Alternative facts seems like either oxymorons or sources of cognitive dissonance. At best they may be due to failure to have agreed upon definition of terms, at worst they may be deliberate deceptions. In between those extremes are areas of foggy thinking or reliance on gurus of varying degrees of competence.
To my embarrassment I re-read my February 2015 post on "Evolution: the body cavity". I did so to see if was really so good that more people have recently been viewing it more than all 160 of my other posts put together. I noted the first sentence of the third paragraph had an "alternative fact".
Evolution- my embarrassing alternative fact
Pseudocoelomates were placed in an evolutionary sequence between acoelomates and coelomates.
There is no factual basis for that statement. In fact, it is more likely the pseudocoelomates are a separate line from the turbellarian flatworms just as the coelomates are a separate line from the turbellarian flatworms. There may have been other origins of pseudocoelomates besides the aschelminths (gastrotrichs, rotifers, kinorhynchs, and nematodes) that evolved from the turbellarians via the gnathostomulids.
Politics- alternative facts
The headlines responsible for the the popularity of alternative facts may be due to unwarranted reliance on the pronouncements of an adulated guru. Neither conservatism nor liberalism is always right or always wrong in their particular definitions of how the constitutional God-given rights of people should be interpreted.. The "Bill of Rights" should help us realize that and see the value of an interaction of the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government in reaching prudent solutions.
Religion- alternative facts
Literal based interpretations versus a message carried in varied literary forms, as ways of getting God's message in scripture have long plagued Christians. I suspect similar problems have led to the divisions seen among Jews and Muslims.
Roman Catholics are currently undergoing divisive problems with a few cardinals trying to "correct" the Pope with what seems to be a reaction to his trying to replace privilege with more Christ-like behavior in the hierarchy.
Science- alternative facts
We have come a long way from when we believed everything in the world was composed of four elements such as fire and water. Evolution, following the acceptance of natural selection's importance, has seen anatomical studies, the fossil record, embryology, and molecular genetic principles being successively accepted principles guiding natural selection and the placement of species in correct genealogical order. Unfortunately, reliance on the most recent fad has brought unrecognized chaos to parts of the view of the tree of life. My earlier posts on pogonophora, the deep-sea, isopods, and longevity might help you update yourself on what the current science literature is missing.
Acknowledgements
I appreciate the many individuals students, faculty, family and friends that contributed to my thinking and development. Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, The University of Tasmania, The United States Fulbright Commission for International Education, and Aquinas College all had significant input into the process of my development of new ideas in my blogs; however, I take full credit for any errors that may be involved.
Joseph G. Engemann Emeritus Professor of Biology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan February 2, 2017
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Monday, November 28, 2016
RESOLVING SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIFFERENCES
Elizabeth Johnson's book, Ask the Beasts was mentioned at the end of the previous post. On pages 7 to 9 she discusses science (evolutionary theory) and religion (theology) interactions. She notes four ways of interacting described by Ian Barbour in his 1990 Gifford Lectures.
The first type of interaction was conflict. As evidenced by fundamentalists insisting literal interpretation of Genesis proves evolutionary theory is simply wrong, and atheists countering with the argument of science that evolutionary theory is backed by the creation of life and its variations by the chance processes of evolution and natural selection which proves God does not exist. Neither side admits to the flaws in their arguments so the creation/evolution/debate keeps resurfacing.
The second type of interaction, independence, is more a lack of interaction due to lack of overlap in their areas of operation. This may be a practical solution and not a admission or right or wrong in the position of those outside their main area of interest.
The third type, dialogue, attempts to resolve the differences in positions by gaining new insights into religious teachings and their meanings.
The fourth type, integration, carries dialogue a little farther and might achieve recognition of God as the source of the laws governing the physical world,
Johnson proposes practical cooperation as "a fifth model of interaction that I would add to Barbour's chart, . . . . . .for the preservation of the natural world." There certainly are both religious and scientific grounds for cooperating on common ethical standards for preserving the natural world.
ASK YOURSELF
Conflict is inevitable when you take a strong stand in the creation/evolution debate that frequently arises when advocates of special creation contend with mainstream science over the teaching of evolution as the origin of species (especially humans), by means of natural selection, in science classes of public schools.
The flawed arguments of those most vocal adherents of special creation are very convincing to those whose training in science is is limited. Many may become internally conflicted or experience cognitive dissonance trying to resolve the question. Both arguments seem persuasive. So who is right.
SO WHAT IS IT?
When I taught about evolution I tried to present the scientific facts about the operation of evolution and the evidence that exists. Mindful of the distress experienced by those indoctrinated in literal interpretation of Genesis, I pointed out that an all-powerful, infinite creator, could create the fossils and species of living organisms in seven days or any desired timescale, I did not think that belief was necessary, I don't remember if I told them I believed God created the world and all the natural processes science has discovered. I probably told them that others believe it started with the "Big Bang." It would seem that scientists would recognize God as the cause for that moment of creation.
I don't think anyone has had a valid revelation about all the details of how God created and sustains the world. The operation of natural laws created by God are sufficient to explain the evolution of the world by means of natural selection. But natural selection has random events that make the history of the species on the earth very complicated. Sometimes we see selection leading to gigantism, sometimes to great size reduction. Side branches of the tree of life lead to many groups showing great diversity, often radiating into scavengers, herbivores, predators, and parasites. Certainly, God is the creator of all those things, whether by one astounding act of creation, or with continual input into the process. My saying so does not make it so, although I would opt for the one astounding act of creation. I know God sometimes accepts special requests and clearly did numerous miraculous things from the time of Abraham to the present, with the special highlight of events over thirty some years beginning about 2016 years ago.
Many have made their choice, so conflict will continue for them.
Joseph G. Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan November 28, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
DARWIN'S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION
THE BOOK BY FRANCISCO J. AYALA
DARWIN'S GIFT to Science and Religion was published in 2007 by John Henry Press in Washington, D.C. The 237 pages are easy reading. The shock to me was its content did a remarkable job of covering some of the main points I made in my unpublished Evolution Insights a few years later.The Scientific Method
I particularly liked his comment on page 186 about the scientific method, saying."The most interesting and fruitful scientific hypotheses are not simple generalizations. Instead scientific hypotheses are creations of the mind, imaginative suggestions as to what might be true."
His accompanying discussion is well worth reading if you want to be a scientist.
The Molecular Clock
He does a good job of discussing the conventional view without indicating his expertise and publications which place him among the national leaders. On page 135 at the end of the four pages on the topic, he says.
"As the length of time increases, periods of rapid and slow evolution in any lineage are likely to cancel one another out."
The faulty opinion of canceling out was included over half a century ago in the first major publication of the science of molecular clocks by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965). The opinion has plagued attempts to use molecular clocks in determining the higher level evolutionary relationships of organisms ever since. My post on May 31, 2013 was part of my attempt to alert professional biologists to the problem. Other posts on the deep sea and pogonophorans are important aides to understanding a solution to the problem.
About Ayala
His experience in biology and early exposure to more philosophical subjects make him well suited to write the book he did. His youthful picture on the dust-jacket of his book must have been taken in mid-life between his birth in 1934 and his book's 2007 publication. He is a credit to both science and religion. I am about six years older than he is and have far less to show for it professionally.
On page 3 in his introduction he says-
"Evolution, I learned in my theology classes, had provided theologians with the "missing link" in the explanation of evil in the world . . . . .". Maybe you will find his explanation more intelligible on the topic than my post of March 22, 2016.
I was unaware of his book before today (April 25, 2016) but the above was the outcome from a two-hour visit to the library, with perhaps less than an hour spent on the book. His book is of special interest if you are interested in the unnecessary conflict between science and religion.
Joseph G. Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan April 25, 2016
Saturday, May 23, 2015
GOD Posts List
God related posts
The
following list of 23 posts has the post number, date, and approximate title of
posts with something pertinent to the GOD page of evolutioninsights.blogspot.com/ Other posts on creativity or science may
also be of interest. If you accept my
view that God is the Creator of the world and its principles, such as
evolution, then all 104 prior posts should be of interest.
1 5/9/2013 My
Evolution Blog
5 5/21/2013 GOD
10 6/8/2013 God and His People
12 6/12/2013 Darwin and God
28 10/22/2013 Evolution and Morality
29 10/27/2013 Evolution and Stem Cell Morality
32 12/18/2013 God and MLK
40 3/12/2014 Evolution Insights: Preface
41 4/3/2014 Evolution and Marriage
42 4/12/2014 God, Science, and the Media
47 5/4/2014 Psychoanalysis of a blogger
49 5/13/2014 Hello World
50 5/17/2014 Finding God
60 6/30/2014 God: Lectio Divina
61 7/25/2014 Evolution: Intelligence and Creativity
66 9/15/2014 Evolution and the error of irreducible complexity
69 10/4/2014 Evolution, Science, and Extraterrestrial Life
71 10/11/2014 Habit, Creativity, Evolution, and God
74 10/31/2014 God, Evolution, and the Pope
76 11/17/2014 God: Women Priests?
81 12/27/2014 Konnersreuth and Teresa Neumann
83 1/19/2015 God and Religious Traditions
84 1/21/2015 Our Relationship with God
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)