NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: It's difficult in the extreme for the average person to comprehend the incredible span of time since life first began, yet this is a necessary frist step to a full unerstanding of evolution. This article goes a long way toward helping with this.


Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tue3.html?th&emc=th)


By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: August 23, 2005

Last month a team of paleontologists announced that it had found several fossilized dinosaur embryos that were 190 million years old - some 90 million years older than any dinosaur embryos found so far. Those kinds of numbers are always a little daunting. Ever since I was a boy in a public elementary school in Iowa, I've been learning to face the eons and eons that are embedded in the universe around us.

I know the numbers as they stand at present, and I know what they mean, in a roughly comparative way. The universe is perhaps 14 billion years old. Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. The oldest hominid fossils are between 6 million and 7 million years old. The oldest distinctly modern human fossils are about 160,000 years old.

The truth of these numbers has the same effect on me as watching the night sky in the high desert. It fills me with a sense of nonspecific immensity. I don't think I'm alone in this.

One of the most powerful limits to the human imagination is our inability to grasp, in a truly intuitive way, the depths of terrestrial and cosmological time. That inability is hardly surprising because our own lives are so very short in comparison. It's hard enough to come to terms with the brief scale of human history. But the difficulty of comprehending what time is on an evolutionary scale, I think, is a major impediment to understanding evolution.

It's been approximately 3.5 billion years since primeval life first originated on this planet. That is not an unimaginable number in itself, if you're thinking of simple, discrete units like dollars or grains of sand. But 3.5 billion years of biological history is different. All those years have really passed, moment by moment, one by one. They encompass an actual, already lived reality, encompassing all the lives of all the organisms that have come and gone in that time. That expanse of time defines the realm of biological possibility in which life in its extraordinary diversity has evolved. It is time that has allowed the making of us.

The idea of such quantities of time is extremely new. Humans began to understand the true scale of geological time in the early 19th century. The probable depth of cosmological time and the extent of the history of the human species have come to light only within our own lifetimes.

That is a lot to absorb and, not surprisingly, many people refuse to absorb it. Nearly every attack on evolution - whether it is called intelligent design or plain creationism, synonyms for the same faith-based rejection of evolution - ultimately requires a foreshortening of cosmological, geological and biological time.

Humans feel much more content imagining a world of more human proportions, with a shorter time scale and a simple narrative sense of cause and effect. But what we prefer to believe makes no difference. The fact that life on Earth has arrived at a point where it is possible for humans to have beliefs is due to the steady ticking away of eons and the trial and error of natural selection.

Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.

Accepting the fact of evolution does not necessarily mean discarding a personal faith in God. But accepting intelligent design means discarding science. Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.

The purpose of the campaign for intelligent design is to deepen that failure. To present the arguments of intelligent design as part of a debate over evolution is nonsense. From the scientific perspective, there is no debate. But even the illusion of a debate is a sorry victory for antievolutionists, a public relations victory based, as so many have been in recent years, on ignorance and obfuscation.

The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.

Good article. Sometimes I think the only reason people object to evolution is the psychological barrier of accepting the monumentally long timescales neccessary for evolution to happen and how insignificant that can make you feel.

Pretty good article. I very much agree with the bolded part. I too, think that the arrogance engendered by valuing ourselves as more important than the entirety of this extraordinary universe is dangerous to our own well-being and the well-being of our environment.

Good article. Sometimes I think the only reason people object to evolution is the psychological barrier of accepting the monumentally long timescales neccessary for evolution to happen and how insignificant that can make you feel.

On the contrary, teddy bears are delicious.

I feel much more significant because the whole of creation has been made by God to reach it's climax in humanity, specifically me.

Good article. Sometimes I think the only reason people object to evolution is the psychological barrier of accepting the monumentally long timescales neccessary for evolution to happen and how insignificant that can make you feel.
Yep! Plus there are qute a number of people who seem to feel that evolution undermines the foundations of their faith, something that I have never been able to undersand. If God is God, it doesn't matter how he created life, only the fact that he did.

