Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Stosh]

So then is each successive generation of healthier children the result of evolution or technology?  Obviously the variety of rabbits the SSScouter talks about tend to be more technological as with a lot of domestication of plants and animals.  But one can't attribute that to evolution.

 

So the Scout comes to his SMC and when asked he says he's an Evolutionist.  Has he answered that on religious grounds or scientific grounds?  If there is a difference then why are the evolutionists all that worried about creationism?  I wonder if science ever gets caught up in politics?  Just a thought.

[NJCubScouter]

If you agree to stay with "How will you implement it", you may stay out of I & P, but if you allow opinion as to whether it is a good or bad idea, the only way that we don't end up back here is if we have had our fill on this topic enough to keep us happy for a month or two.

 

Well, as you know, generally the moderators do not "allow" or "not allow" anything in particular to be discussed in any particular thread, or in the forum in general.  About 99 percent of the time we simply stand by and watch (and participate) as the discussions wander and meander and leap wherever they happen to go.   We try to keep the discussions on somewhere near a Scoutlike level, we respond to flag reports, we move threads from one forum section to another when they need to be moved, and we hunt down and destroy unauthorized advertising.  (That last one is MUCH easier with the new software by the way, with the running column of the most recent posts.)  And, very occasionally, close a thread, or edit or delete a post, or some other "strong" action to protect the forum.  But you will notice that nowhere on this list have I mentioned anything about keeping threads on-topic.  With one exception that I can recall from a few months ago, we do not do that, and I don't recall previous moderators doing so either.  The one exception was when someone said from the beginning that they wanted to discuss a very narrow topic in Issues and Politics, and the moderators tried to keep the topic limited to that.  That one experiment aside, I am not even sure it is a good idea to try to keep things on-topic, because it has "Resistance is Futile" written all over it.  (Somewhere in a state I've never been to, Packsaddle gets out of class and decides it's time to sign on and check the latest posts, and he doesn't even know why yet.)

 

Which leaves us with the question of whether it's even worth trying to keep a discussion of the new advancement requirements (due out the end of next week I believe) on-topic, or maybe decide from the beginning to have one discussion that will remain limited, and another one (in Issues and Politics) that can run wild like this one did.  But even THAT discussion probably should not take place in this thread, or even this sub-forum.  Maybe if I have time over the weekend I will write a blog post about it, since we apparently now have the ability to start our own blogs in the forum.

Edited April 28, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter]

So the Scout comes to his SMC and when asked he says he's an Evolutionist.  Has he answered that on religious grounds or scientific grounds?

 

When asked what?  I thought the requirement is going to be to discuss with your SM how you do your duty to God.  Regardless of whether he believes that a belief in God is perfectly compatible with evolution or that the two are mutually exclusive, I don't see how evolution is going to come up.  But this does relate to a concern that I do have about this new requirement, which nobody has really responded to, which is:  The SM and Scout are conferring, and Scout says he doesn't believe in God, or doesn't "really" believe in God, or isn't sure what people mean by "God", or doesn't know if he believes, or isn't sure, or isn't certain, or sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, or doesn't care one way or the other, or any of probably 10 more of these that I could come up with, and the question in each separate case is, okay, Scoutmaster, what are you supposed to do now?  And is the BSA going to give Scoutmasters some guidance about how to answer that question, in each of these scenarios?  That's what I want to know.  Evolution is not the issue here.  

[Stosh]

When asked what?  I thought the requirement is going to be to discuss with your SM how you do your duty to God.  Regardless of whether he believes that a belief in God is perfectly compatible with evolution or that the two are mutually exclusive, I don't see how evolution is going to come up.  But this does relate to a concern that I do have about this new requirement, which nobody has really responded to, which is:  The SM and Scout are conferring, and Scout says he doesn't believe in God, or doesn't "really" believe in God, or isn't sure what people mean by "God", or doesn't know if he believes, or isn't sure, or isn't certain, or sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, or doesn't care one way or the other, or any of probably 10 more of these that I could come up with, and the question in each separate case is, okay, Scoutmaster, what are you supposed to do now?  And is the BSA going to give Scoutmasters some guidance about how to answer that question, in each of these scenarios?  That's what I want to know.  Evolution is not the issue here.  

 

And that is why I changed my opinion from when this topic first started until now.  

[NJCubScouter]

And just to be clear, in my last post I am not talking about the hypothetical Scoutmaster who is trying to push his religious beliefs on his Scouts.  My guess is that that Scoutmaster has already been asking this question, or some related question (like "Do you believe in God?), for years anyway.  It's the Scoutmaster who does not want to ask this question, never thought about asking this question, is not comfortable about asking this question, that I'm concerned about.  He doesn't really care what the Scout believes, but he is now (potentially) being placed in the middle of a situation he wants no part of, and what he does next may have serious ramifications for the Scout.  

