the same way as Britney, Brad and even Dawkins does to some people.

interestinguser

I'm going to give o1s1n the benefit of the doubt and say he is trolling.

Dude,
If you really believe what you are saying then go read some more. Do you really not know the difference between the use of the word 'theory' in scientifici terms compared to everyday language?

o1s1n

Hey if you can link me towards a source containing huge amounts of proven data and evidence supporting it then go right ahead. I'll check out that thread.

interestinguser

Don't be so lazy, go look yourself. There is a huge amount of information on evolution available online, but if you are really interested in learning a bit more then the best thing to do would be to get a few books on the subject, and learn a little about it before trying to criticise. Try The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, easily available on amazon or in many book shops.

*evolution seems to be the only scientific Theory that people try to find faults on even when they know very little about it in the first place. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

o1s1n wrote:

There is simply too little evidence to support evolution being fact.

That statement is simply wrong. You have repeated it here a few times, and each time you have it has been point out that it is wrong. There is no other seriously considered alternative theories against evolution, because put simply there is no evidence but evidence supporting evolution. It is not like people had to shake their heads for a long time and consider lots of different theories like they do with advance physics or astronomy. Nothing else but evolution makes sense or fits the evidence. And evolution fits the evidence almost perfectly. It is one of the most supported theories in scientific history.

Have you ever actually bothered to read up on what support there is for neo-darwin evolutionary theory?

o1s1n wrote:

If it were true, there'd be lots and lots of "intermediate" fossilized remains being found.

There are lots of intermediate fossilise remains being found. And that is using the Creationist meaning of the word, where you are looking for specific changes. From a biological point of view every fossil that has ever been found is an intermediate fossil.

o1s1n wrote:

You should have many intermediate fossils for every stage of animal that evolved right.

No you shouldn't. If every creature that ever lived turned into a fossil we would be walking around of fossils right now. Fossiliation is quite rare.

o1s1n wrote:

that's not enough. There should be millions of them. There aren't.

There should be according to who? You?

o1s1n wrote:

Mutations in species result in sterile animals.

Comments like this make me wonder why bother responding since you clearly do not understand what you are posting.

Every human contains on average 100 genetic mutation points that differ from their parents genome. Are you sterile?

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v31/n1/full/ng0502-9.html

o1s1n wrote:

When we think of the word mutation, we imagine some thing bad.

What you can imagine has no bearing on how nature works (thankfully)

o1s1n wrote:

I've never come across a beneficial mutation.

I would imagine you have not been looking very hard :rolleyes:

Next time you hear about a bacteria strain becoming resistant to antibiotics or a crop diesease becoming resistant to farmers spray, you have come across a beneficial mutation.

o1s1n wrote:

Then of course we can get into female giraffes having shorter necks then males...how would evolution explain that?

How do you explain it?

o1s1n wrote:

But I also think that believing evolution is the be all of how we got here is ridiculous.

I would suggest that is because you (clearly) don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says or how it is supposed to work.

o1s1n wrote:

It does even explain how life came into being in the first place.

It doesn't try to. That is explained by the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution only kicks in once you have molecules that can self-replicate

The most likely explanation is that under the radiation and heat of the sun self replicating molecules began to form on Earth approx 3.9 billion years ago. We know this can happen because this has been replicated in a lab.

Once these molecules develop they start replicating. Like any natural replicating system errors will occur in this replication. This is a primitive form of mutation. Once that happens natural selection decides if a replication error adds anything of use to the new molecule. For example due to a replication error a new molecule may find it has bonded with another molecule and this molecule is providing some use, since as a primitive wall protecting the molecule against breaking up due to some external factor. This molecule can now survive an event that the other molecules cannot, and will have an advantage during the race to consume material during replication. This advantage will be passed on to the molecules children. And so on and so on. Add a few trillion molecules replicating every minute, over a few hundred million years, and you end up with primitive life, cells and genetic material . Add another 2 billion years and you get organisms like us.

o1s1n wrote:

You still have a point in time where there is an inanimate object, say, a rock floating in space, that somehow spawns life.

You do. The Earth was a rock floating in space. It contained a much different climate than it does today, and in this climate were the rather interesting molecules that under certain conditions like to start self replicating. Which they most likely did. And here we are.

Of course people are quite right in saying that we don't know that is how it happened. And without a time machine we will probably never know. But we know that is how it could have happened. So which would you bet on? A natural, predictable and plausable process that we know can happen, or something fantastical imagined by the next sci-fi writer or the next religious cult leader?

Why bother making up fantasical claims about supernatural being or aliens when a simple natural process explains things just as well?

o1s1n wrote:

Why can't people just realize that at the moment, no, we don't have the answers.

We don't all the answers. But we have a lot of them. Evolution is the most plausable and likely model of how life develops on Earth. Put simply it fits the evidence and it fits the experiements. Nothing else does.

Could it be completely wrong, and everything biology has studied and experimented with in the last 100 is incorrect? Sure! Is that likely? No!

Zombrex

o1s1n wrote:

Hey if you can link me towards a source containing huge amounts of proven data and evidence supporting it then go right ahead. I'll check out that thread.

Its call the "Biology Section" ... you will find one in most public libraries and universities ...

Tim Robbins

o1s1n wrote:

Hey if you can link me towards a source containing huge amounts of proven data and evidence supporting it then go right ahead. I'll check out that thread.

What's happening o1s1n?
There is no "proof" for evolution. There is also "no proof" for gravity, sub-atomic theory or anything in Science.
Proofs belong more to Maths not Science. Science works on theories not proofs.
If the theory is not consistent with objective evidence it is also thrown out.
For example, the steady state model or ether.
So if a theory remains unfalsified and is supported by a large amount of evidence well then it is kept and tentatively accepted.
The Theory of Evolution like the Theory of the Big Bang is supported by a rake of evidence.
For evolution, I think their are about 1,000,000,000 fossils all consistent with gradual change over a very long period of time.
There is also an unlimeted amout of DNA available which again shows massive amount of commonality between species. For example, a human and a chimp share 98% DNA and a human and a mouse share 91% dna. This is all indicative of a common ancestor.
The DNA analysis also shows mutations between generation, which over a long time will slowly change into a new species.

Before you ask for the intermediatery - you need to define what you mean by a species?
For example, homo erectus evolved both into the Neatherthal and the Homo sapien. Do you consider them 3 different species or a lineage of ape (1 species) slowing evolving?
If you consider it 3 different species well then how many intermediateries do you want?
The reality is the change is so slow in evolution, you could in theory have as many intermediateries as you want or as little as you want - i.e. zero. Again it depends on your definition of a species and where the boundries to each species is? How do you set boundries if something is changing slowly and gradually? It's kind of hard to.

There's a lot more, I would suggest you read a good book about it.

Anyway all the evidence is consistent with the theory. There are no fossils that are out of sync with any lineage of natural selection. There has been no DNA sample of any form of life which would say that it does not have a common ancestor with everything else living on earth.

You and all the animals in Dublin zoo all have a common ancestor - mad isn't.

However, no matter how much more evidences comes along it will never be proven. Or no matter how long you live you will never see a mamal change into another species? It happens to slow for mammals? Have a look at insects or plants and you have a fighting chance of it happening.

But no matter how many times you do observe it, it does not proof evolution.

It is the same with gravity. Not matter how much evidence there is which suggest that mass can attract mass or take the shortest path through space time- it never proofs gravity, the theory simple remains.

Proofs are in Maths not Science.
If you have a problem with that, remember the next time your are sick and your Doctor gives you some medicine, he is also only working off a theory, he has no proof anything he gives will make you better.

Your argument "Evolution is only a theory" is the same as saying "Gravity is only a theory".

Zombrex

Well put.

An analogy that is often used on this forum and others on Boards.ie, (and was originally made by a famous scientists, so famous I can't remember his name ) was that science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess from just watching the game be played.

So you can watch a pawn move up the board. After a while you notice it never moves to the sides, only forward. So you make a theory that a pawn can only move forward and you keep watching. This theory is supported by the evidence of you observing the game so you hold on to it as it appears good. But then after ages of watching game after game, you see that the pawn moves to the side and up to take a piece. You then update your theory to reflect this new observation, and continue on.

Despite the fact that a theory on the game might have something down to a tee, and be 100% correct, at no point will anyone tell you that this is true or that you have learnt all the rules of the game. In essence you cannot ever prove your theories are correct, and it is illogical to claim that you can or have.

Your theory might be "A castle will move only forward or sideways so long as no other piece is in the way". You might think that is 100% correct, until you see a player Castle, swapping his king and castle around. It would have been very foolish to say you had proved your original theory because you have just watched something that shows it was not in fact proved.

Science is the process of building up models that we think accurately reflect the universe around us as best we can tell. While our models, or parts of our models, might reflect the universe very well (100% even), we will never know this, and as such we cannot say we have ever proven anything, because we can't tell what is or is not certain.

Neo-darwin biological evolution theory modules the natural world around us as best as we can tell. It models what the evidence suggests as best as we can tell. Like all scientific theory it is not perfect, and we will never get it perfect. But based on the reading of the evidence, and the successful prediction of future evidence, it appears to be a very good model.

Therefore saying "evolution is only a theory" shows more about the ignorance of the utterer to science than a negativity towards evolution.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess from just watching the game be played.

Love that analogy.

At any rate we should all be a lot clearer now on what a scientific theory entails.
So we could probably let that rest unless someone is still unclear.

o1s1n

Fair play to you lot. Some nice in depth replies there.

I'm coming from a background that's pretty steeped in religion, so I just thought I'd throw out some of the arguments people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint.

I'm in no way linked to any of that, I hate it in fact, but always found their evolution arguments quite interesting. Obviously you've changed my opinion somewhat. I think lots more reading is probably in order.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote:

It doesn't try to. That is explained by the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution only kicks in once you have molecules that can self-replicate

The most likely explanation is that under the radiation and heat of the sun self replicating molecules began to form on Earth approx 3.9 billion years ago. We know this can happen because this has been replicated in a lab.

Once these molecules develop they start replicating. Like any natural replicating system errors will occur in this replication. This is a primitive form of mutation. Once that happens natural selection decides if a replication error adds anything of use to the new molecule. For example due to a replication error a new molecule may find it has bonded with another molecule and this molecule is providing some use, since as a primitive wall protecting the molecule against breaking up due to some external factor. This molecule can now survive an event that the other molecules cannot, and will have an advantage during the race to consume material during replication. This advantage will be passed on to the molecules children. And so on and so on. Add a few trillion molecules replicating every minute, over a few hundred million years, and you end up with primitive life, cells and genetic material . Add another 2 billion years and you get organisms like us.

Great summary of evolution, I'll be reusing that if ya don't mind

And I also like that chess analogy!

o1s1n wrote:

Fair play to you lot. Some nice in depth replies there.

I'm coming from a background that's pretty steeped in religion, so I just thought I'd throw out some of the arguments people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint.

I'm in no way linked to any of that, I hate it in fact, but always found their evolution arguments quite interesting. Obviously you've changed my opinion somewhat. I think lots more reading is probably in order.

Good shtuff! The lads will be happy that they've made an impact!

Steve01

Moving swiftly back to the original topic...
I think the writer of the article comes across as being far more arrogant than Richard Dawkins ever presents his arguments. John Quinn makes such crude generalisations regarding religion. For instance:

These guys really, really hate religion

Such an ignorant comment. Talk about tarnishing everyone with the one brush. Even Dawkins (allegedly the biggest atheist there is) has said time and time again that religion is important for its educational and artistic value. Moron should have done more research.