One of the bases for much of the hostility among fundamentalist Christians toward evolution is "Usher's chronology." This was an attempt by a Monk named Usher, who lived during the 4th Century, to determine the age of the universe by means of the various geneologies in the Bible. After determining how long each of the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived, Usher concluded that the universe was about 6,000 years old. For some reason many modern Christians have adopted this timespan as "Biblical."

What I have trouble understanding is why many Christians feel their faith is threatened by science. If the Bible is true, then what do they have to worry about? Truth should be able to stand up under any and all questioning, yes?

On the contrary, teddy bears are delicious.

I feel much more significant because the whole of creation has been made by God to reach it's climax in humanity, specifically me.
Um ... do I detect a note of sarcasm ... I HOPE! :confused:

Um ... do I detect a note of sarcasm ... I HOPE! :confused:

No, I actually believe teddy bears are delicious. :D

Yep! Plus there are qute a number of people who seem to feel that evolution undermines the foundations of their faith, something that I have never been able to undersand. If God is God, it doesn't matter how he created life, only the fact that he did.

One of the bases for much of the hostility among fundamentalist Christians toward evolution is "Usher's chronology." This was an attempt by a Monk named Usher, who lived during the 4th Century, to determine the age of the universe by means of the various geneologies in the Bible. After determining how long each of the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived, Usher concluded that the universe was about 6,000 years old. For some reason many modern Christians have adopted this timespan as "Biblical."

What I have trouble understanding is why many Christians feel their faith is threatened by science. If the Bible is true, then what do they have to worry about? Truth should be able to stand up under any and all questioning, yes?

Which is the problem us poor little theistic evolutionists have. Atheist evolutionist only have to fight the creationists, Creationists only fight the evolutionists, but we have to fight the both of you!

On the contrary, teddy bears are delicious.

I feel much more significant because the whole of creation has been made by God to reach it's climax in humanity, specifically me.

...and a very premature climax it is...

...and a very premature climax it is...

Are you questioning God's judgement. Oh well, he loves you anyway!

But seriously, what do you mean by premature?

I remember my science teacher at school saying that if the time span of the universe was condensed into a year, the Earth was formed in early september, dinosaurs appeared on the 25th of december and were extinct on the 27th, while humans appeared at quarter to midnight on new years eve.

I might not have remembered it exactly right, but that is A LOT of time, more than I can properly comprehend. Who's to say what could have happened over that time period?

...and a very premature climax it is...
ROFLMAO! Are you trying to say that he's an abortion?? LOL!

Are you questioning God's judgement. Oh well, he loves you anyway!

But seriously, what do you mean by premature?

Just that, almost by definition, the later climax (me) is better. :D

multiple-entendre alert!

And this is why "irreduceable complexity" is such an absurd idea. Nature can do amazing things with tiny mutations and hundreds and hundreds of generations.

I remember my science teacher at school saying that if the time span of the universe was condensed into a year, the Earth was formed in early september, dinosaurs appeared on the 25th of december and were extinct on the 27th, while humans appeared at quarter to midnight on new years eve.

I might not have remembered it exactly right, but that is A LOT of time, more than I can properly comprehend. Who's to say what could have happened over that time period?
Exactly.

This is one of the reasons I veiw religious fundamentalism as a retreat: a retreat from comprehension, a retreat from thought, a retreat from reality.

Don't like the reality science has discovered? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Don't like the often harsh realities of life? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Dont' like the reality of deep human sexuality? Retreat into fundamentalism.

ROFLMAO! Are you trying to say that he's an abortion?? LOL!

You've misread my thrust completely by coming too early to a conclusion.

I do not agree with intelligent design people but I can understand where they are coming from.

