anthropositor said...I stumbled in here in my quest for information dealing with the structure of the cells of the lens of the eye. How that got me here is an enigma. I am determined to stay focused on that because I need to do something about my developing cataract in order to avoid surgery and save my sight, whereas the debate between creationism and evolution has no practical impact on me at all.
Although cataract surgery has gone through some remarkable evolutions in the past few decades, I am of the perspective that some of the new techniques overlook some approaches which should be considered, and that the surgeons who are in the mainstream of surgical intervention are entrenched in some wrong approaches, and that perhaps the great wealth potential of current cataract surgical practices is retarding the development of other effective approaches which may have considerably less potential to generate profit to the industry.
But turning just for a moment to this question of Creationism and Evolution, I have had a considerable number of interminable and frankly tiresome discussions with fundamentalist Christian true believers on this subject.
It strikes me that the similarities of DNA accross the spectrum of life forms is pretty compelling in suggesting evolutionary relationships.
Going back to the question of the very first spark of life, and the conclusion that because we cannot reconstruct or currently replicate in their entirety the circumstances of that very first step, therefore evolution is somehow disproved, I don't think that holds water.
It is very much like saying that the existance of the universe itself, and all of its' complexities, provides the proof of god's existance: (If god did not exist, how could this have all come about?). But go back one further step; (If there was a god, how did it get started?). This is the First Cause fallacy. The fact that we can't give ultimate answers to these questions does not mean that we therefore must believe that god exists, just because everything else apparently does.
I note that the emotions on these questions are pretty raw. One poster has gotten so annoyed that he wiped out every post on his own blog.
The notion that god exists and has anthropomorphic characteristics, and pays detailed and partisan roles in the activities of man, taking sides in our disputes, favoring good over evil, rewarding for good behavior and punishing for evil certainly does not hold up to careful scrutiny.
Evolutionary theory is not entirely perfect. Most other scientific theories are works in progress as well. But certainly, in the bold strokes, evolution holds up quite well as a working theory.
There are stronger emotions on the religious side of this controversy than on the secular side. Emotions are the central source of faith. Faith is the antithesis of the investigative process. Faith is coming to a conclusion when there is insufficient evidence to prove an issue.
None of us, believers, agnostics, athiests alike can operate without any vestiges of faith at all.
But it does seem that the faith oriented people have been pretty beleagered by the so-called scientific community, which itself has some serious weak points which have become dogmatically entrenched.
It is interesting though, that while one can readily get a clergyman or a rank and file true believer to engage in interminable discussions about religion by expressing resistance to their perspectives, To get a high priest in medicine to actually engage in discussion, dialogue or debate, is almost impossible. If any medical procedures are debated, it is generally out of sight, in the closed circles of the medical hierarchy. In the area of improvements in the art, input from patients and other interested parties is virtually completely ignored. The cult of expertise wants nothing to do with us. Not even to point out our foolishness in taking on a subject that only experts could possibly fathom.
In the twentieth century the emphasis on the source of innovations in all fields did an abrupt about face. Individual invention by independent researchers was almost entirely obliterated by institutionally based researches and developments, funded by grants from government, industry, universities, and specialized foundations.
This turn events has done great harm to the discovery process. But it is a harm that is very difficult to prove because the speed of discovery itself has accellerated so much, and because the controlling institutions and agencies take much more of the credit for the advancement in the sciences than they truly deserve.
Almost all really great ideas still come from the individual innovator. But only those who have learned to take advantage of the current systems governing the invention process have a good opportunity to bring such an idea to fruition. That is why so much invention today is by committee.
Individual invention is orphaned by corporate think tanks and by those whose main skill is in first achieving the funding required for developing an idea.
Even so, I, an individual with nothing but several ideas of what is going wrong in current methods of cataract surgery, (and with a previous track record of success in several other areas of health) will continue to operate on the premise that it will, somewhere along the line, be possible to find a single surgeon with whom to collaborate. Surely there is a small contingent of dissenters in the group.
But in the meantime, my focus will be on continuing to do whatever I can to slow or reverse the existing cataract on my own. - anthropositor said...
Out of curiosity, I went to the blog of one of the other posters, called The End is Nigh. I was moved to make a comment there as well.
After typing it, I was informed that comments were confined to Team Members. Going to Naseem's profile I found no Email address, and no listed team members for his blog. Apparently he prefers only to talk to himself.
This is sort of a widespread characteristic of the fanatical perspective. So I came back here, where comment is not precluded in such a way, on the theory that he might get my perspective indirectly, should he choose to come back here. Here is what I said:
One does not need to accept every component of the theory of evolution to come to the conclusion that it hods water much better than creationism.
The sophistries of the Imam are not persuasive. Just flamboyant trickery. The other examples too hold little merit. They are parables suitable for convincing the simple minded.
Fourteen billion years is a very, very long time. None of us can really conceptualize it. Nor can we possibly conceptualize the trillions of events that have transpired in that time, even on this very tiny little flyspeck (relative to the vastness of the rest of the universe) that we call the earth.
To represent reality with parables about monkeys and keyboards is simply doing what the Imam did, "proving" his point with showmanship and persuasion, rather than observation and logic based on what has been observed.
Okay, once again I will return to dealing with the cataract. - khurd said...
Hello anthropositor, thanks for taking time to put down your cogent arguments on evolution and creationism. I am in total agreement with what you have written.
The problem with all fundamentalists or cultists is that their dogma doesn't let them see farther than their myopic thoughts. They live in a world of delusion and to defend their cause they use all possible ways other than using science and logic. Their postulate web they are stuck in comprises of hundred and thousands of false beliefs which if questioned causes in them cognitive dissonance which make them very uncomfortable. As a defence mechanism they bypass logic and jump to any illogical means they can find that would help further their cause.
I have debated with various people who in the end questioned logic itself. They live in a life of fallacies and no matter how hard you try they don't want to come out of it.
You and I can understand the fallacy of first cause but they don't. Their gods are above logic and realm of physical existence where nothing of this world applies so its usually fruitless in arguing with these people. The above discussion you have read would have shown you what exactly I am talking about.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Conversation with Khurd
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment