blueollie

Lazy Sunday

In a few minutes, I’ll go to McNaughton and take in a 10 mile loop; maybe more if so inclined.

Football: my picks went 6-9-1 against the spread, though Yahoo shows me winning 11 out of 21, due to the “straight up” picks which are usually easy to win. So I am 31 out of 60, officially. It is a good thing that I don’t bet on games. :)

USC is really rolling along; to me Florida, USC, and LSU are a cut above the rest. Oklahoma: ok, they blew out a good (but not great) Miami team. So I’d have them at 4′th.

Navy lost to Ball State 34-31 in overtime. :(

(photo hotlinked from the Yahoo Football Gallery)

In wild west action, Tulsa beat BYU 55-47 (yes, that is a football score) and Utah beat UCLA 44-6. I had picked Utah to cover the spread, but this result surprised me.

Science, Religion and all that.

Alan Keyes has entered the GOP race for President. Hey, getting 30% in a Senate election can encourage a guy! Hat tip to Friendly Atheist for reminding us of what the 2004 Illinois Senate race was like:

If I had an unlimited amount of money, I’d contribute to Keyes’ campaign as he is always good for a laugh or two! But Keyes does make some good points: many people claim to be Christian but then run away from some of the daffier aspects of their religion! Wouldn’t it be simpler to say something like “hey, I find these aspects to be useful in my life, but I can’t really be that because it makes no sense.” For example, I do yoga poses because it limbers my body, and I do find some aspects of the physical practice to serve as useful metaphors for life. But I believe none of the supernatural/extranatural nonsense that comes with a “true practice”, even if some of the teachers say wise things from time to time.

I’ve found wisdom from Christian ministers and Jewish Rabbis as well; that doesn’t mean that I am going to say that I embrace their religion.

Evolution: what is evolution, anyway? Sandwalk walks us through a detailed definition; there is more to it than people realize. Some of the popular non-technical definitions can embrace things like Lamarkian processes, for example.

From Professor Moran’s Sandwalk blog:

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Part of the confusion is because the word “evolution” has many different meanings, depending on the context. When we talk about biology we are thinking about biological evolution and that’s the term I want to define here. What do biologists mean when they refer to biological evolution?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has recently defined biological evolution as follows:

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.

Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals. In other words, populations evolve but individuals do not. This is a very important point. It distinguishes biological evolution from other forms of evolution in science (e.g., stellar evolution). Another important point is that the changes must be genetic, or heritable—they must be passed on to the next generation. Evolution is the process by which this occurs and it is spread out over many generations. Thus, the short minimal definition of biological evolution is,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. [...]

Unfortunately, outside of the scientific community, the common definitions of evolution are quite different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years

This is inexcusable for a dictionary that’s supposed to be a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term “gradual process” that should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. [...]

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

evolution: …the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.. (Chambers)

evolution: …the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny (Webster’s)

These definitions are simply wrong. The problem is that it’s common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims they don’t believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of biological evolution because that would be denying something that is easy to prove. It would be like saying they don’t believe in gravity!

Anyway, this is a debate I have with some of my friends. Dr. Andy is a very smart person with an M. D. and Ph. D. from the University of Chicago, who earned his first job at Harvard Medical; unfortunately he is completely confused about politics :) . Anyway, Andy maintains that most people should be able to grasp the basics of evolution. I claim otherwise; it requires a bit of effort (from those of us with average IQs) to even grasp the basic definition of biological evolution!

For example, if you look at the commenter to my previous post about Fred Thompson: can you imagine that individual even beginning to grasp the nuances of a correct definition of biological evolution? Heck, can you imagine Fred Thompson understanding a word of it? :) What I can say is that there are now at least four Republic party candidates who deny evolution (40%); but hey, they are doing slightly better than the public at large! :)

(ok, so none of these really have a chance; the other three, besides Keyes are:

Three – THREE – of the ten Republicans running for President of the United States of America raised their hands. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas don’t believe in evolution. Just like that. As if they’d been asked if the earth were round.

.

September 16, 2007 - Posted by blueollie | creationism, football, politics/social, religion, science | | 3 Comments

3 Comments »

  1. Let’s solve this argument once and for all:

    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.

    After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

    PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

    Comment by Jim | September 17, 2007 | Reply

  2. Hmmm, so if a problem hasn’t been solved, just give up and say “god did it”?
    :)

    I am glad that no science department thinks that way!

    Oh yes, of the elite scientists (those at the Academy of Science level), only 7% believe in a god that affects human affairs, and most of these (e. g., Francis Collins) don’t buy this ID nonsense.

    This is because they understand that “evolution” doesn’t mean “by accident”; there is a difference between a “stochastic process” and a “random” one.

    Comment by ollie | September 17, 2007 | Reply

  3. ID stuff… sorry, Jim – I am a Christian but ID is definitely NOT the way to go if you expect your faith to hold up in the long run. What is going to happen to your faith when science works out the mechanisms to some of the supposed “irreducible complexity?” And why can’t God have created the universe with evolutionary processes? Is it any less amazing that way?

    FOOTBALL! We were SO excited to see Utah whip UCLA. Very surprised, too, but ecstatic. Of course, it was only made sweeter by the fact that BYU lost :) ! Anyway, glad you picked Utah – have no idea why you did it, but you were right on!

    Comment by Tammy | September 19, 2007 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »