Christians who say they don’t like “organised” religion.
I mean, really?
OK, but maybe you don’t like priests. Or the Pope. Or any other religious authority for that matter. After all, who is anyone to speak for God? If God exists, he could certainly speak for himself, right?
Wrong.
You take organised away from Christianity and there would be no Christians, for the one fact that the only way to circulate first century myth is to have authority force it down people’s throat.
That’s why there are so many Christians. Look at what the missionaries have achieved.
If Christianity wasn’t organised it wouldn’t exist.
In other words, you should be thankful for organised religion. There’d be a lot less “saved” people without it.
(I’m assuming that to be a Christian, you’d at least need to accept the doctrine of “Jesus is my saviour”, right?)
So I think what you really, really meant to say was “I don’t like other organised religions.” Because if everyone was either Christian or atheist, I doubt very much that you’d be making this claim at all. It’s kind of like when my Muslim friend said “I like secularism — just Islamic secularism.” How’s that for bullshit.
Anyway that’s my rant for today. I’m going back to being sick and miserable!
Hey what’s up Tim? Just wanted to point out to you that the first century teachers of Christianity were “unschooled, ordinary men” Acts 4:13. Fishermen, an accountant, and other people like that. These people were of the least authority, and a lot of them died for their teaching. It was not “force it down people’s throat” kind of thing. Check the facts about what you say. always appreciated.
Oh, I see you have misread what I said, and I’m sorry for not making myself clear enough… I meant the only way to circulate 1st century myth TODAY..
Tim,
No, your post was quite clear when you added “Organized” religion in the blog post.
Carly Jo,
How exactly was 1st century Christianity an Organized religion? It wasn’t even codified in any coherent way until at least the 3rd century, and did not mature as a religion until midway through the 4th century.
Okay, Tim, that’s fair. Except that Christianity is thriving most in countries where it is either illegal or unpopular. I’ll try to find a good source to back that up.
I agree with you Dan that christianity was not organized and did not even mature as a religion until much after it began. In fact, in its origins it wasn’t even called christianity. That’s the reason I think Tim’s blog is wrong. Christianity survived for 3 or 4 centuries, in fact that’s when it most flourished, before it became organized or even a religion at all. So yeah, you can be a Christian and not like organized religion. It’s actually more accurate to how christianity was founded and meant to be. Un-political, unpopularized, and un-organized. When Christianity did get political, popular and organized it got misused.
Yes, but you are really strawmanning me. My argument was that without “organised religion”, Christianity would be unlikely to exist today. I did not argue that Christianity has always existed in the form of an organised religion. Even if such a position were defendable, it is not a position for which I argue in this article. I have furthered the former point by saying that “the only way to circulate first century myth is to have authority force it down people’s throat,” and I thought I have made myself even clearer in my last response. Perhaps not.
The reasoning behind my argument goes like this, and feel free to disagree with me. 1. Most of all the religions ever invented by man have died out — in fact, religions don’t actually last that long on average… humans have always tended to move on, especially where mythology is concerned. 2. A religion ceases to function when people stop believing in it. For example, when people stopped believing in Zeus and what he had to say, he lost his godly rank and was eventually demoted to just being another mythological figure, a fallen candidate in a massive list of divine candidates. 3. Old religions that still exist today have all survived the hatchet of artificial selection, ie. people haven’t stopped believing yet. 4. All these religions have necessitated organised components. “Organisation” works, because it keeps people believing in ideas and ideologies that otherwise would be very difficult to conceive. In other words: power of the masses. 5. Today, a religion failing to become “organised” would have a lot of trouble getting any followers. Of course, the circumstances were different two millennia ago, when the common people still believed in witchcraft and wizardry.
So, as you can see… what Christianity was 2,000 years ago, is quite irrelevant to my argument regarding what Christianity is, in the present day.
Naturally, I also expect you to cite some references for this suspicious claim.
Or you will at least attempt to show me that the missionaries in Sudan or China, past or present, are not a textbook example of a religious authority “forcing it down people’s throat.”
Carly Jo,
Early Christianity survived for no other reason than the fact that folk legends and superstition were all that common people of that era had. Now, we have public access to education and the majority of Western society is literate. So no, it seems very unlikely that Christianity would survive beyond the current generation if the Church organization ended.
And frankly, even without an end to Church organization, Christianity is fading in every country of the developed world. The only places Christianity (and Islam) continue to expand are “developing” countries where people do not have access to education, and are not protected by secular laws and thus feel the need to appeal to superstition.
But on the other hand if you mean not that Christianity would flourish today without organization but some other form of religion, then we’re on weaker ground arguing against you. But still stronger ground than you, because theism – the idea of a personal god – simply isn’t compatible with modern knowledge of our the universe works. Deism or something similar might persist instead, but that isn’t very religious, now is it.
Dan raises a really important point here. In fact, this could correlate to why:
Christianity being illegal in any country would imply that its citizens are not yet protected by secular laws, meaning that people still do not enjoy the right to freedom of expression or belief.
Hey TIm and Dan, those were some good responses there. You’re very right about a lot of the cultural differences we’ve experienced over 2,000 years.
here’s a source
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christianity_in_China#Demographics.2FGeography
I’ll probably look up some more later today, if you’re interested in some more, I’d love to share with you.
Dan, I know it’s a big topic, but I’m really interested on why you think the idea of a personal god is incompatible with our knowledge of how the universe works. I want to encourage you to read this short blog on the subject.
http://carlyjo02.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/the-intelligible-code-of-matter-dna/
Hey TIm and Dan, those were some really good responses. There are definitely a lot of cultural differences between now and 2,000 years ago that make it hard to speculate.
here’s my source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christianity_in_China#Demographics.2FGeography
I’ll probably look up some more, so if you’re interested let me know.
Carly, I’ve checked the link to your blog. I’m not sure how an article or your comments on ID would help further your argument, but ok, several points:
With “God” the origins of life is still unaccounted for. It’s like saying “Zeus did it”. It doesn’t account for anything; it just shows your ignorance. Just because science doesn’t have the answers to everything doesn’t mean that your conclusions are equally valid, or that your faith is any less irrational.
It doesn’t matter whether you want life to have a purpose — your wishful thinking has no bearing on the truth.
And why would you even think that we are more “evolved” or “advanced” than other organisms? Sure, we are well adapted to live in certain environments, but so are other animals.
No. Because books don’t write themselves. They don’t replicate, and therefore are not subject to biological evolution.
Hope this helped. I could carry on longer, but your misunderstandings are quite elementary that they can more easily be resolved by you going to your local library and picking up a book or two on biology and evolution. Just something to keep in mind!
Well Tim, I mostly put that blag link up in reply to Dan’s comment “theism – the idea of a personal god – simply isn’t compatible with modern knowledge of our the universe works.”
“It doesn’t account for anything; it just shows your ignorance. Just because science doesn’t have the answers to everything doesn’t mean that your conclusions are equally valid”
So the origins of life with or without religion are equally unaccounted for. Except God, by definition (creator) has the ability to originate life. Even if the origin of life could be tracked down through science, the pure existence of life backs up this claim. Since you reject it either way it becomes neutral ground. Ok.
What makes human life so much more advanced is that we can live in any environment. We can live wherever we want, given the right resources. No other organism can do that. We can even live in space where there is no matter at all. Also, have you ever killed a bug? Just a thought.
Also, there are two ways organisms know how to behave, innate behaviors, or instinct, and learned behavior. The learned behavior in humans sky rockets so far above all other organisms and it because we are more advanced- capable or learning and teaching more and more specialized things.
concerning books: anythings I say here sounds silly outside the context of a code. The code of DNA that makes up human beings and allows them to replicate is the evidence for the intelligent God. But I do see how the argument you made sounds good. It’s just a cut a paste job of 2 DNA strands to make everybody- sounds pretty lame in the terms of self-written book. Who wrote a code so great that it writes new and similar codes itself? What about a self interpreted and self sufficient code? It is a great complex intelligent code. That’s what I pointed out. That’s why I can reasonable assert an intelligent code-writer, even if only a first-code-writer.
Carly Jo,
I’m not sure how soon I’ll get to respond thoroughly, but I’ll try. In the meantime I’ll just point out that if there were a personal God we should expect to see certain differences between that reality (theism) and a reality where gods don’t exist (atheism or non-theism) or don’t care to intervene in reality (deism).