I mean, would you rather be descended from simians who pick flees off each other's backs or would you have rather been divinely created? Of course, the truth is the former option but the latter has certain attractions anyway.

Which is the problem us poor little theistic evolutionists have. Atheist evolutionist only have to fight the creationists, Creationists only fight the evolutionists, but we have to fight the both of you!
While I don't doubt that there are atheistic evolutionists who give you crap because of your belief, my bet is that the crap is based on the "theistic" part of the argument rather than on the evolution side of it. On evolution, you're--we're--allies. As an agnostic evolutionist, I'm willing to ignore the theistic part of the discussion because it doesn't really impact on anything important as far as I'm concerned. How we got here (the evolutionary question) is far more important to me than why we're here (the religious question).

I do not agree with intelligent design people but I can understand where they are coming from.

I mean, would you rather be descended from simians who pick flees off each other's backs or would you have rather been divinely created? Of course, the truth is the former option but the latter has certain attractions anyway.
I'd rather be descended from simians--it means we're improving. :D

Think about it--the entire story behind the fall is that we were once perfect and we've been going to hell ever since and only the grace of our Creator can save us. What's uplifting about that? We started off good, fell, and ever since, things have been getting worse--not exactly a cheery outlook on life.

This is one of the reasons I veiw religious fundamentalism as a retreat: a retreat from comprehension, a retreat from thought, a retreat from reality.

Don't like the reality science has discovered? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Don't like the often harsh realities of life? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Dont' like the reality of deep human sexuality? Retreat into fundamentalism.
OMFG I suddenly have feelings of respect for you. :eek:

Must... cleanse... soul...

a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.
:eek: :eek: OMFG i didn't know things were that bad


jeez, and less than 10% of people in the UK even describe themselves as 'religious' at all, according to the 2000 census i think



anyways, good article :)

there's a really important fundamental (difference of) understanding that underlies the whole of 'belief' in evolution and/or big bang theory, but i'm having such a hard time putting it into words i've given up :(
maybe later

OMFG I suddenly have feelings of respect for you. :eek:

Must... cleanse... soul...

Need a tissue?

What I can't understand is that instead of adapting and interpreting the Bible in the light of new discoveries, so many Christians (I haven't noticed this in Germany all that much) actually start their own Pseudo-science to counter evolution... :(

<snip>
The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.
We are just an accident of natural selection. Nature did us no favours, it made no effort on our behalf so we have no obligations to it. We can do anything we like with our environment because that is what we should do. We evolved to a state capable of manipulating our environment and that is what has made us the dominant predator on this planet. As such, it is our evolutionary duty, an imperative even, to continue to do as we will with our environment to ensure our own benefit. Any species that gets in the way of Nature's supreme predator, is nothing but another evolutionary dead end. It's natural selection.
To attempt to argue that evolution generates an obligation to anything but our own species is to anthropomorphise nature and ascribe to it the warmth and caring of a nurturing mother, as opposed to the callous and cruel reality of an ungendered natural system where only the strong survive and the weak are either a liability or food.

We are just an accident of natural selection. Nature did us no favours, it made no effort on our behalf so we have no obligations to it. We can do anything we like with our environment because that is what we should do. We evolved to a state capable of manipulating our environment and that is what has made us the dominant predator on this planet. As such, it is our evolutionary duty, an imperative even, to continue to do as we will with our environment to ensure our own benefit. Any species that gets in the way of Nature's supreme predator, is nothing but another evolutionary dead end. It's natural selection.
To attempt to argue that evolution generates an obligation to anything but our own species is to anthropomorphise nature and ascribe to it the warmth and caring of a nurturing mother, as opposed to the callous and cruel reality of an ungendered natural system where only the strong survive and the weak are either a liability or food.Muahaha... that is just so wrong. How many predators survive eating all their prey? As you say, we are only obligated towards our own species, but mistreating nature is a form of mistreating our species...
Evolution works with niches, balances, and a whole lot more than "Eat or be eaten".

