Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DAaddict wrote:All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved. You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link.

But you can prove degrees of genetic relatedness which you would not expect without shared ancestry.

By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason.

Scientific theories and laws are different things, they apply to different circumstances.

A law is a concise universal fact typically covering a single action, it's a description of an observation and can be frequently summed up as a mathematical equation like fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics.

A theory is an account or explanation for a series of related observations and verified many times, theory can cover groups of facts and laws. A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena.

Even the best theory doesn't become a law, it's simply not applicable. Apples and oranges, scientific theories don't get promoted up to laws because they are different things. Don't conflate a scientific theory with a guess or a hypothesis.

Polonius wrote:Natural selection is random kind of like seven card stud is random. Nobody controls what cards (genes) they get. Some cards (genes) are better. The rules for determining which cards (genes) will win stay pretty consistent. The best cards (genes) don't always win.

Still, over time, the winning hands are going to contain far more of the better cards than the bad ones.

exactly.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Natural selection is random kind of like seven card stud is random. Nobody controls what cards (genes) they get. Some cards (genes) are better. The rules for determining which cards (genes) will win stay pretty consistent. The best cards (genes) don't always win.

Still, over time, the winning hands are going to contain far more of the better cards than the bad ones.

exactly.

Depends on how good the players are at bluffing!

Read into that however you want.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Natural selection is random kind of like seven card stud is random. Nobody controls what cards (genes) they get. Some cards (genes) are better. The rules for determining which cards (genes) will win stay pretty consistent. The best cards (genes) don't always win.

Still, over time, the winning hands are going to contain far more of the better cards than the bad ones.

exactly.

Depends on how good the players are at bluffing!

Read into that however you want.

The analogy has layers. The genes that would have prevented lung cancer might have been lost to a lion 300,000 years ago.

Polonius wrote:Natural selection is random kind of like seven card stud is random. Nobody controls what cards (genes) they get. Some cards (genes) are better. The rules for determining which cards (genes) will win stay pretty consistent. The best cards (genes) don't always win.

Still, over time, the winning hands are going to contain far more of the better cards than the bad ones.

I wouldn't agree that the rules stay consistent. I don't care for the general emphasis on 'survival of the fittest' because it's too absolute and constricting on what we actually observe in nature. Loads of useless stuff survives as long as it isn't so useless as to put the organism into an early grave. It's more like 'non-survival of the least fit'. It's often good enough to be medioce to survive and pass on genes. You often don't have to be the best, just good enough to reproduce.

You don't always need a great hand to survive, plenty of organisms have mediocre hands but continue to survive because the the selective pressure is low. When pressures increase because of introduction of a new predator, harsher climate or food shortage, the bar for a passable hand is raised meaning there are a lot more losers and a less winners. That's when being mediocre isn't so good.

But to take this analogy elsewhere, genetic diversity is vital in almost any population. It's important because various genes and mutations are more applicable in different circumstances. If you're playing with a full deck and the rules change on what the winning cards are, there is a high probability that someone around the table will suddenly find they now have a winning hand. If you're only playing with half a deck there's a greater chance that no one will have the cards needed when the rules change. This reflects genetic diversity, collectively in a population lots of diversity allows flexibility in a population to adapt to a change in environment, low diversity where many organisms share the same genes does not provide flexibility, the same obstacle for one organism affect them all similarly and, and if that obstacle is lethal they all die out together.

You know I've never really understood this debate in general. I've never seen any reason why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive.

So, in a nutshell; yes, creation and evolution can coexist. Basically because; the are the same story of our history and journey as a species, they're just told differently. People need to stop taking the Bible so literally, and realize that it's not a constitution, it's more like a handbook to read and draw our own conclusions from considering when and where we are in this space and time. It was written in a way so that it could be used through the ages, no matter what changes occurred; culturally, religiously, politically, and so on and so forth.

I understand why people may have a problem with creationism being taught in public schools, it really has not place there. I have never understood Christians problems with evolution. So they have a theory of how it works without God. SO WHAT, They think everything works without God, big deal. Evolution makes sense, it's based on lots of science and study of the natural world. But if you believe in God, then he controls the natural world so what is the problem?

Theoretically since God controls everything, we have a God centered theory on how everything works. We have a defacto holy economics theory too! I don't think it needs to be taught in an Econ class though.

I went to Catholic school and we were taught evolution as a process controlled by God. We also studied all religions though, so while it was a Catholic school they didn't seem too concerned with a lot of classic Christian and Catholic dogma. As an example we were not taught that all non Catholics go strait to hell. So maybe we were not the strictest Catholics, whatever.

There are of course creationists that go overboard and get things like Dinosaurs and the age of the earth wrong. Well that's very wrong.

If it was some kind of question and answer thing, I can understand it, if the teacher was teaching it to make students aware of other theories and create interest and debate, I don't have a problem.

If he was pushing it as fact and using it to override evolution, well that's wrong. If he was trying to push it as science, then yeah, he probably deserves some harsh censure.

By the way, I'm not really Catholic or Christian in any hard core dogma driven sense. So jabs at that will get you nowhere.

Even if you find the Bible to be literally true, there's no reason not to accept evolution as the scientific process by which species would evolve post creation.

DAaddict wrote: To use your car metaphor - I turn the ignition and the car works - while over the course of time the parts may fall into place and voila I have a working car - I trust that some genius engineer built it - perhaps a mechanic juiced it up to meet his perceived needs. But I am not foolish enough to accept that my car - through the course of time just happened to fall together in some array.

If we had fossilized evidence of cars beginning as wheels and becoming the diverse plethora of motorized vehicles present today, examples of cars speciating without outside intereference to suit their environment, cars mutating between generations, etc, I'd be inclined to think cars might not have a creator.

DAaddict wrote:You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link.

What would prove evolution to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Even if you find the Bible to be literally true, there's no reason not to accept evolution as the scientific process by which species would evolve post creation.

Wouldn't the Biblical timeframe conflict with the time necessary for evolution? Or do you just mean micro-evolution?

Even if you find the Bible to be literally true, there's no reason not to accept evolution as the scientific process by which species would evolve post creation.

I do, I believe in evolution, I just believe it is a process controlled by a Deity, because the Deity (force, spaghetti monster, whatever you want to call it.) controls and or controlled everything everything.

Sorry, but maybe I missed your point and you missed mine. I don't believe the Bible to be literally true. I think I said that above.

Now if you are referring to theoretical person who does, well I can't say for them. I mean no offense to anyone, but the Bible can't be literally true! IMHO of course. I was even taught that at Catholic School.

RustyKnight wrote:Wouldn't the Biblical timeframe conflict with the time necessary for evolution? Or do you just mean micro-evolution?

I mean that God created the world with all the evidence of evolution there, and that if we were to wait for tens of thousands of years, macro-evolution would occur.

I'm a believer that God would leave as little evidence of his creation as possible, so as to make belief a matter of faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Even if you find the Bible to be literally true, there's no reason not to accept evolution as the scientific process by which species would evolve post creation.

I do, I believe in evolution, I just believe it is a process controlled by a Deity, because the Deity (force, spaghetti monster, whatever you want to call it.) controls and or controlled everything everything.

Sorry, but maybe I missed your point and you missed mine. I don't believe the Bible to be literally true. I think I said that above.

Now if you are referring to theoretical person who does, well I can't say for them. I mean no offense to anyone, but the Bible can't be literally true! IMHO of course. I was even taught that at Catholic School.

i dont' think the bible is literally true, I was just trying to tack onto your point that there doesn't seem to be any reason to reject evolution solely because you belief in a literal Genesis.

I'm Catholic myself, and I have the typical relationship with scripture most Catholics have, so I've never had a problem with evolution.

Polonius, Your from Cleveland too?

I'm Catholic myself, and I have the typical relationship with scripture most Catholics have, so I've never had a problem with evolution.

Yeah I've never understood the big fuss!

Yeah, I live in Lakewood and work downtown. Went to Case for undergrad and CM for law school.

Before that I lived in Detroit.

Ah, Born and breed in Cleveland's East side. Moved downtown, then into Ohio city. Currently doing a stint in San Diego, with hopes of coming back soon to take control of my bar.

Crom wrote:
I am going to respectfully disagree with you. The Declaration of Independence while significant to the forming of the USA, is not a document which ensures rights.

