Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[TheBloods]

Still irrelevant to evolution.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Studies regarding faith's role in healing have conclusively shown that people who have faith in a higher power heal quicker. It was in TIME a couple months back, I posted links in this thread earlier.

I just find it curious is all.

Bodily healing functions slow down when someone is depressed.

Someone with more belief that they will recover has a better chance.

That however is not an argument at all for the existance of their god. An atheist with an equally positive outlook would experience the same benefit.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That however is not an argument at all for the existance of their god. An atheist with an equally positive outlook would experience the same benefit.

Obviously I wasn't arguing it was evidence of existence of a god. I was just wondering why the body seems to function better when faith is present. Just seems odd that we've evolved that way (if evolution is responsible for our entire existence at all)

 

[Hollow Knight]

Obviously I wasn't arguing it was evidence of existence of a god. I was just wondering why the body seems to function better when faith is present. Just seems odd that we've evolved that way (if evolution is responsible for our entire existence at all)

If faith has depression releaving properties than yes, but for someone else, watching Seinfeld DVD boxsets may have the same effect.

Regardless, if I found out I had cancer tomorrow, I wouldn't suddenly be able to "get faith" because its convenient.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Obviously I wasn't arguing it was evidence of existence of a god. I was just wondering why the body seems to function better when faith is present. Just seems odd that we've evolved that way (if evolution is responsible for our entire existence at all)

If faith has depression releaving properties than yes, but for someone else, watching Seinfeld DVD boxsets may have the same effect.

Conversely, when linked to depression, faith could arguably make someone worse... "why has god done this to me... it must be part of the plan, I give up"

Regardless, if I found out I had cancer tomorrow, I wouldn't suddenly be able to "get faith" because its convenient.

 

[TheBloods]

Obviously I wasn't arguing it was evidence of existence of a god. I was just wondering why the body seems to function better when faith is present. Just seems odd that we've evolved that way (if evolution is responsible for our entire existence at all)

We've evolved in a way that the mind and body have excellent healing properties but the conscious needs to be believe it will work. It so happens that faith is one of those things that assists people with that. Another is an optimistic outlook on life. Another will be trust in the doctor treating you.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I still wonder why, if we've evolved, people who have faith live longer than those who don't. What possible evolutionary reason would there be for that?

Isn't the logical thing to do, to have faith? If it makes you live longer, happier and healthier, recover quicker from illness and injury - wouldn't anyone who sees themselves as logical and reasonable, want to have faith simply for the health benefits?

I see what you are trying to say and I would ask, is there any evidence that this 'faith' has a genetic basis? Is it heritable? If not, then, as others have suggested, it may simply be a case of ontogenetic adaptation (I am not sure if I am using that term correctly, but what I mean is that the individual organism adapts to the environment by adopting 'faith' within its own lifetime and this is where it ends, there is not phylogenetic adaptation).

 

[placebo]

But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't.

I'm not saying its proof that their faith is well-placed, but the faith itself has positive effects on the human body. Why would we have evolved that response to faith?

You have this idea that evolution can cancel out faith or peoples beliefs in shit or that evolution gives people ideas or beliefs or something. Everything you've said in the last few pages about people with faith living longer is so completely and utterly irrelevant to this topic and I'm still trying to work out why you brought it up?

And your point has already been addressed by others.

There are far more people with faith around then without faith anyway so there is going to be more people that are healthy and have faith anyway. Not to mention it isn't a fact that faith will definately make you live longer and recover quicker. There are atheists that can recover quickly and christians that don't too so it's not proof that belief will always further everyone's life. I addressed this point on another topic in more detail.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

We've evolved in a way that the mind and body have excellent healing properties but the conscious needs to be believe it will work. It so happens that faith is one of those things that assists people with that. Another is an optimistic outlook on life. Another will be trust in the doctor treating you.

I see what you are trying to say and I would ask, is there any evidence that this 'faith' has a genetic basis? Is it heritable? If not, then, as others have suggested, it may simply be a case of ontogenetic adaptation (I am not sure if I am using that term correctly, but what I mean is that the individual organism adapts to the environment by adopting 'faith' within its own lifetime and this is where it ends, there is not phylogenetic adaptation).

Cheers guys - good explanations. I just always found that 'faith' side of healing quite interesting, and wondered how that would fit in with evolution.

 

[JavaBlue]

But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't.

Karl's "proof" comes from that bastion of scientific research - Time magazine. Here's the link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html

Here's what Karl said earlier in the thread.

Ok I've read the [Time] article

Well. read it again, Karl. This time try to show some objectivity and at least a smidgen of critical analysis.

A whole shitload of academics, doctors and psychologists agree faith aids healing

About a dozen people were represented in the article - hardly a shitload or a plethora.

None of them said "faith aids healing" nor directly argued that point. In fact, none of them even used the word faith. The only person who used the word faith and connected it to healing was the journalist responsible for writing the unmitigated crap.

They go into detail about the different lobes in our brain

"They" did not go into detail about the different lobes in our brain. One person gave some brief info about lobes. The journo also crapped on about them as part of his sexy, attention-grabbing intro. That's it. Caught in another lie, Karl.

and the non-exact phrase used is:
"Essentially, from a scientific point of view, our bodies are hardwired for faith and religion"

Why not use the exact phrase, Karl?
Here it is: "But it's also true that our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring." Mmm. Slipped that "scientific" word in, did we Karl?