[Eagledad]

 the question in each separate case is, okay, Scoutmaster, what are you supposed to do now?  And is the BSA going to give Scoutmasters some guidance about how to answer that question, in each of these scenarios?  That's what I want to know.  

What are the SMs saying now? The question was being asked and is still being asked by many thousands of SMs because it is part of the Law and Oath. 

 

Barry

[qwazse]

What are the SMs saying now? The question was being asked and is still being asked by many thousands of SMs because it is part of the Law and Oath. 

 

Barry

 

I'm really not gonna take this too seriously. As ASMs in a troop that is quadrupling via merger, the outgoing SM and I are gonna support the incoming SM in however he wants to deal with this. My goal is to keep nebby noses away from the SMCs, and let the SM formulate his style.

 

Frankly, the meat of these discussions never comes up in the SMC. More likely it will come when we are fishing by the lakeshore in twilight.

 

When I'm actually stuck, I'll let you know.

[moosetracker]

Of course that leaves the whole issue that evolution doesn't even address, what triggered the creation of the universe and everything in it?  Evolution is nothing but a philosophical argument which proposes the premise that when one collects enough mutations in living organisms they might be able to survive and adapt to environmental conditions it finds itself in, such as hot vents in the floor of the oceans that are home to organism that cannot live anywhere else without dying.  Kinda like humans don't do well outside in sub-zero weather either.  But those who evolve into putting on coat, hat and mittens seem to have a longer life expectancy than those that don/t.

 

So where in all of this do we find the convincing argument that some sort of being, outside the confines of the universe didn't have a hand in making it all happen?  (I hope people don't think I meant literally a real hand, just a figure of speech.) Well evolution is our best shot at it at this point? and it's a pretty paltry attempt in my opinion.  Keep it in mind that no matter how good science may eventually get it is always limited to a relationship of time and space, neither of which any religion ascribe to their god(s).  Quote all the scientists one wishes who are knowledgeable in their field of study, once they cross the line out of the realm of time and space, they are no longer operating within their own definition of science.  This is where Socrates and later on Darwin build their philosophical assumptions.

Of course it's a pretty paltry attempt, when they are not attempting to do what you are accusing them of they aren't going to do a good job at it. They are explaining how humans and other living creatures evolved (or became extinct) by studying their bones / fossils & for humans artifacts.. How you think they are suppose to jump to explaining the  spark of life or the soul from a bunch of dusty old bones has me scratching my head..

 

Now if you want to fear some science maybe someday possibly being able to recreate manmade life (rather then life from the reproduction system of life) and therefore maybe showing the world that life was created without the need for any god being involved I would look at the science that currently create test tube babies (currently they can't without the egg & sperm) they are only simulating the womb).. But, could they possibly advance to do so?...   Also I read somewhere recently that some scientists are discussing the possibility of recreating the dinosaur from DNA matter from their old bones.. Ok the evolutionist may use the bones to study the evolution and extinction of the dinasaurs, but I do not think they are the ones trying to figure out how to recreate Dinosaurs.. (and really who wants Dinosaurs roaming around today? Jurassic Park in reality? How about starting with something nicer like bring back the Dodo bird..  Anyway, there wasn't enough in the article to state how they thought this possible. Would they start with and egg & sperm like say an elephant, and alter the DNA? Or do they propose they are going to find a way to create a manmade spark of life (Frankenstein style).. 

 

But, if DNA research starts to worry you, then do we need to throw out our trust in using DNA to find out a rapist, or free an innocent person?.. Can DNA no longer be tested to figure out if the bones of someone deceased is your missing son or mother? Of course now you can discount evolution because it does base some of its facts on DNA testing..

 

 

So then is each successive generation of healthier children the result of evolution or technology?  Obviously the variety of rabbits the SSScouter talks about tend to be more technological as with a lot of domestication of plants and animals.  But one can't attribute that to evolution.

Evolution today is mostly being studied on the changes in animals due to changes in our world.. Like how polar bears are adapting with the melting ice caps, and other animals with loss of forests or swamps etc..  I kind of wondered something similar a few days back in respect to humans.. I don't know if it was considered evolution or what, but when our ancestors migrated out, different communities took on very distinct features.. European, Afro-American, Asian, native American.. This was not only visual, but anthropologist can study human bone and depict what culture the bones came from..  Now with travel so easy and inter-racial marriages (or coupling) the distinct feature over time will start blending together (at least I would think) in a few hundred years will there even be any distinctions? You discuss technology.. I would think that what it plays on our  evolution is not something they would distinguish as a different study.. I believe the ability for our ancestors to live in caves, build fires, create tools and find ways to travel and migrate all over the world, played a part in our evolution in the past studies, so why would modern technology not be considered a factor in how we evolve in the future.. In some ways I would imagine we may evolve less due to the fact it is no longer a survival of the fittest.. But who knows what the future will hold.. 

 

 

So the Scout comes to his SMC and when asked he says he's an Evolutionist.  Has he answered that on religious grounds or scientific grounds?  If there is a difference then why are the evolutionists all that worried about creationism?  I wonder if science ever gets caught up in politics?  Just a thought.

Since evolution is a science and has nothing to do with religion this would be a weird thing for a scout to say.. It would not answer for duty to God, now during the course of conversation maybe something in the conversation may spark the scout to go off in this direction, just as it did with you.. But this would really be going off the subject of his religious belief and more into a discussion of if his religious beliefs allow him to embrace evolution or run contrary to it.

Edited April 28, 2015 by moosetracker

[packsaddle]

Out of class briefly and I can tell you...this whole discussion does not give me great confidence in our scientific literacy if this forum is representative of the general public. 

If you have a room with an entomologist, a bryologist, a palynologist, ,a malacologist, a phycologist, a herpetologist, an ornithologist, a microbiologist, ....you get the idea...and ask them to define 'species', you'll get a number of responses that exceeds the number of scientists in the room. If you leave them alone the discussion will go on longer than this thread. Most of you would misunderstand much of the discussion.

 

When I was still in the larval stage I listened to my mentors as they laughed and said that a species is whatever a competent taxonomist says it is. Which bothered me then and it still bothers me. Today I like to rake graduate students 'over the coals' by requiring them to explain what "units of selection" are. These concepts seem simple superficially but when you go 'under the hood' they get exceedingly complex. The discussion goes to the heart of the foundations of biology. Graduate students are particularly easy prey because they often come into the discussion cocky and 'full of ..it'. They often leave humbled and wondering if their career just ended. I like that outcome. It's a good thing to know that at any moment you could end up greeting people at WalMart.

 

Folks, when you have mastered multivariate analysis and combined those skills with molecular genetics and cladistics, just to start, then you will be prepared to address some of these things. 

To make things simple (I hope) for Stosh, any change in the gene frequencies in a population counts as some level of evolution. That is the simplest definition - change in gene frequencies. Speciation is way over on the other end of the spectrum. The logic of the process has never been successfully challenged.

 

In the example cited by Merlyn (and me a while back)...in which Lenski followed 12 identical populations of E. coli for more than 60,000 generations (so far), it's worth reading his publications. This was only one of several lines of research that have shown actual contemporary evolution. (of course, we've been applying these principles in the development of crops and animal husbandry for a very long time...sometimes without knowing it). 

 

Unless the very existence of science is considered to be an attack on religion, science itself does not attack anything other than testable hypotheses. 

If anyone thinks that the inability of religion to construct a testable hypothesis is a weakness of religion, then THEY are the ones who are diminishing religion, not science. Religion cannot be addressed by science. At best science is neutral about things it cannot address. At worst it is indifferent. 

 

Edit: Here's a link to the paper presenting the results after only 20,000 generations: http://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf

Edited April 29, 2015 by packsaddle

[moosetracker]

Out of class briefly and I can tell you...this whole discussion does not give me great confidence in our scientific literacy if this forum is representative of the general public. 

 

Professor says back to school... 

 

Well I know I can't sit down with a full fledge scientist and talk turkey.. My limited understanding of science comes from reading articles (that interest me, I admit to me most scientific articles are yawners), that have dumbed down the science in order to relate to us average folk.. And yes, some of my understanding of that reading may have strayed, or my memory of an article I read 2 years back may have a little rust on it.

[packsaddle]

Moose, it isn't necessary for you to be able to "talk turkey" on these subjects. What is necessary is a genuine, honest desire to have an objective and honest discussion and to try to understand. Science is available to anyone. It does take some work and probably time, depending on what aspects interest you. But people have to want to do that 'heavy lifting'. Most don't, or so it seems.

 

Edit: This is one reason I like undergraduate students. They are still (OK, you're going to laugh) 'innocent' in some ways. Stop laughing. 

I am ok with the fact that you want to discuss these things. 'Rusty' is something that can be remedied with a little oil and some exercise. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by packsaddle

[moosetracker]

Yeah I admit not a heavy lifter of boring stuff.. It has to be an article of interest, for me usually dealing with history so mummy's and buried cities rediscovered, and some evolution when they find very old mass graves, or bones that predate what they knew before, or are found in an area further then they new the animal was commonly known to be, or interesting old artifacts found locally.. Perhaps those interesting articles are not totally accurate??..