The Declaration does not protect rights in the same way that the Constitution does, but it has been cited in the course of legal argument and decision. More to the point, I'm fairly sure that there is significant precedent establishing that, from a legal perspective, rights are to be thought of as natural; arising from the human condition. I agree with you that, from a descriptive perspective, the idea is dubious given how disagreement over what the natural rights are, in specific, has played out over time. Still, there is little disputing the legal reality in the United States, and there are a lot of arguments to be made for the utility of that view from the perspective of liberty.

Polonius wrote:Even if you find the Bible to be literally true, there's no reason not to accept evolution as the scientific process by which species would evolve post creation.

How literally true do you mean? We trace evolution back to single celled organisms whereas the Bible posits that animals and plant life were spontaneously created as complex organisms.

The declaration is also used as evidence of how the founders thought, which is important for origininalist arguments. The federalist papers were never ratified, or voted on, or submitted for approval, but they're used all the time for con-law debates.

I had a law professor that was arguing on behalf of death row inmates that were fighting for the right to make an unedited final statement, and he cited common law tradition back to before the norman invasion as precedent.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Was a joke Sebster.
Radial, around?
lost constonant

[frankie-howard]ooo please yourself missus[/frankie-howard]

I made it up for fun as I thought it might amuse
it didn't
I apologise.

Fair enough. Sorry, just me being a bit dense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:I would posit that evolution is a religion - the faith is put in time. On that statement, you should fire every teacher.

You posit the ridiculous.

I have seen, read nor heard anything that makes evolution is fact.

In looking for fact all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand what science is.

Science doesn't declare any theory as fact. It looks for the theory that best explains the observed phenomena.

The theory that best fits the observed phenomena and produces the most useful predictions is evolution. As such, it should be taught as the theory that explains the origin of the species.

I find it abhorent that Evolution is passed off as fact just as Creationism is passed off as fiction. The reality is FAITH is required to accept either notion.

No. Absolutely not. You have almost no understanding of either theory, and even less of an idea as to what science does.

BTW then by that same token, here in Wisconsin, we should be firing every educator who is put in a place of trust over children and foisting off their notion of unions.

Any teacher that spends the time they should be teaching economics to "enourage debate" about the failings of capitalism and how a marxist collective is a viable alternative should probably be fired as well.

The use of a classroom to foist anyone's beliefs is the core problem.

Which is only a problem in this instance if you pretend that evolution is not the dominant scientific explanation, and is instead equal with the wild speculation and disingenuous bs that is collectively called Irreducible Complexity.

The discussion of opposing views however is exactly what the classroom is for. It is when the teacher goes the next step and says A or B is superior to one or the other that the issue is inexcusable.

No. It is not only the job but it is the duty of the science teacher to state what is, and what isn't science. Evolution is science, creationism is not.

It doesn't make creationism wrong, and it doesn't put science in competition with evolution, it just marks them as very different things.

It is the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW of evolution.

You don't understand what a theory is when the term is used in science. In science a theory is a collection of scientific laws drawn that are linked to form a greater overall concept. Such as the theory of gravity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Educating students that there are other world views should be criminilized. I mean there is only ever one acceptable world view and that is the right world view. That world view is my world view because I am right and you are wrong. In fact you are so incredibally wrong that I will ridicule you and demean your world view because your world view is just plain wrong. I know this becuase I am right and you are wrong. I have a ton of assumptions and presupositions to back up my obviously correct world view. I am not alone in my world view, in fact there are millions of people just like me, so again we are so obviously right that there really is no reason whatsoever to have a debate on other world views.

You are welcome to debate all manner of subjects in class. But the word science means something. It means something real, and something important.

What should be taught and what should be debated in science class should be ideas with some kind of scientific backing.

Which creationism does not have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:To use your car metaphor - I turn the ignition and the car works - while over the course of time the parts may fall into place and voila I have a working car - I trust that some genius engineer built it - perhaps a mechanic juiced it up to meet his perceived needs. But I am not foolish enough to accept that my car - through the course of time just happened to fall together in some array.

No, you don't understand. Evolution doesn't say that they've randomly fallen into place.

Take a snowflake, or a crystalline structure. These objects follow patterns inherent in nature, and end up forming complex patterns. Order does in fact come from chaos through inherent processes.