And the fact is, we don’t see any fingerprints, if you will, of there being gods.
And for “the intelligible code of DNA” argument – we’re able to make sense out of genetics, and yes it is intelligible. That is completely consistent with a non-theist reality.
Stephen Hawking once said that “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” For one thing, science has a far better record of getting things right, as it is a self-correcting process.
Also I wouldn’t say “equally unaccounted for” given that scientists do have compelling theories as to how life might have arisen. You make it seem like they’re absolutely clueless. But even if they were clueless — even if they didn’t have the slightest inkling, it wouldn’t make your religious claims any more likely to be correct. In fact, you are just as likely to be correct as a Hindu or a scientologist or a Muslim. For one thing, you religionists all seem to have a lot of faith, and no evidence to back it up.
Of course I do not claim to know how life got here. No doubt you could be right, and Allah might just exist. Maybe when I die I will be sent to hell to burn forever, just like you Christians have warned me. I can’t know for sure. But understand that my agnosticism doesn’t make your “faith” process any less irrational.
HAHAHA… akay. Good luck with that!
No it isn’t. Complexity does not imply design. In fact, it is a general rule among human designers to aim for simplicity, not complexity.
I end with a quote by Christopher Hitchens: “But it’s some plan, isn’t it? With mass destruction, pitiless extermination, annihilation going on all the time. And all of this set in motion on a scale that’s absolutely beyond our imagination…in order that the pope can tell people not to jerk off.”
Tim,
Good responses. I’ll also take a crack at my own responses to the excerpts you chose.
Actually it’s never been shown that life can begin with your God, or any other god for that matter. And of course evolution (the change of life) doesn’t account for the beginning of life. Change isn’t synonymous with Beginning. But the various subdisciplines of chemistry (e.g., biochemistry, organic chem, physical chem, etc.) DO offer an evidence-based model of how these molecules interact.
Actually life has purpose without gods too. Guess you missed that bit. Plus, much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. Moreover life shows no trend to complexity in the usual sense – only an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point constrained to be simple. And the claim that complexity is inevitable is one of hubris – 99% of life still hasn’t advanced to the stage of having a nucleus.
That is an adequate proof to why complexity isn’t inevitable.
Complexity doesn’t equal intelligence. And DNA’s code is actually quite simple from a molecular standpoint – just 4 building blocks that are themselves quite similar. Not very complex at all when you look closely, which is why we’ve been able to make sense out of DNA once we looked closely enough. Much like fractals – able to generate such complex variation but are so simple when you look closely. And I certainly wouldn’t say that something with fractal geometry (e.g., a snowflake) is proof of any more intelligence than that of a cloud.
Carly Jo…..
Wow.
Just Wow.
George I’m really proud of you man.
You’ve finally learnt to do what is necessary!
I’m trying to hold my tongue……
don’t expect it to last.
There are very few things I feel are necessary to say. First, I feel like you guys repeated what I said a few times. Like, the nature of a code. It is a molecularly simple code which is self interpreted to make a complex organism. It is not the complexity or the simplicity which implies an author of the code, but rather the code in itself. It is not proof beyond any doubt, but it is true that if a code is discovered (other than DNA, for obvious reasons) we would assume a creator of the code. Should we or could we assume the same for DNA, or at least leave it open as a possibility?
Also, I never said complexity is inevitable. I said organisms grow more complex over time. What I should have said is organisms evolve forward, not backward. If organisms evolve randomly why do they not have useless organs and appendages? Everything on every organism I know of is completely functional. It has purpose. What force drives this trend of functional evolution? You can cite a lot of people saying theories of why and how it all works, but no reason is ever given as to how evolution knows what’s best for every organism in every circumstance. In the face of science and evolution God does not become irrational and irrelevant. the God concept makes sense. That’s what I was arguing. Not that it is proved beyond any form of doubt. Does my thinking, as well as the thinking of countless intellectuals, scientists and scholars not make sense?
NO. FOR THE 10TH TIME NO.
