Misconceptions About the Natural World

[swaterfall]

s flow down hill.

[Paul_K]

I can't count the number of times that when I mention I have a twin sister (I'm a guy) I'm asked if we are identical!

 

I usually tell them she is shorter than me.

[TheJiggler]

It's a catch 22 CBS, you are doing exactly what you say the Creationists are doing wrong.

Throwing out the "creationist theory" because you can't (read: don't have the ability at this point) test it out is the same as a throwing out all of the theory of evolution because it can't be scientifically reproduced.

As you said, "a cop-out".

 

Also, you may want to understand the english definitions of the word theory. Creationist theory is just that.

 

There is a major difference between Creationism and Science. Creationism suggest that not that evloutionary theory is wrong, but wholy unknowable. Basically it says that there is a truth to the matter that cannot be known. So while it it true that we can't test "Creationist theory", we can't invalidate it either.

 

While we can't re-produce evolution (well, the so-called "macro-evolution", a concept science does not have) we can search for evidence that refutes it. If for instance we found a modern vertebrate fossil in pre-cambrian strata, that would very strongly suggest evolutionary theory is very wrong. The thing is, we don't find that kind of evidence.

 

Much of science cannot be tested. We've never been to the center of the earth. But most science is predictive, something creationism is not.

 

FYI - Did you know one of the biggest, if not the biggest "Intelligent Design" think tanks is in "Enlightened" Seattle? These folks are truly scarry!

 

http://www.discovery.org/

[cj001f]

I know the tides affect the Columbia as far west as Portland. The Willamette is actually affected at times as well because it flows into the Columbia.

Bonneville was built at the end of the tidal reach of the Columbia.

[Skeezix]

A friend of mine was a NPS interpretive ranger in Glacier Bay. Her job was to board tour boats and give nature talks. One day she was on the deck of a big tour liner giving a talk. The people were looking at the glaciers all around them, some periodically calving big chunks of ice into the bay. A little old lady raised her hand and asked "What elevation are we at here anyway?" Without skipping a beat, my friend looked down over the side of the boat and replied, "Looks like about 25 feet." True story.

[knelson]

Creationism relies on the existance of miracles.

The scientific method depends upon the non-existance of miracles.

 

Creationism is not a theory, it's a belief.

 

(...snip)

 

Isn't a miracle something that just can not be explained by any means... at the current time? Before fermentation was understood, don't you think the people thought juice turning into some potently good stuff was a miracle? Nowadays, while it may be a miracle if my homebrew turns out OK, the process itself surely isn't one.

 

To say that science depends on the absence of miracles doesn't seem right. There are a lot of theories out there that are not fully understood or proven... but have enough proven stuff supporting them to BELIEVE they are true until proven otherwise. Isn't that the basis of scientific discovery?

 

Seems like there's always someplace in a scientific theory, that may not be fully understood yet, where someone is saying "something miraculous happens here that I can't figure out yet". Reminds me of the old Harris cartoon... http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbrown/pic/miracle.jpg

 

The latest National Georgraphic has a good, but short, article on the "little people" found down around Indonesia. That little find seems to have the possibility of turning the whole timeline of human migration out of Africa on its head. Right now, they're scratching their heads to make sense of it... in light of what we think we know right now. I'm sure another theory will come out of it, but right now, seems kinda like a miracle. (Not a spiritual one... just one we don't understand.)

 

Regarding whether Creationism is theory or belief, I think it just depends on what you believe are "the facts." And y'know... even Christians can't decide on what "the facts" are. Some believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story, and some don't. The only thing in the Bible, when read literally, that does NOT support an evolutionary theory (or belief) is the whole "earth created in 6 days" thingy. Read it sometime, and pay particular attention to the order in which things were created. Sound familiar?

 

-kurt

[chirp]

A friend of mine was a NPS interpretive ranger in Glacier Bay. Her job was to board tour boats and give nature talks. One day she was on the deck of a big tour liner giving a talk. The people were looking at the glaciers all around them, some periodically calving big chunks of ice into the bay. A little old lady raised her hand and asked "What elevation are we at here anyway?" Without skipping a beat, my friend looked down over the side of the boat and replied, "Looks like about 25 feet." True story.

[Dechristo]

You'll never communicate on a meaningful level with people like that.

 

This is a truly sad statement. What is to become of us if we become so fanatical in a particular belief/persuasion that we are unwilling to hold discourse with others due to our judgment that they belong to an inferior group intellectually, physically, politically, in nationality, religiously or any other bias that prejudiciously shuts us down from honest and open communication? We will become demagogues afraid of the intrusion of ideas and understanding that may threaten the status quo identity of our sequestered intellects. Be careful. It is this quoted sentiment that provokes the murder of abortion doctors, prompts people to fly jetliners into skyscrapers, and, ultimately, the genesis of all wars.

 

My promulgation is of no theory being correct or wrong; each has merits and fallacy. One theory may be more satisfying to our personal bent and comfortable in its form and language meshing pleasantly with our view on the world. Other theories become distasteful due to their antithetical form and language producing an “us and them” schism.

 

It can be very “meaningful” to listen willingly with openness to those with different points of view. Relegating ourselves to learning from within our own camps only produces intellectual xenophobia. Granted, trying to communicate with someone who is only willing to hear their side of a discussion can be a "smile and nod" proposition.

 

Heck, Dean Kenyon, co-author of the widely used collegiate text Chemical Evolution, and a staunch evolutionist has concluded that Evolution alone is an unsatisfactory model to explain all of life on this planet.

 

It is quite ironic that in this Age of Information we limit ourselves in its exchange due to prejudice.

 

…just as has always been.

 

No doubt, this, in part, leads to “misconceptions about the natural world”.

 

[chirp]

Everything I ever learned about "the world as we know it" was written in books by Edward Abbey and Carlos Casteneda.

Too much talk, not enough thought.

 

 

[catbirdseat]

Creationism and Science are what can be termed "orthogonal", that is literally at right angles to one another. One can't really refute or disprove the other. They are in different planes, and different spaces. Scientists don't try to say that Creationism is wrong because science has nothing to say about something that is not a theory. There is no experiment that a scientist could devise that would disprove creationist ideas.

 

On the other hand there are creationists, and I am not referring to all creastionists, just some, who seek to overturn scientific theories using poorly researched or misguided arguments.

 

Scientists would be content to leave Creationists to their domain as long as Creationists leave Scientists to their domain. Teach Creationism in church and teach Science (and Evolution) in Science class. Don't try to comingle the two and confuse one for the other.

 

I don't have any problem with people who espouse Creationist ideas as long as they stay on their own turf.

[Norman_Clyde]

As has been noted, not all orthodox religions have trouble with Evolution. Roman Catholicism has recanted on both Galileo and Darwin. Not all religious people see an unresolvable conflict between science and religion.

 

My impression is that some folks do not have the patience, or maybe the intellectual capacity, to study the details of evolutionary theory. They look at the complexity of life and think, "That just couldn't have happened on its own." There is a book called Climbing Mount Improbable which I picked up once in the U bookstore which addresses the seeming unlikelihood of complex life forms evolving without a Supreme Being's direct intervention. The book uses the metaphor of a mountain very steep on one side but very gradual on another. The creationist says "Nothing could have gotten up that huge cliff on its own" but won't take the trouble to look at, or can't see, the other side of the mountain: the idea that very small changes happened bit by bit over millions of years. I would like to give all human beings credit for the ability to think big, but clearly some people can't, or don't want to. Great religious thinkers can handle evolutionary theory. Creationism is not a product of religious thought. It's a product of thinking small, of willful ignorance.

 

On the original subject: my cousin used to lead raft trips on the Colorado for Outward Bound. His personal favorite question from participants, one which he heard again and again when the boats passed partly submerged boulders, was: "Do those rocks go all the way to the bottom?"

[Bogen]

Evolution of complex systems is a fascinating topic. If any one is interested, here is an article on The Santa Fe Institute

 

as well as the website of the institute itself. I spent a lot of time reading papers from here when I was a student, and you used to be able to download a copy of "Swarm," a neat program for modeling complex systems based on very simple sets of rules. In particular I was fascinated by the crossover work between biological evolution and macroeconomics - mathematical models of complexity theory that seem to apply to both fields.