 

Just to let you know my religious beliefs are not threatened by any science. Your scientist pals can create man-made life and I am still good. Because it will not prove that that is how life really began, just that you can recreate life in this way.. Also to do so you would be using elements of the earth and it's atmosphere to do so.. Then there still is the question of who created the combination of those that allowed the ability for you to create man-made life?..

 

I was just pointing to some sciences that might come closer to explaining the creation of life then sitting around waiting for the science of evolution to explain life from studying the relationship of one set of old bones to another.. And stating evolution is poppy-cock until it successfully can do so..

 

But hey, if I have made any of your students look intelligent on their final exams compared to me.. I am happy to do them the favor, tell them I will except flowers & candy for their gratitude..

Edited April 29, 2015 by moosetracker

[Stosh]

Darwin's treatise's full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species.

 

Rather politically incorrect by today's standards and the focus is not on evolution but on the ORIGIN of SPECIES, which emphasizes natural selection instead of the Church's stand on Creationism.

 

I particularly like the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  So do all the proponents of mass genocide..

 

This is why I'm not putting any of my eggs in these kinds of baskets.

 

And it's worth reiterating that Darwin was well aware of the differences of races within the species Homo Sapient.    Do you really want to open up that can of worms?  It's been done many times over the millenia and never with a positive outcome.  It makes the Catholic Inquisition, Crusades. Holocaust and Salem Witch Trials all look like a cake walk.

 

Evolution with all of it's short-comiings still remains the cornerstone of atheistic "proof" for the non-existence of (G)od(s).  Man came into being without any help from mythical beings.  That takes it out of the realm of science and into religion, and they do it on purpose.

 

And by the way, the polar bear might be adapting to a changing environment, but the last time I checked, they were still polar bears.    Homo Sapient as a species has adapted  to ever place on earth and his still considered a Homo Sapient.  The same one that walked out of history from nowhere and migrated to every land mass on earth.

[packsaddle]

Stosh, thanks for confirming.

 

Moosetracker, Yeah, that life's beginning thing. Science doesn't know how this happened. I am always amazed when someone refutes some fictitious "claim by science" that there is one origin or another. That critical thinking error is one in which a fact that is not in evidence is assumed so that it can be refuted. There ARE plenty of speculations, some of them interesting and possibly plausible. But they remain speculations. 

Yes we can demonstrate how certain conditions can cause the synthesis of complex organic or other molecules. And we can find evidence for their existence in the geological record. But we don't conclude, on that basis, that THAT is what happened. We don't know and I doubt we ever will. We can only state a reasonable possibility. 

But if anyone really needs to fill the gap regarding the origin of life, then they're free to fill that need with a faith-based belief. No problem.

 

We don't have to know about the origin in order to study what happened after. And that is what we do. To somehow connect evolution to the question of the origin of life is further evidence of lack of understanding of both evolution and the speculations about origins. 

As for those students, they are assessed on their own merits, or lack thereof. I confess that I dislike grading people more than any other aspect of this job and that's where I take on a student-like quality....procrastination, lol. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by packsaddle

[moosetracker]

Stosh - I think you are reading too much into "The Origin of Species"..  So humans originated from Neanderthals who originated from something else, who originated from something else.. But at some point it ends with some long ago extinct living creature and no one will explain where that came from..  The cat came from long ago extinct barbourofelis, who came from Dirk tooth who came from the Saber kitty.. But where did the Saber kitty come from?? (and yes I looked that up, I knew they were ancestors of the saber Tooth, but was not sure if we jumped from Saber tooth to kitty and it appears we did not..) Anyway, the origin of Species from those now deceased, will still not answer the origin of life..

 

As for the differences of races, perhaps Packsaddle can point me to some good articles when he is done with grading his final exams..  I would be interested in learning more about it. Remember Pack, not too techie... Yes we are all considered human, but remember what Professor Packsaddle posted earlier.. "any change in the gene frequencies in a population counts as some level of evolution."   So for Orientals to have dark hair and almond shaped brown eyes, and Europeans to have fairer color skin, eye color and hair color etc.. although it didn't make a new species it did meet the criteria of gene frequencies in a population.. (I think, Packsaddle can school me if I am wrong.)

 

As for Polar Bears, yes they are still Polar Bears but being forced to adapt will not cause changes overnight.. What changes will happen as they eat different things, need to live in warmer climates, I think I read one Polar Bear was found living in the habitat of another bear (not sure if it was brown or black or what), could they procreate?.. They still could go extinct, but there is hope for them to survive if they can change to meet the needs.. If they do though change would be gradual.. Don't expect a  totally new species in 5 to 10 years..

Edited April 29, 2015 by moosetracker