You can call DNA whatever you want, but stop arguing in circles, ie:
1. DNA is a *code*.
2. Therefore it needs to be *coded*.
3. Therefore a *coder*, God, exists.
I never said you’re inevitably stupid. I’m just saying you’re growing more stupid every time you make a contribution to this discussion.
Evolution is NOT RANDOM AGGHDghfhfhfghdfh
Learn what vestigial organs are. For example, no one would argue that an ostrich’s wing doesn’t have a purpose; it just no longer has the purpose FOR WHICH IT HAS EVOLVED.
WTF.
WTFFFFF
WTF WFWFTF
…
Only sometimes. Being an intellectual does not make you prone to error. The advancement of human knowledge is often based on our getting things dead wrong.
In this particular instance, I can safely assume that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Carly Jo,
Would you explain to me why the genetic code must have a creator as you say? I’m a molecular biologist, and I’ve worked with computer scientists before also, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. Quite the opposite, “emergence” – based on observations from the whole of the natural sciences that complex phenomenon can easily arise from simple properties completely naturally – is a hot topic in molecular biology in recent years.
I never said complexity is inevitable. I said organisms grow more complex over time.
And we said that, (1) if organisms grow more complex over time as a rule, then yes you’re saying that complexity is inevitable. In fact, sometimes life very obviously grows simpler over time, rather disproving what you’re saying as a general rule.
Everything on every organism I know of is completely functional. It has purpose.
Clearly you’ve never heard “Vestigial.” I’d suggest that you look it up.
but no reason is ever given as to how evolution knows what’s best for every organism in every circumstance.
Is that like asking how water knows to flow downhill?? Natural processes don’t “know” anything, they happen naturally. So yes, WTF crack have you been smoking.
Also, Tim,
I’m not sure you’re right about Carly Jo arguing in circles there – it’s not so much a tautology as it is a baseless assumption. You see, her logic is sound there IF (and only if) she or anyone else had ever demonstrated that nucleic acids were anything other than a natural emergent property for which “code” was the best word we could find in the English language to approximate.
@Carly Jo,
If there existed a word in the English language that better fit the properties of nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, I’m sure we would use that word instead. As it is, “code” is the best that this particular language has for such a thing. That we have to stretch the meaning of this word to fit its properties is not proof that gods can exist.
Thanks Dan. I stand corrected!
Ya know Tim, you’re reading this discussion without any intention of learning or really reading the view points expressed to try and understand what anyone is saying. I’m starting to doubt why I should be talking to you. Dan really seems to know what he’s talking about, and I think I’m learning a lot from him.
The real syllogism is here:
1. Codes require a coder.
2. DNA functions like a code.
3. DNA needs a coder.
4. God could be a possible coder.
I am not proving God beyond any form of doubt. I am simply making a case for the intelligent believer.
Dan posed a very good question: is nucleic acid a code?
He then proposed an alternative. Very good way to look at what is being said and offer new information.
Tim, on the other hand, you argued that evolution is not random. That is a key factor in my argument, the non-random nature of evolution. It’s concerning when you call someone stupid while you fail to recognize their central arguments.
Also, when someone disagrees with your viewpoint, that factor alone does not make them stupid, or any less intelligent than anyone else. If it did no one would agree that anyone is of any intellectual value. Get a better attitude, please.
Vestigial organs.
Of course I’m well aware of them, and even thought about mentioning them, but felt it unnecessary. Vestigial organs are not random, just unused in the present, or mostly unused. They are completely function but as the function of the organism changes, they are unused.
Appendix- extra organ for digesting plant matter. Since we are now omnivores the appendix is not necessary. However, vegetarians use it up!
My argument stands.
I’m sorry, what? WHAT?
I’m very sorry you got that impression, but I NEVER called you stupid. Proof — I quote myself: “I never said you’re inevitably stupid. I’m just saying you’re growing more stupid every time you make a contribution to this discussion.” This should by no means imply that you are “inevitably stupid” for the same reason that “organisms grow more complex over time” does not imply that “complexity is inevitable”. It’s your own logic, so go figure!
Cheesecake is not random. Wtf does this mean…
Erm… okay..
Sure, I will elaborate some points.
- By saying that DNA is a “code” you automatically set the premise to fulfill the conclusion that DNA therefore requires a “coder”. This is the flaw with your argument.
- Evolution is non-random. You were wrong to even imply that I believe that it is. The opposite of random is not design.
- Selection. If you had known anything about the theory of evolution you wouldn’t be posing such a ridiculous question.
- Natural processes do not have foresight. Your argument makes no sense.
In fact, now that I come to think of it… nothing you have said has made any sense. For example:
> “What makes human life so much more advanced is that we can live in any environment.” – This makes no sense.
> “Also, I never said complexity is inevitable. I said organisms grow more complex over time.” – This makes no sense.
> “Who wrote a code so great that it writes new and similar codes itself?” – This makes no sense.
> “If organisms evolve randomly why..” – This makes no sense.
> “Vestigial organs are not random” – This makes no sense.
Should I carry on?
Carly Jo,
Vestigial organs are still fully functional and appendices function as well in vegetarians as in our primate ancestors? No – who on earth told you that?
O.K.
I just can’t do it anymore Tim. I’m sorry.
Carly Jo,
The reason that Dan and Tim continue to brush aside your arguments is because they are based on a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
If we had been discussing the best recipe for cheesecake and your only point was that little elves are responsible for making all cheesecake then why must we concede any point to you no matter how fervently you argue it?
You are woefully uninformed of how evolution works, what is a “code” in the sense it is used to describe biological information, and just about every other subject that does not involve opaque apologetic gobbledygook.
You peddle your misinformation as being factual, then demand that Tim and Dan stand down and concede your victory.
That evolution is not random is no proof for God. That you have implied that “evolutionists” believe it to be random shows your fundamental misunderstanding of science.
If you believe that one of the tenants of evolutionary biology is that species evolve randomly then you need to sit down with a ninth grade biology textbook and actually read it. (and not just browse it for mentions of Haekel’s embryos or peppered moths)
The fundamental problem that I continue to encounter when speaking with creationists or anti-evolutionists is always the same. If I ask them to tell me how evolution works or what the postulates of it are I am accosted with misunderstanding and misinformation.
When I want to really understand creationism or intelligent design I do not first go to Pandas Thumb or The Ken Miller page. I go to Answers in Genesis (well, not anymore after the recent allegations against their assault on my privacy), BioLogos, or other such resources. I pick up a copy of Darwin’s Black Box, or read a copy of “Pandas and People”, I read creationist literature or sit down with one of my close friends who happens to have written a book and produced a television show from a YEC perspective.
When I have really grasped the subject, I then and only then turn to the people on the other side of the issue to answer questions or rebut what I have learned. If every person came to this subject this way, really learning about evolution, then creationism and ID, then the rebuttals on both sides, I am confident that most every intelligent person would come to conclude that the “problems with evolution” and the idea that it is a “theory in crisis” are ridiculous and contrived. They may even come to see the pattern of misinformation and obfuscation come almost entirely from one side of the argument. They may even come to resent those people who fooled them for so long.
I am struggling to even find a point to any of your arguments here. DNA is not a code in any meaningful sense that you would use. Even if it were, you are claiming that if you discount all the other “codes” that exist in nature; the compositional theory of matter, the brain communicating with other body parts etc., as long as you don’t count those as not being designed then all codes have a “coder”. The fact that a “code” in our english language sense of the term is generally rooted in an intelligent agency, does not mean that we get to carry that agency along for the ride when we expand the use of “code” to describe a useful transfer of information by non-linguistic means.
Evolution is not random precisely because life exists in world that has structure and rules. There are finite resources, there are droughts, famine, diseases and the like which would make randomly evolving animals unlikely to survive. An animal with a cumbersome third arm would have to receive some inferred advantage or it would not survive to make use of it. If you consider random mutations pushing novelty in infinite directions like water on a flooding plain then evolution is the very non-random part, the ditches and mounds, valleys and hills, canyons and mountains that direct it to where it is allowed to go.
Does that make any sense to you at all?
George & Tim,
The random issue is an interesting topic that I’d enjoy discussing more, perhaps in a new thread. You see, while you’re right and Carly Jo is wrong – evolution isn’t completely random – evolution isn’t completely non-random either. The great early molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote a fantastic book about this in fact, “Chance and Necessity.”