Again I find it surprising that the article hasn't stirred up more of a reaction outside this forum. You have to wonder if Quinn's viewpoint was the other way around (i.e. the headline was'There is no God. Wake up people' or words to that effect) would it have provoked the same placid reaction. Or would people be up in arms chanting 'burn the witch' as I speak. Hmmmm

Young Siward

I couldn't finish reading the article. As much as I disliked the message it was the poor quality of writing that switched me off....it's just unbelievably pretentious.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well put.

An analogy that is often used on this forum and others on Boards.ie, (and was originally made by a famous scientists, so famous I can't remember his name ) was that science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess from just watching the game be played.

So you can watch a pawn move up the board. After a while you notice it never moves to the sides, only forward. So you make a theory that a pawn can only move forward and you keep watching. This theory is supported by the evidence of you observing the game so you hold on to it as it appears good. But then after ages of watching game after game, you see that the pawn moves to the side and up to take a piece. You then update your theory to reflect this new observation, and continue on.

Despite the fact that a theory on the game might have something down to a tee, and be 100% correct, at no point will anyone tell you that this is true or that you have learnt all the rules of the game. In essence you cannot ever prove your theories are correct, and it is illogical to claim that you can or have.

Your theory might be "A castle will move only forward or sideways so long as no other piece is in the way". You might think that is 100% correct, until you see a player Castle, swapping his king and castle around. It would have been very foolish to say you had proved your original theory because you have just watched something that shows it was not in fact proved.

Science is the process of building up models that we think accurately reflect the universe around us as best we can tell. While our models, or parts of our models, might reflect the universe very well (100% even), we will never know this, and as such we cannot say we have ever proven anything, because we can't tell what is or is not certain.

Neo-darwin biological evolution theory modules the natural world around us as best as we can tell. It models what the evidence suggests as best as we can tell. Like all scientific theory it is not perfect, and we will never get it perfect. But based on the reading of the evidence, and the successful prediction of future evidence, it appears to be a very good model.

Therefore saying "evolution is only a theory" shows more about the ignorance of the utterer to science than a negativity towards evolution.

That chess analogy should be used much much more often - it's certainly the first time I've ever heard it, and it's a brilliantly simple summary.

Were I a Creationist, I would probably argue that the Bible is like having the "Rules of Chess" to hand. If only the Bible actually contained that sort of information!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

o1s1n wrote:

Fair play to you lot. Some nice in depth replies there.

I'm coming from a background that's pretty steeped in religion, so I just thought I'd throw out some of the arguments people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint.

I'm in no way linked to any of that, I hate it in fact, but always found their evolution arguments quite interesting. Obviously you've changed my opinion somewhat. I think lots more reading is probably in order.

Well most progressive theologians accept evolution.
Kenneth Miller's, "Finding Darwin's God" is all about accepting the theory of evolution will maintaining a belief in God.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Darwins-God-Kenneth-Miller/dp/0060930497/sr=8-1/qid=1167852754/ref=pd_ka_1/203-5930649-7219106?ie=UTF8&s=books

It would probably be a better read for a theist than Richard Dawkins stuff.

o1s1n

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I am in no way a theist. I don't believe in any deities at all. Although, I don't completely throw out the possibility that that there could be some higher consciousness or being that we're not yet able to understand. Therefore I wouldn't consider myself a proper atheist. I'm just simply looking for answers. Once I find them I'll then figure out what group i fit into
Thanks for the book link anyway. I'll give it a look.

Tim Robbins

o1s1n wrote:

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I am in no way a theist. I don't believe in any deities at all. Although, I don't completely throw out the possibility that that there could be some higher consciousness or being that we're not yet able to understand. Therefore I wouldn't consider myself a proper atheist. I'm just simply looking for answers. Once I find them I'll then figure out what group i fit into
Thanks for the book link anyway. I'll give it a look.

I think the point about Kenneth Miller is that both theist and atheist commmunity accept evolution. It is really only hardcore fundamentalists or creationists that don't now. There's a of propaganda coming mainly the creationists in the US in my opinion that comes up with rhetoric like: 'evolution is only a theory' but as you can see when you dig through that statement you realise the ignorance of it.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think the point about Kenneth Miller is that both theist and atheist commmunity accept evolution. It is really only hardcore fundamentalists or creationists that don't now. There's a of propaganda coming mainly the creationists in the US in my opinion that comes up with rhetoric like: 'evolution is only a theory' but as you can see when you dig through that statement you realise the ignorance of it.

Hmm. Isn't o1s1n essentially saying that he is an agnostic, but still disagrees with evolution?

If that is the case, is that the result of claims that "people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint", or does the objection to evolution stem from something else?

cordially,
Scofflaw

o1s1n

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?
It just seems like a hell of a lot of coincidences to all be put down to chance. But then again, there are billions of stars, billions of galexies. So who knows. Maybe that's all it was.

Therefore I find it pointless to even attempt to go one way or the other as it usually ends up in a massive headache.

I never said I wholeheartedly rejected evolution. All I said was I had some problems which prevented me from accepting it as something I believed myself. If I can have those problems ironed out, fair enough. Results of what I hear around me on a regular basis? Probably.

Oh, sorry If I'm annoying anyone by going completely off topic. I'll shut up!

SonOfPerdition

o1s1n wrote:

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?

Ah, but a solar eclipse isn't always a total eclipse. Specifically, an annular eclipse is when the moon is too far away to totally cover the sun and we see a bright ring around the moon. So where's your perfect ratio then?
This is caused by the moon having an eliptical orbit rather than a circular one.
And, the moons orbit is slowly moving further away from the earth, eventually a total solar eclipse will no longer happen. Actually, it's estimated that at the early stagges the moon was 10 times closer to us.

You and the rest of us just happen to be alive at a point in time when a total solar eclispe is visible on earth. Its no sign of a creator .. its just good luck! Granted, the window of oppourtunity is quite large as the timescale of the moon causing solar eclipses is rather long compared to our puny lifecycles.

some sources for you.
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/the_moon/facts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

i've always wondered why evolution is so much under attack from creationism when cosmology blows their claims out of the water. The furthest we can observe is roughly 13.5billion light years to the edge of our observable universe. How can creationist theory explain starlight travelling for that distance (and for 13.5billion years) if the universe and the earth is only 6000 years old? Next time you talk to your creationist friends ask them that little puzzler.


EDIT: I've just read the difference between young earth creationism and old earth creationism, so i suppopse my last point isn't quite applicable. Unless your friends are YEC's.

Tim Robbins

o1s1n wrote:

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?
It just seems like a hell of a lot of coincidences to all be put down to chance. But then again, there are billions of stars, billions of galexies. So who knows. Maybe that's all it was.

Therefore I find it pointless to even attempt to go one way or the other as it usually ends up in a massive headache.

I never said I wholeheartedly rejected evolution. All I said was I had some problems which prevented me from accepting it as something I believed myself. If I can have those problems ironed out, fair enough. Results of what I hear around me on a regular basis? Probably.

Oh, sorry If I'm annoying anyone by going completely off topic. I'll shut up!

Yeah I can see where you are coming from.
I fully accept evolution but I also find it mind boggling how some constants in the universe are of such a critical, exact and relevant value. They appear as if they were set so that life could evolve somewhere.
This book "Just Six Numbers" explains it better and it also definetly worth a read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732/sr=8-2/qid=1167862465/ref=sr_1_2/203-5930649-7219106?ie=UTF8&s=books

So I would be agnostic in some respects.
However, I am confident that if there is a creater(s), it is nothing close to anything as argued by any theology or religion, so in that respect I am atheist. The main reason for this is because of my acceptance of evolution and my feelings on the amount of suffering in the world.
I know some theists can accept both and still have a belief in a God, but I can't.
However, I also respect the good that religion does for some people, so in that respect, I conclude and call myself a liberal atheist.
Religion only annoys me when it goes to an extreme level and refuses to accept any science that contradicts its ancient scripture e.g. evolution, or if it refuses to respect other religions or people who choose to have none.

Put it this way, I'll respect them as long as they respect me.

Zombrex

o1s1n wrote:

Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

I would point out that there is nothing in evolution that says we didn't have a creator. There is nothing in abiogenesis that says that either.

What evolution does is contradict the Biblical account of creation (and other religions such as Hindu). That is why some theists get all in a hump about evolution, because they take those stories literally and evolution (and pretty much the rest of modern science) says that if taken literally they are wrong.

It stands to reason that if there is a creator he/she/it created us using evolution.

o1s1n

SonOfPerdition wrote:

You and the rest of us just happen to be alive at a point in time when a total solar eclispe is visible on earth. Its no sign of a creator .. its just good luck! Granted, the window of oppourtunity is quite large as the timescale of the moon causing solar eclipses is rather long compared to our puny lifecycles.

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

[/QUOTE] i've always wondered why evolution is so much under attack from creationism when cosmology blows their claims out of the water. The furthest we can observe is roughly 13.5billion light years to the edge of our observable universe. How can creationist theory explain starlight travelling for that distance (and for 13.5billion years) if the universe and the earth is only 6000 years old? Next time you talk to your creationist friends ask them that little puzzler.[/QUOTE]

Not all creationists believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Some believe that the "days" of creation are not actual days. So that's an arguement I can't actually use in this instance

Tim Robbins, I agree with you 100%. If there is some form of higher entity, it certainly isn't manifest in any religion on the planet today.

Tim Robbins

o1s1n wrote:

Tim Robbins, I agree with you 100%. If there is some form of higher entity, it certainly isn't manifest in any religion on the planet today.

Well whatever decisions you make just remember that there is a lot of variation of opinion on both sides.
I am one of the few atheists on this forum for example who isn't a Dawkins fan, I think some of his arguments are very poor. Some atheists are treating this bloke like Jesus mark II, and think anything he touches turns to gold!

You should try and check out a philosopher called Colin McGinn, he would be the most impressive speaker on atheism I have ever heard.

o1s1n

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some atheists are treating this bloke like Jesus mark II, and think anything he touches turns to gold!

I had noticed that, it seemed a little worrying. The cult of Dawkins. Hmm.They'll have their own churches next

Anyway, I'll make sure to check out Colin McGinn. Cheers for the info.

SonOfPerdition

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

yeah ... but if we hadn't the luck we would never have existed to even question why we had the luck. ;O)

every star has a habitable region where a planet can orbit and support life. It depends on the size of the star and the lifetime of the star to support life evolving.

From what i can remember every planet in our solar sytem is tilted. Mars for instance has seasons where the current mars rovers have to reduce their activities during the martian winters.

In the vastness of the universe where there are billions of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each, how probable is it that some stars will gently radiate planets and allow life to develop? We know of at least one so the probability is greater than zero.

don't think of it as luck (that was a bad choice of word by me) .. think of it as probabilities.

Sangre

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yeah I can see where you are coming from.
I fully accept evolution but I also find it mind boggling how some constants in the universe are of such a critical, exact and relevant value. They appear as if they were set so that life could evolve somewhere.

They're critical, exact and relevant because life has always functioned on those basis. Adapting to conditions that aren't required is a huge waste of time, energy and resources.

Findings of life leaving on ocean vents, in 100+ Celsius temperatures with no source of light have shown that life and its requirements aren't as delicate as we thought.

Dave!

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

But there's billions and billions of planets that do NOT support life. If there's so many planets, the probability of NONE of them having the necessary conditions to sustain life would be close to zero -- or since we already know that Earth sustains life, it IS zero!

Think of it like this... say the necessary conditions are: right distance from sun, right orbit, right size, right tilt (I'm not arsed reading up the ACTUAL conditions).

Now go through each planet orbitting a star...

Planet 1: right distance, wrong orbit, wrong size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 2: wrong distance, right orbit, wrong size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 3: wrong distance, wrong orbit, right size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 4: wrong distance, wrong orbit, wrong size, right tilt = no life
etc.
Planet 51: right distance, right orbit, right size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 52: right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!

Now add in ALL of the necessary conditions for life, but include ALL the planets, and it starts to become alot more unreasonable to believe that life couldn't have started than to believe that it could have.

It's probably a similarly good reason to believe that Earth isn't the only planet that can sustain life, and hopefully we'll confirm that within my lifetime!

o1s1n

I do know what you're trying to say. It's an argument I'd use myself.

right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!. Okay you're using four different variables there in a simplified way to get your point across. Probability wise, when you have billions of galaxies, it's going to happen at some point or another with only 4 variables. When you start adding extra variables, the probability reduces drastically. Who knows how many variables it would take to spark life. Even with billions of galaxies, there could be so many variables as to make the probability so minute it is impossible.

Now, I was crap at maths and probability, so correct me if I'm wrong. lol

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am one of the few atheists on this forum for example who isn't a Dawkins fan, I think some of his arguments are very poor.

Would you? I'd have said it was about 50/50. Up for a poll?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

o1s1n wrote:

I do know what you're trying to say. It's an argument I'd use myself.

right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!. Okay you're using four different variables there in a simplified way to get your point across. Probability wise, when you have billions of galaxies, it's going to happen at some point or another with only 4 variables. When you start adding extra variables, the probability reduces drastically. Who knows how many variables it would take to spark life. Even with billions of galaxies, there could be so many variables as to make the probability so minute it is impossible.

Now, I was crap at maths and probability, so correct me if I'm wrong. lol

As Scofflaw (I think) pointed out elsewhere, the odds of Earth being the only planet bearing life in the universe is roughly 1 in 343 quadrillion.

o1s1n

How could you possibly work that out without knowing all the different variables which are needed for a planet to spawn life? You wouldn't be able to work that out until you actually knew how life came about scientifically. Or maybe I'm just missing something. My poor head. I think its time for bed! I'd be interesting in knowing how that number was reached. Just googled it. Didnt find anything. Silly interweb.

Zombrex

Think of it this way. The odds of any one 12 card hand coming up in that particular order in Bridge are billions to one. But that doesn't mean you cannot play Bridge (why you would want to is another question!)

Everytime you deal out the cards some particular combination comes up. Every single time.

It is kinda natural to assume that "life" is the way it is on Earth now and that is it. But in reality "life" could have developed in a billion different ways. It only looks really lucky when you assume it had to develop the way it did and only the way it did.

All life is really, when you get down to it, is self replicating chains of molecules. Very complex and elaborate self replicating chains of molecules, sure, but ultimately that is what we are. We are sets of molecules that make more sets of molecules. It is highly likely that there are other self replicating chains of molecules out there in the universe that work and have evolved in completely different ways to the way we do.

And just like the Bridge hand, we ourselves could have ended up in a billion other combinations to the way we have ended up today. If you change a variable you don't necessarily destroy the process that makes self-replicating molecules (ie life) but you might alter it so you get very different self-replicating molecules (ie very different forms of life)

When you think that it is relatively easy to get molecules to begin to self-replicate (we have done it) it becomes clearer that life is not some huge fluke, but something that one would almost expect to have developed at least once somewhere in the universe. The odds that it would develop exactly like it had on Earth are very unlikely, just as a single bridge hand coming up is very unlikely. But it doesn't really matter if it didn't develop exactly like it did on Earth. It would still be life, just like a completely different bridge hand is still a bridge hand.