Yep! Plus there are qute a number of people who seem to feel that evolution undermines the foundations of their faith, something that I have never been able to undersand. If God is God, it doesn't matter how he created life, only the fact that he did.

One of the bases for much of the hostility among fundamentalist Christians toward evolution is "Usher's chronology." This was an attempt by a Monk named Usher, who lived during the 4th Century, to determine the age of the universe by means of the various geneologies in the Bible. After determining how long each of the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived, Usher concluded that the universe was about 6,000 years old. For some reason many modern Christians have adopted this timespan as "Biblical."

What I have trouble understanding is why many Christians feel their faith is threatened by science. If the Bible is true, then what do they have to worry about? Truth should be able to stand up under any and all questioning, yes?
Well, it disrupts their everyday idolatry of the image portrayed in the Bible. Once you concretize that image into something real, then any variation from it is a threat.

Eut, you may be the reigning perv of General, but you still make damn good threads.

:D

I do not agree with intelligent design people but I can understand where they are coming from.

I mean, would you rather be descended from simians who pick flees off each other's backs or would you have rather been divinely created? Of course, the truth is the former option but the latter has certain attractions anyway.
Yeah, I mean if you have a choice between being naturally imperfect, or someone deliberately designing you to be imperfect, why wouldn't you want to be made that way?

:)

Exactly.

This is one of the reasons I veiw religious fundamentalism as a retreat: a retreat from comprehension, a retreat from thought, a retreat from reality.

Don't like the reality science has discovered? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Don't like the often harsh realities of life? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Dont' like the reality of deep human sexuality? Retreat into fundamentalism.

Ugh. Some of us are unfortunate enough to have to grow up with fundamentalism. Then we have the much more difficult job of escaping it instead of retreating into it. :(

Yep! Plus there are qute a number of people who seem to feel that evolution undermines the foundations of their faith, something that I have never been able to undersand. If God is God, it doesn't matter how he created life, only the fact that he did.

One of the bases for much of the hostility among fundamentalist Christians toward evolution is "Usher's chronology." This was an attempt by a Monk named Usher, who lived during the 4th Century, to determine the age of the universe by means of the various geneologies in the Bible. After determining how long each of the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived, Usher concluded that the universe was about 6,000 years old. For some reason many modern Christians have adopted this timespan as "Biblical."

What I have trouble understanding is why many Christians feel their faith is threatened by science. If the Bible is true, then what do they have to worry about? Truth should be able to stand up under any and all questioning, yes?


While I agree I think some of the problem also is the fact that if parts of their book are PROVEN to be just metaphor it leads into people questioning if more is not metaphor as well.
It’s a natural protection of their belief system … They don’t always do it rationally but their motivation is pretty natural at least

We are just an accident of natural selection. Nature did us no favours, it made no effort on our behalf so we have no obligations to it. We can do anything we like with our environment because that is what we should do. We evolved to a state capable of manipulating our environment and that is what has made us the dominant predator on this planet. As such, it is our evolutionary duty, an imperative even, to continue to do as we will with our environment to ensure our own benefit. Any species that gets in the way of Nature's supreme predator, is nothing but another evolutionary dead end. It's natural selection.
Unfortunately, evolution also provided us with a mind and a heart to combat such limited, materialistic, stereotypical views. I guess that's Nature's tough luck, too.

To attempt to argue that evolution generates an obligation to anything but our own species is to anthropomorphise nature and ascribe to it the warmth and caring of a nurturing mother, as opposed to the callous and cruel reality of an ungendered natural system where only the strong survive and the weak are either a liability or food.
Um, so personifying nature is okay? Only humans can be "callous and cruel."