My key thought here is to present the caveat of viewing every trait as an adaptation. (see “Neutral Theory”) For some traits, there really is little or no selective pressure to be found, and some animals (and people) fail to propogate solely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I will definitely pick up that book Dan, thank you for the suggestion.
I do dislike somewhat discussing evolution on the interwebs, especially with people not well understand how intricate and interwoven it truly is.
Of course, my analogy was a slight generalization; I am versed in evolutionary theory just enough to understand that selection pressure is not the be all and end all of evolution. I would love to hear your insights on the subject given your level of understanding and expertise.
I am just a lowly science nerd who became obsessed with evolution after one of my close friends became a YEC and started handing me literature on the subject. I often tell people that I wish someone had lit a fire under my ass years ago on this subject, I would have loved to have become an evolutionary biologist, or maybe an entomologist or paleobotanist, or paleoanthropologist.
I definitely would not have chosen ornithology as I have a mild to moderate phobia of birds. Though I somewhat like penguins…is that odd?
I have read a few sources on Neutral Theory but am mostly in the dark about it. I am also fascinated by “piggyback mutations”, those seemingly unrelated correlations between two changes in a species.
Anyhow, I look forward to future discussion.
Ditto. It was important to rid Carly of her misconception that evolution is *random as opposed to intelligent design*. Of course there are random processes involved such as genetic drift, but in this discussion such concepts appear less relevant. To use randomness as an argument against evolution is to little understand the theory at all.
Yeah, I understand and no worries. Although I’m sure we could get into a rather interesting discussion over how best to respond to arguments such as Carly Jo’s, I’ll leave that for another day.
For the concept of randomness (or lack thereof), I brought the notion of Neutral Theory up for the very reason that it’s such a difficult concept for even the most well-studied of us to grasp. The point being, just how does one effectively explain the subtle interplay of selection versus drift microevolution, and how does one effectively explain the much more chance-driven process of macroevolution.
For instance, both of you (George and Tim, not Carly Jo) seem to understand that both selection and drift play a role in phyletic change – aka microevolution, or evolution below the species taxon level. But I’m not sure how well you realize that selective pressures seem to begin to play less of a role in speciation and in clade sorting. A lot of the time, these phenomena appear (to me at least) to be triggered by extrinsic (and thus rather random) shifts in geography, climate or cataclismic events such as giant meteors. There are notable exceptions of course – ecological competition for niches between similar species drives divergence, for instance. So it’s really difficult to understand, much less explain, from the question of randomness.
Which is why I sometimes wonder whether the whole random-vs-nonrandom debate is perhaps the wrong way of looking at it entirely. The question is perhaps more easily addressed by separating patterns of extinction from patterns of speciation. Extinctions, for instance, appear very random indeed, especially for the great mass extinction events. Speciations, on the other hand, are bound up in a further question – allopatric or sympatric speciation. That is, to what extent does geographic isolation (e.g. founder effect, reproductive isolation, etc.) drive speciation (that’s allopatric), and to what extent does competition for ecological niches drive speciation (that’s sympatric). And that was the primary question that got the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis started in the late 1930′s.
Okay, that’s enough for now, I hope that wasn’t too rambling. If you liked the reference book from before, I can provide recommendations for further reading on these ideas too.
Dan, thanks for the post. I like what you’re getting at, and I found it particularly interesting when you said “chance-driven macroevolution”. While there is undeniably truth in this (as you have pointed out) I still feel that it in some ways distracts from the actual point of all of this. For example, if you were to re-run the tape of evolution you probably wouldn’t get the *exact* same results as from the first run, because it is highly unlikely that you’d get the same natural events, and, not only that, to have these events reoccur in the exact same sequence as well (and yet, this does not imply that you would be unlikely to get *similar* evolutionary results — take convergent evolution, for instance.) The point is that, in different “randomly”-generated scenarios the process of evolution can certainly muster different results, but this doesn’t mean that the process itself is chance-driven. Still, you wouldn’t be wrong in any sense to say that *macro*evolution is largely chance-driven, but as I said — I kinda have this hunch that it somehow distracts from this whole “random-nonrandom” business. Just my two cents; I haven’t thought this through properly and so I could easily be dead wrong!
Then again, on a more philosophical level, I absolutely agree with you. Random/nonrandom is the wrong way of looking at it, because, in one sense, nature is random, and in another sense, natural processes are quite plainly non-random (at least, as far as causality is concerned). What is clearly wrong though is to use “chance” as an argument against evolution, 1) as if chance were a bad thing, and/or 2) as if our common ancestors morphed into us homo sapiens due to a flip of a coin. Such is the importance of adhering to the random-vs-nonrandom argument in the public arena. That biological evolution is a theory derived from Pokemon™ is still one of the commonest misunderstandings of the theory today, which, I believe, is the reason why we still have to bother with this whole random-vs-nonrandom polemic at all. Anyway, thanks again for the insight, Dan. Much appreciated!
This was good reading. I learned alot from this discussion. I wish I had more to add.
Since I’m at home alot because of my situation, I would like to get more books about evolution, biology and athesism. I’ve read the god delusion, does anyone have any other suggestions?
Hi Rick. There are too many books to suggest, but Christopher Hitchens’ “the Portable Atheist” is usually a good place to start. It’s pretty much a collection of many atheist texts/articles across many different fields.
I particularly enjoy reading older books to see how thoughts have changed/progressed over time. I recently read Superstition in all ages (1732) and the Necessity of Atheism (1811).
Popular books that come to mind include: The End of Faith & Letter to a Christian Nation (Sam Harris), God is Not Great (Hitchens), Atheism: The Case Against God (George Smith) and … yes, the Holy Bible — in my opinion, the best “atheist” book of all time!
With biology/evolution there are simply too many good books around and it wouldn’t be right to suggest a few and not mention the others. You’ll probably need to be more specific and actually tell us what you want to focus your reading on. Surely Dan will point you in the right direction!
For serious reading I usually refer to undergrad texts such as Evolution by Douglas Futuyma or Mark Ridley. Some popular books on evolution are: Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne, and if you like Dawkins then be sure to read his Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene and Greatest Show on Earth. Dan Dennett wrote a book called Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. I’ve also been trying to get a hold of Stephen Gould’s “Wonderful Life”, to no avail. Oh, don’t forget the Origin of Species too.
Of course, if you’re as bored as I am, then you can also read ID and creationist books, they make quite amusing reads, I have to admit.
I think the other best thing for you to do is probably to go to your local library’s science/philosophy sections and see what is available or what appeals to you the most. This usually works for me — happy reading!
Dan,
I really love to learn those subjects that remain on the frontline of modern evolutionary study. That these conversations were going on in the 1930′s is news to me and really illustrates how intricate and subtle evolution acts upon life. I have read some about allopatric vs. sympatric speciation and have to admit that I don’t fully understand the subject as well as I would like. If you have the time to write a post on the subject I would love to read it. As I have said, I plan to read the book you suggested and may have some questions for you after I finish.
I do take some issue with your use of the terms micro and macro evolution. Those terms still seem to get in my craw to some degree. I don’t really believe in “macro” evolution, and I understand that that sounds like I am a creationist. Here’s why….
My understanding is that speciation is not really an event at all. We cannot pinpoint a speciation event because our classification system is limited in it’s ability to ascribe a speciation moment. A transitional species would be therefor cross classed as multiple species by different interpretations, the classical example being the Australopithecus to Homo transition; where multiple fossils have been classified as both A. habilis and H. habilis as well as some conjecture about A. sediba.
“Macro” evolution allows creationists to imagine that there is an immediate speciation event, that for evolution to be true, a “monkey gave birth to a man”. I always employ the tired analogy that if you take an infant and observe them for their entire childhood, there is no period where you can definitively say “that infant is now a toddler, that toddler is now a child, that child is now a teenager, etc.”, where they were a child a second ago and now they are a teen. Except of course that we arbitrarily ascribe turning points (18 mo./4 yrs./ 13 yrs./18[19?-21?] yrs.) that biological nomenclature refuses to permit. If I am missing something here please feel free to correct me.