Evolution has observed that natural selection does the same thing. That over time inherent processes in nature, mutation and natural selection, drive organisms to adapt to their environment, increasing their complexity over time.

All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved.

No, the issue has nothing to do with what is proven. The issue is to do with one being the scientific theory that best explains the origin of the species, while the other is a religious belief that has nothing to do with science.

I am not a lemming to roll off the cliff just because the weight of numbers is against me. If that were the case, we should be following the Ptolemaic Theory that everything revolves around the earth and still be holding slaves because the majority thought it was a good idea.

The issue is not the numbers of people that are against you, the issue is the number of people educated in science who are against you. It's all but a handful of them, and even they argue a far more complex argument than what you've attempted here.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory.

No, seriously, go read what a theory actually is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:You know I've never really understood this debate in general. I've never seen any reason why creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive.

So, in a nutshell; yes, creation and evolution can coexist. Basically because; the are the same story of our history and journey as a species, they're just told differently. People need to stop taking the Bible so literally, and realize that it's not a constitution, it's more like a handbook to read and draw our own conclusions from considering when and where we are in this space and time. It was written in a way so that it could be used through the ages, no matter what changes occurred; culturally, religiously, politically, and so on and so forth.

I understand why people may have a problem with creationism being taught in public schools, it really has not place there. I have never understood Christians problems with evolution. So they have a theory of how it works without God. SO WHAT, They think everything works without God, big deal. Evolution makes sense, it's based on lots of science and study of the natural world. But if you believe in God, then he controls the natural world so what is the problem?

That was great post. Thanks for that.

DAaddict wrote:

Creationism - at its core is a belief in some engineer who designed something with a plan. Darwinism - evolotion - at its core is a belief that over time a combination of things will take place to result in some duplication of an engineer. In effect the engineer is time and the effects of environment.

All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved. You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link. By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason. I am not a lemming to roll off the cliff just because the weight of numbers is against me. If that were the case, we should be following the Ptolemaic Theory that everything revolves around the earth and still be holding slaves because the majority thought it was a good idea.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory. All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory. Where I get my dander up is when either side play a holier-than-thou attitude about I am right and you are wrong. Or a variation that evolution is the norm and because the majority accept it therefore it is right.

If I understand your position correctly, you disbelieve in evolution because you haven't been shown examples intermediate stages for every single species that has ever existed. The rest of the evidence for evolution is not convincing to you.

You believe in intelligent design proved by irreducible complexity, although every claimed example of irreducible complexity has been refuted by examples from nature.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory. All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory. Where I get my dander up is when either side play a holier-than-thou attitude about I am right and you are wrong. Or a variation that evolution is the norm and because the majority accept it therefore it is right.

I do not know if I am right as it is the nature of science that nothing can be proven, only disproved. I do know, however, that you are wrong. So until evolution can be disproved it will stand as fact

Albatross wrote:
Chance, yes. Totally random, no.

Actually, its the other way around. Chance is an event, or set of events, that produce an indeterministic effect or set of effects. Random simply means "unguided by purpose" where "purpose" references a particular cause, or set of causes. To illustrate, in a universe governed by chance, drinking a Coke and eating a taco could cause you to turn into a mouse despite the fact that both the Coke and the taco maintain exactly the same material qualities that they currently do. In a random universe drinking a Coke and eating a taco might give you indigestion, or it might simply make you feel content.

Evolution is a random process, its fundamental elements are governed by the physical limitations imposed upon them by the causal force that give rise to them, were it a chance process no such limitation would exist. In fact, its open to debate as to whether or not chance processes actually exist, or if they're merely placeholders for the absence of understanding.

That said, aside from swapping terms, your argument against Fraz was fundamentally correct.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Chance, yes. Totally random, no.

Actually, its the other way around. Chance is an event, or set of events, that produce an indeterministic effect or set of effects. Random simply means "unguided by purpose" where "purpose" references a particular cause, or set of causes. To illustrate, in a universe governed by chance, drinking a Coke and eating a taco could cause you to turn into a mouse despite the fact that both the Coke and the taco maintain exactly the same material qualities that they currently do. In a random universe drinking a Coke and eating a taco might give you indigestion, or it might simply make you feel content.

Evolution is a random process, its fundamental elements are governed by the physical limitations imposed upon them by the causal force that give rise to them, were it a chance process no such limitation would exist. In fact, its open to debate as to whether or not chance processes actually exist, or if they're merely placeholders for the absence of understanding.

That said, aside from swapping terms, your argument against Fraz was fundamentally correct.

But if 'random' means that all possibilities have an equal chance of occurring* then evolution is not totally random, is it? The mutation an evolving life form is reflective - it is dependent on the environment in which the life-form is situated. That's the essence of natural selection. Fish do not simply spontaneously evolve in one generation in the desert, then die out because they are unsuited to the environment.

I mean, looking at this definition - 'proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern' - I can see where you're coming from, though I would take issue with the 'reason' and 'pattern' parts of it. Perhaps if one were to insert 'pre-determined' before each of them...

My issue was with the use of the term 'totally random'. It's not correct.



*Relevant definition of 'random': 'of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. '



Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S - I think the problem here might be that we can both come up with definitions of both words that would suit our arguments, actually. I think we're pretty much in agreement, so debate of the semiotic nature of the words would probably be ultimately pretty pointless.

My point is that species don't just pop up out of nowhere, which is what, to me, the use of 'totally random' implies.

Albatross wrote:
But if 'random' means that all possibilities have an equal chance of occurring* then evolution is not totally random, is it?

Sure it is, so long as the set of possibilities is finite. You're confusing all possible options with all conceivable options. I can conceive of flying without any form of mechanical assistance, but it isn't possible for me to do so.

That said, one can argue that the set of possibilities could be finite and still determined by chance if that finite set were all encompassing, so perhaps its better to say that X is random insofar as the set of possibilities is at least 1 less than all conceivable sets.

Albatross wrote:
My issue was with the use of the term 'totally random'. It's not correct.

Absolutely, both in the sense that it means "chance" and the sense that something cannot be partially random.

Albatross wrote:
P.S - I think the problem here might be that we can both come up with definitions of both words that would suit our arguments, actually. I think we're pretty much in agreement, so debate of the semiotic nature of the words would probably be ultimately pretty pointless.

My point is that species don't just pop up out of nowhere, which is what, to me, the use of 'totally random' implies.

Right, we basically agree, I was just pointing out the technical distinction between randomness and chance; which doesn't really exist in colloquial English. You're right, species don't pop out of nowhere (appear by chance), but there is a degree of unpredictability inherent in their appearance (randomness).

In essence, we cannot determine what the descendants of ducks will be, but we can determine that the most proximal one won't be similar to an ant.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
But if 'random' means that all possibilities have an equal chance of occurring* then evolution is not totally random, is it?

Sure it is, so long as the set of possibilities is finite. You're confusing all possible options with all conceivable options. I can conceive of flying without any form of mechanical assistance, but it isn't possible for me to do so.

That said, one can argue that the set of possibilities could be finite and still determined by chance if that finite set were all encompassing, so perhaps its better to say that X is random insofar as the set of possibilities is at least 1 less than all conceivable sets.

See, I think we may be speaking at cross-purposes here - I get the impression you're talking about mutation, whereas I'm talking about the emergence of new species. The selection. Selection is guided, to some extent. Not 'intelligently', of course, but guided nontheless.

Yes, genes can mutate in a myriad of possible ways, and it could be argued that this is a 'random' process - however, the success of those genes isn't 'random', because not all genes have an equal chance of success.

Albatross wrote:
See, I think we may be speaking at cross-purposes here - I get the impression you're talking about mutation, whereas I'm talking about the emergence of new species. The selection. Selection is guided, to some extent. Not 'intelligently', of course, but guided nontheless.

Yes, genes can mutate in a myriad of possible ways, and it could be argued that this is a 'random' process - however, the success of those genes isn't 'random', because not all genes have an equal chance of success.

I'm talking about events that are pertinent to evolution in general.

Mutation happens due to a variation in a set of conditions that involve the growth and the development of life, they aren't spontaneous events anymore than the emergence of a species is. Both events are the result of unguided processes when divorced from anthropomorphic ideas like "design" or "purpose", which really just get us into trouble over what does, and does not, have something like a will (assuming such a thing exists).

Put another way, when looked at from on high, all the myriad events that make up our daily lives are nothing more than collections of cases and effects of varying degrees of complexity.

Really, this is another part of what I was getting at when I distinguished between randomness and chance. Randomness could be observed, and be said to have been guided if viewed historically (and given sufficient information), while chance could never be viewed in such a way as no discernible pattern could exist within its repeated occurences.

Random is a subjective term. The universe does what it does, because it is the most efficient way of doing so. Certain atoms are attracted to other atoms to make up elements. This is not random, and is by design what is suppose to happen. This is not an argument for intelligent design either, as I don't buy into that. Randomness may happen with in a frame work, but obviously since most things have some sort of magnetic field in them, there will be a natural efficiency to the randomness.

Also, people who are trying to make parallels that the Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers are proof that religion should be in government, are people who are not grasping what our forefathers meant when creating this country. That there are NO GOD GIVEN rights. There is no longer a mandate from heaven. That no religious texts hold your rights in them. Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has. Though we got it wrong and had to fix it for minorities and women along the way, but we eventually go there.

Crom wrote:. Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has.

I guess I see these statements are contrdictory. If something is natural, how can it be given by man?

The very point of the founders was that nobody is "given" rights: they are inherent in man. Compare that idea with the Manga Carta or the idea of Roman Citizenship, and you see that it was a pretty big step (albiet one argued by enlightenment philosophers.)

The founders had religious ideas that would seem pretty foriegn to much of us, no differently than religion will appear different two hundred years from now.

A theory is an account or explanation for a series of related observations and verified many times, theory can cover groups of facts and laws. A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena.

A creation story is also an explanation of observed phenomena.

I'm not a creationist inthe 6 day sense, nor am I condoing a 'god' that creates so destructivly. However all the matter/energy had to come from somewhere. I am a creationist in that **somehow** the universe appears to have been created. By what or whom or how I don't know.

Howver there are so many holes in evolution that it's not that strong of a model. It's too simple. An example of a flaw I find with it are where are the obseved instances where evolution has increased the overall genomic content?

I think as we learn more about genetics, especially epigenetics we will learn more.

Crom wrote:Random is a subjective term. The universe does what it does, because it is the most efficient way of doing so.

Randomness isn't a subjective thing when it is being referred to in the technical sense. In fact, its only subjective in the same sense that any other word in the English language is. It also have nothing to with efficiency, as efficiency presupposes a sort of final purpose, and randomness fundamentally defies purpose.

Crom wrote:
Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has. Though we got it wrong and had to fix it for minorities and women along the way, but we eventually go there.

You're missing the distinction between protecting rights, and giving rights. The Declaration is often used to establish that there exist natural rights but it does not indicate that we cannot be mistaken about what they might be. Essentially, the argument from natural rights posits that rights exist in nature, and that we discover them through experience, and protect them with law. Note that this doesn't necessarily disagree with the perspective that natural rights are merely artifacts of society given that society itself can be regarded as natural; meaning that we "discover" natural rights through our own interaction.

Polonius wrote:

Crom wrote:. Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has.

I guess I see these statements are contrdictory. If something is natural, how can it be given by man?

The very point of the founders was that nobody is "given" rights: they are inherent in man. Compare that idea with the Manga Carta or the idea of Roman Citizenship, and you see that it was a pretty big step (albiet one argued by enlightenment philosophers.)

The founders had religious ideas that would seem pretty foriegn to much of us, no differently than religion will appear different two hundred years from now.

it can be, because it was recognized by man. These are non tangible things, they are concepts, and ideas. A human had to think them up in the first place.

Yay, Libertyville! It's gone from remote hick town, to yuppie suburb, to right-wing crazy town in a period of 15 years!


Why do they always seem to put the religious nutjobs as the Bio teachers? I didn't have Schaefer as my freshman Bio teacher (yes, Bio was a Freshman level course back in my day), but he taught my anatomy class senior year. My freshman bio teacher was Bomgaars, who was clearly uncomfortable with the evolution unit. He never went as far as bringing up creationism in the classroom, but he made a few comments about being unsure about the whole evolution thing.

The school board made a huge mistake in keeping Schaefer employed. I'm definitely going to have to make fun of my friends employed by LHS for working at a private school.