I've got an index around here somewhere. A is a modern chimp. N is a modern human. The others are in chronological order, starting at B for most ancient and ending at N.
Every transitional fossil just leads creationist to say "You haven't filled one gap, you've just created TWO MORE GAPS! Fill 'em! Duh, I eat poop!"
Decided to do some quick readin' on the subject since I am always curious...
Technically, the 'poop eaters' are correct that with each discovery of a fossil does create two more gaps. Since a 'missing link' is the link between the two that exist. But I hate semantic games as much as the next person...
After reading this article (http://www.rps.psu.edu/student/missing.html) I have a new outlook on this seperation of when 'man' became man and not ape. When did the critters begin with abstract thought. The researchers in the above article believe that it can be found via the size of nerve canals in the vertebrae.
Now, granted, a creationist could say that God gave them the 'insight' to abstract thought, but, to me, such a statement can never be proven - either way. Can a scientist say for certain that an outside force didn't give the monkey the ability for abstract thought? No. But I'd rather believe in what I can see and feel and reasonably work out instead of taking it in blind faith. Otherwise, the creationists better make room for my "ET with a brain enlarging ray" theory as well.
> Can a scientist say for certain that an outside force didn't give the monkey > the ability for abstract thought? No.
Absolutely - and there's nothing stopping you from adding "and God did it" to the end of every single conclusion in the theory of evolution. None of this changes that evolution *happens* and evolution is a *fact*, and the theory of evolution is currently the only explanation for *how* evolution-the-fact happens that fits all the data without making unjustified assumptions. The theory of evolution also says absolutely nothing about the existence or absence of god.
The theory of evolution also says absolutely nothing about the existence or absence of god.
Nor should it. There's an interesting article by Karen Armstrong (author of History of God, among other books) in a recent issue of New Scientist on this subject. The article is supposed to be a review of Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle, but in fact Armstrong takes the opportunity to blast creationists for mixing up science and religion.
She makes this interesting assertion: "Until the advent of the modern period, nobody would have regarded the six-day creation story as a literal, historical account," and then goes on to discuss the difference between mythos and logos as expostulated by Plato. She winds up thus (and I'm going to paste a long quote here because access to the actual article is limited to subscribers, and I think this is a great point):
Myth could not help you create efficient technology or run your society. But logos had its limits too. If you became a refugee or witnessed a terrible natural catastrophe, you did not simply want a logical explanation; you also wanted myth to show you how to manage your grief. With the advent of our scientific modernity, however, logos achieved such spectacular results that myth was discredited, and now, in popular parlance a myth is something that did not happen, that is untrue. But some religious people also began to read religious myths as though they were logos.
The conflict between science and faith has thus been based on a misunderstanding of the nature of scriptural discourse. Many people, including those who are religious, find it difficult to think mythically, because our education and society is fuelled entirely by logos. This has made religion impossible for many people in the west, and it could be argued that much of the stridency of Christian fundamentalism is based on a buried fear of creeping unbelief.
In the pre-modern world, it was considered dangerous to mix mythos and logos, because each had a different sphere of competence. Much of the heat could be taken out of the evolution versus creation struggle if it were admitted that to read the first chapter of Genesis as though it were an exact account of the origins of life is not only bad science; it is also bad religion.
Now, whether you think mythos is adequate or appropriate for the tasks Armstrong assigns it is up to you, especially since we have things like psychology and grief counseling and so on. But I think she's right about the stridency of Christian fundamentalism, and that the notion of Creationism as valid science is fundamentally flawed.
I find the Biblical creation story interesting for a very different reason, and it's one that Armstrong mentions, too: it's one of the few creation myths I've come across that isn't violent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Playing devil's advocate here...
Date: 2005-08-18 05:19 pm (UTC)I've got an index around here somewhere. A is a modern chimp. N is a modern human. The others are in chronological order, starting at B for most ancient and ending at N.
Every transitional fossil just leads creationist to say "You haven't filled one gap, you've just created TWO MORE GAPS! Fill 'em! Duh, I eat poop!"
Re: Playing devil's advocate here...
Date: 2005-08-18 05:41 pm (UTC)Technically, the 'poop eaters' are correct that with each discovery of a fossil does create two more gaps. Since a 'missing link' is the link between the two that exist. But I hate semantic games as much as the next person...
After reading this article (http://www.rps.psu.edu/student/missing.html) I have a new outlook on this seperation of when 'man' became man and not ape. When did the critters begin with abstract thought. The researchers in the above article believe that it can be found via the size of nerve canals in the vertebrae.
Now, granted, a creationist could say that God gave them the 'insight' to abstract thought, but, to me, such a statement can never be proven - either way. Can a scientist say for certain that an outside force didn't give the monkey the ability for abstract thought? No. But I'd rather believe in what I can see and feel and reasonably work out instead of taking it in blind faith. Otherwise, the creationists better make room for my "ET with a brain enlarging ray" theory as well.
Re: Playing devil's advocate here...
Date: 2005-08-18 06:13 pm (UTC)> the ability for abstract thought? No.
Absolutely - and there's nothing stopping you from adding "and God did it" to the end of every single conclusion in the theory of evolution. None of this changes that evolution *happens* and evolution is a *fact*, and the theory of evolution is currently the only explanation for *how* evolution-the-fact happens that fits all the data without making unjustified assumptions. The theory of evolution also says absolutely nothing about the existence or absence of god.
Re: Playing devil's advocate here...
Date: 2005-08-18 06:51 pm (UTC)Nor should it. There's an interesting article by Karen Armstrong (author of History of God, among other books) in a recent issue of New Scientist on this subject. The article is supposed to be a review of Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle, but in fact Armstrong takes the opportunity to blast creationists for mixing up science and religion.
She makes this interesting assertion: "Until the advent of the modern period, nobody would have regarded the six-day creation story as a literal, historical account," and then goes on to discuss the difference between mythos and logos as expostulated by Plato. She winds up thus (and I'm going to paste a long quote here because access to the actual article is limited to subscribers, and I think this is a great point):
Now, whether you think mythos is adequate or appropriate for the tasks Armstrong assigns it is up to you, especially since we have things like psychology and grief counseling and so on. But I think she's right about the stridency of Christian fundamentalism, and that the notion of Creationism as valid science is fundamentally flawed.
I find the Biblical creation story interesting for a very different reason, and it's one that Armstrong mentions, too: it's one of the few creation myths I've come across that isn't violent.