As to our conversation of what is important to our conversations with creationists and ID proponents, I think that these nitpicky issues remain out of the scope of most of my conversations unless they are specifically addressed by the other party. I don’t think that this is being tricky, slippery, or underhanded. The conversations going on inside the feild of evolutionary science do not speak to the veracity of the theory in general any more than questions surrounding the limits of superconductors disprove physics. Again, the analogy I try to use is that there is some conjecture among experts on the cause of the Hindenburg disaster, but that does not mean that anyone seriously questions whether the zeppelin exploded, or whether it existed at all.
Rick,
Being that I am a big Dawkins fan, I want to add Unweaving The Rainbow to the list Tim offered earlier. This is more of a popular science book then the evolution driven titles Tim offered, but for someone looking for a reasoned defense of science as beauty and intrinsic value as well as a good philosophical treatise on the abandonment of the theistic mindset….this book is as good as any I have read. Origin is a must for anyone trying to grasp evolution from first principals, a method of which I am a big proponent.
@Tim,
That’s a possibility. But it’s difficult to assert that you would get even similar results because you would necessarily be basing that assumption on a sample size of n=1. And just how similar are we talking? … really tough to propose anything more than a guess on this specific detail.
And of course the possibility for “similar” results in an alternative natural history doesn’t validate the Anthropic Principle (I say this just in case Carly Jo is still listening).
@Rick, @George,
Tim’s recommendations are fine, but in my opinion you shouldn’t miss out on a few books that would provide a greater understanding of the historical development of biology and philosophy. A few books that I would recommend:
The Selfish Gene:
A very good book indeed, and it will help you think about evolutionary at the genetics level. However reading *just* this book will leave you with a rather narrow understanding of evolution, IMO.
Song of the Dodo, by David Quammen – this is a hidden gem, providing a really outstanding analysis of Darwin, Wallace, E.O. Wilson, and a crapload of the top ecology and evolutionary biologists of the last 200yrs. I’ve read all of the recent (last 20 yrs) popular biology books, and this is the best I’ve seen for giving you an easy-to-read crash course in evolution.
The Growth of Biological Thought, by Ernst Mayr – From Aristotle to the 1940s, this is a mountain of info on the history of biology. It’s also a tough read if you’re not already somewhat well-studied in biology. But if you can handle it, I would highly recommend it.
And for atheism… Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht – I found it fascinating to hear how the philosophical ideas that underpin modern atheism are so old and richly developed. This book covers the span of the last 2600 years, and since reading it I’ve been annoyed whenever I hear Dawkins say that it was only since Darwin that one could be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. I’d say since Epicurus, Mr. Dawkins, you’re off by about 2200 years. This is a must read if you want to understand atheism and philosophy a little more in depth than Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, who are great but just not enough.
Each of these books is just the beginning to amateur study in these areas. I chose these books because they each make heavy use of citations, making it possible for you to explore the ideas further.
@George,
And you should take issue with it! I used the terms not because I think they’re appropriate (they’re not, as you say), but because they’re clearly in the popular lexicon. I took care to try and provide better, alternative labels for what I was describing, referring to “above” and “below” the species taxon. And I agree that the issue of how speciation occurs is the most fascinating part of all of this. Ernst Mayr’s Systematics and the Origin of Species and Theodosios Dobzhansky’s Genetics and the Origin of Species are the books that you want to read more to learn about this, from what I understand – I haven’t actually read these two, only summaries thereof in the books I mentioned above in this comment.
@ Tim , George & Dan
Thanx for the list. I wrote them all down. I have some time to read here and there and I will see what the local library has. The last time I looked there wasnt alot but now I can look for these by title and it should yield better results. I was thinking about reading some Christian lit also Tim, just for the heck of it, and yes I agree about the bible being the best atheist book. After some years of doubting my religion I decided to go back and read some of the bible to give my faith a second chance. I didnt get past Genesis 1 because I noticed that God had made night and day before he made the sun. I was so shocked that I looked up the problem in my father’s “Zondervan’s Bible dictionary”. What it said was one of the craziest things I had ever heard :” Of course there was a sun but the earth was so clouded with mist and gasses from the creation that you couldnt see it! ” How crazy!! God was the only one around!! After that I realized I was probably right to become an atheist.
Thanx again to everyone for their lists.