You've misread my thrust completely by coming too early to a conclusion.
ROFLMAO!! NOT! I'll have you know that has NEVER been one of my problems! :p

OMFG I suddenly have feelings of respect for you. :eek:

Must... cleanse... soul...
ROFLMAO!!! Watch it! You might just find more of an ally than you do an adversary! Mwahahahahaha! :D

What I can't understand is that instead of adapting and interpreting the Bible in the light of new discoveries, so many Christians (I haven't noticed this in Germany all that much) actually start their own Pseudo-science to counter evolution... :(
Change scares the shit out of some people. :(

While I agree I think some of the problem also is the fact that if parts of their book are PROVEN to be just metaphor it leads into people questioning if more is not metaphor as well.
It’s a natural protection of their belief system … They don’t always do it rationally but their motivation is pretty natural at leastYou mean that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox" is not a metaphor? What is the world coming too... :D

Muahaha... that is just so wrong. How many predators survive eating all their prey? As you say, we are only obligated towards our own species, but mistreating nature is a form of mistreating our species...
Evolution works with niches, balances, and a whole lot more than "Eat or be eaten".
The article claimed we have a "responsibility". We don't. Our only evolutionary duty is to take care of ourselves.

Unfortunately, evolution also provided us with a mind and a heart to combat such limited, materialistic, stereotypical views. I guess that's Nature's tough luck, too.


Um, so personifying nature is okay? Only humans can be "callous and cruel."
If you are going to personify nature, get it right.

We are just an accident of natural selection. Nature did us no favours, it made no effort on our behalf so we have no obligations to it. We can do anything we like with our environment because that is what we should do. We evolved to a state capable of manipulating our environment and that is what has made us the dominant predator on this planet. As such, it is our evolutionary duty, an imperative even, to continue to do as we will with our environment to ensure our own benefit. Any species that gets in the way of Nature's supreme predator, is nothing but another evolutionary dead end. It's natural selection.
To attempt to argue that evolution generates an obligation to anything but our own species is to anthropomorphise nature and ascribe to it the warmth and caring of a nurturing mother, as opposed to the callous and cruel reality of an ungendered natural system where only the strong survive and the weak are either a liability or food.
Now see ... this is one reason so many fundamentalists rail against evolution.

You are behind the learning curve. All of life is entertwined and interdependent, that's why they call it "the web of life." You change one thing and an untold number of other things are affected.

Your thinking is almost as counterproductive as is the thinking of religious fundamentalists! :(

The article claimed we have a "responsibility". We don't. Our only evolutionary duty is to take care of ourselves.
A duty is a responsibility. Taking care of the environment is taking care of ourselves. And there is nothing wrong with caring, or with creating a symbol of caring to turn back on ourselves.

If you are going to personify nature, get it right.
I would prefer consistency. ;)

Change scares the shit out of some people. :(
Scares the shit out of me, but I can still admit that I'm wrong. ;)
Nah, it's different levels. I'm scared of having to change my everyday lifestyle while some Christians are scared of changing everything they believed in. It's the same with radical environmentalists ("What do you mean bio diesel is a bad idea? Impossible!") or the Nazis ("What do you mean the Russians are almost in Berlin? Impossible!"). It happens everywhere...

Eut, you may be the reigning perv of General, but you still make damn good threads.

:D
ROFLMAO!!! Well, thank you for the compliments ... BOTH of them! :D

Scares the shit out of me, but I can still admit that I'm wrong. ;)
Nah, it's different levels. I'm scared of having to change my everyday lifestyle while some Christians are scared of changing everything they believed in. It's the same with radical environmentalists ("What do you mean bio diesel is a bad idea? Impossible!") or the Nazis ("What do you mean the Russians are almost in Berlin? Impossible!"). It happens everywhere...

No it doesn't! :p

No it doesn't! :pThank you for proving my point ;)

Now see ... this is one reason so many fundamentalists rail against evolution.

You are behind the learning curve. All of life is entertwined and interdependent, that's why they call it "the web of life." You change one thing and an untold number of other things are affected.

Your thinking is almost as counterproductive as is the thinking of religious fundamentalists! :(
Do you have documented proof of an instance where damaging a natural food chain had an impact on humans eating farmed goods?

The article claimed we have a "responsibility". We don't. Our only evolutionary duty is to take care of ourselves.

Taking care of ourselves also means taking care of the planet we live in person of self-proclaimed mental instability. If you don't maintain your house, don't be surprised when the roof leaks and the plumbing stops working. If you treat it like a destruction derby arena, don't be surprised when the roof falls on your head.

Long term planning is a good thing. What you're thinking in is the "who cares about tommorrow? It's today!" mentality. Bad idea.

A duty is a responsibility. Taking care of the environment is taking care of ourselves. And there is nothing wrong with caring, or with creating a symbol of caring to turn back on ourselves.

However, you are then taking care of yourself. The original article claimed we should look after nature because we owe it, or some such ridiculous assertion. Saying we should take care of the environment because we owe it to ourselves is fine.

I would prefer consistency. ;)
If you are refering to the last conversation we had, be quiet. I am having too much fun here. ;)

Do you have documented proof of an instance where damaging a natural food chain had an impact on humans eating farmed goods?
Cane toads (http://www.fdrproject.org/pages/toads.htm)
Pesticides (http://www.punjabilok.com/agriculture/medicos_workshop.htm)

There's an instance where using pesticides on cockroches caused porches to collapse... (haven't found any evidence on that yet, but it actually has happened, and not because the pesticides were corrosive)

Taking care of ourselves also means taking care of the planet we live in person of self-proclaimed mental instability.
:D
If you don't maintain your house, don't be surprised when the roof leaks and the plumbing stops working. If you treat it like a destruction derby arena, don't be surprised when the roof falls on your head.

Long term planning is a good thing. What you're thinking in is the "who cares about tommorrow? It's today!" mentality. Bad idea.
No, because looking after your own species first naturally means you consider its future.
I'm saying the original article, in an attempt to combat intelligent design, is anthropomorphising nature. Arguing against ID with pseudo-ID is completely nonsensical.

Do you have documented proof of an instance where damaging a natural food chain had an impact on humans eating farmed goods?
Mayan civilization was wiped out because of the reckless disregard with which they treated their environment.

a retreat: a retreat from comprehension, a retreat from thought, a retreat from reality.
Ah! that's terribly sad... I don't see why anyone would WANT to retreat from this... but they do, I've witnessed it. I suppose it can be due to their discomfort with the feelings the presence of an unknown gives them. *shrugs*

Do you have documented proof of an instance where damaging a natural food chain had an impact on humans eating farmed goods?
The Depression? The Stock Market crash of 1929 caused a chain of events that led to dustbowls all over the grain-producing prairies of North America. A mid-point of that chain was erosion due to the destruction of the natural prairie trees, shurbs and grasses by over-farming. In Canada and the U.S. north-west today, you will be hard-put to find a single patch of farmland that does not have a small section allocated to nuture natural trees, shrubs and grasses.
(http://louisdl.louislibraries.org/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCC&CISOPTR=248)

The Depression? The Stock Market crash of 1929 caused a chain of events that led to dustbowls all over the grain-producing prairies of North America. A mid-point of that chain was erosion due to the destruction of the natural prairie trees, shurbs and grasses by over-farming. In Canada and the U.S. north-west today, you will be hard-put to find a single patch of farmland that does not have a small section allocated to nuture natural trees, shrubs and grasses.
(http://louisdl.louislibraries.org/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCC&CISOPTR=248)
I was refering more to instances where destruction of a specific link within a food chain destroyed the capacity for humans to farm, as opposed to humans being amazingly stupid and wrecking everything all by themselves.
Essentially, my point is that we can continue to support ourselves (barring us being daft) even if there is a drastic reduction in the number of free-living species.

Anyway, playing devil's advocate is getting a bit dull. I think I'll wander off for a while.