This phrase, once again, was pulled from the journo's own arse - none of the so-called scientists said this. As for the "true" bit, I don't think that 'brains and bodies contain a lot of spiritual wiring' is a commonly recognized truth, do you Karl? Unless you know some peer reviewed scientific studies that may support such a statement? Perhaps you could list them. Try to distinguish between what the unqualified journo says and what your quasi-qualified scientists say.

"But it's also true that our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring."
Of course, some disagree with that exact wording, in that if they are hardwired for faith, then someone must have hardwired them. But the general consensus is that faith plays an important role in health, and is beneficial.

There was no discussion on "spiritual wiring" by any of the participants and no one mentioned "someone must have hardwired them." You're making things up. Again.

Of the 12 people in the article, one - Richard Sloan who has spent considerable time studying studies purporting to show a relationship between religion and health - basically said that there was no connection between the two and said that most, if not all, studies arguing for a connection were flawed.

Dr. Andrew Newberg was the lobes man. He did say "a large body of science shows a positive impact of religion on health" but didn't mention any particular studies.

He has spent the last 15 years study how religious acts are revealed in brain activity - during this time he discovered, for example, how praying causes a reaction in the brain. Wow! What does this prove? Nothing! Everything we do produces some chemical buzz in the brain. Farting for example. Does this mean, to paraphrase Newberg, "The way the brain works is so compatible with farting and faith that we're going to be enmeshed in both for a long time"?

Newberg is just another agenda-driven knob trying to defend his own ridiculous beliefs. Nothing here that goes even close to being proof we are hardwired for faith as a healing power.

Interestingly, Newberg's tests showed the the brain "powered down" or went "quieter" when we prayed. It would seem the brain itself is aware of the uselessness of prayer and refuses to waste energy on them. It would seem also, Karl, that the same thing happens to your brain when you read and post.

Next was Dr. Gail Ironson who says "spirituality predicts for better disease control." The problem is of course defining and measuring "spirituality" which makes any related studies, at the very least, borderline non-scientific.

Gail includes in her definition a sense of peace and compassion for others, along with some god things. I could also include love of music, feeling for nature, etc. These things have nothing to do with religion or irrational belief ie faith but could argued as having a sense of spirituality. Nothing here that supports Karl's faith aids healing premise (outside mere placebic effects).

Social demographer Robert Hummer carried out a study apparently showing a correlation between attending church and health (well, not dying over the following 8 yrs). Does this measure the healing power of faith? No, of course it doesn't. There may be many people of faith who don't go to church and there may be those with little or no faith who do go to church eg politicians.So is faith merely contingent on whether one goes to church or not? Do some people have more faith than others and do they live longer? How do we measure this faith (other than the church thing)? How old were the people tested? Did they all have full-blown medicals before being tested? What were the lifestyles, diets, etc of the participants? I could go on.

The 'research' at best shows some loose correlations between the possible effects of being a part of a community and health. Even Hummer admits this when he says "People embedded in religious communities are more likely to rely on one another for friendship, support, rides to doctor's appointments."

To give this study at least some meaning, people involved in other regular community activities should be included. Once again, a flawed test with no little to do with faith and healing (outside mere placebic effects). And no mention of faith.

The rest of your scientist didn't even talk about anything remotely close to 'faith and healing'.
No one mentioned evolution.

Anyone who gives any scientific credence to the Time magazine is either desperate or intellectually challenged.

 

[JavaBlue]

Originally Posted by Pawtucket Patriot
Very few people doubt the occurrence of evolution, however the evolutionary mechanism is debated. .

What are the conflicting mechanisms?

Natural selection is obviously the most well respected theory and is supported by the most evidence. However, there are some issues with it, such as the apparent explosion of diversity during the Cambrian Explosion. Some, including Gould and Eldridge, have proposed alternatives such as punctuated equilibrium. I am not suggesting that these two are anti-Darwinists, but that they perceive a few problems with the the theory of natural selection and have attempted to address these problems. One of the most common attacks on evolutionary theory is that there is so much disagreement among its proponents. However, this disagreement is not over whether evolution occurs, but rather over the responsible mechanism. For the record I am a proponent of natural selection..

I think you'll find that punctuated equilibrium is to do with the speed of change not mechanism. Unless you know something I don't?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Karl's "proof" comes from that bastion of scientific research - Time magazine. Here's the link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html

Here's what Karl said earlier in the thread.



Well. read it again, Karl. This time try to show some objectivity and at least a smidgen of critical analysis.



About a dozen people were represented in the article - hardly a shitload or a plethora.

None of them said "faith aids healing" nor directly argued that point. In fact, none of them even used the word faith. The only person who used the word faith and connected it to healing was the journalist responsible for writing the unmitigated crap.




"They" did not go into detail about the different lobes in our brain. One person gave some brief info about lobes. The journo also crapped on about them as part of his sexy, attention-grabbing intro. That's it. Caught in another lie, Karl.



Why not use the exact phrase, Karl?
Here it is: "But it's also true that our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring." Mmm. Slipped that "scientific" word in, did we Karl?

This phrase, once again, was pulled from the journo's own arse - none of the so-called scientists said this. As for the "true" bit, I don't think that 'brains and bodies contain a lot of spiritual wiring' is a commonly recognized truth, do you Karl? Unless you know some peer reviewed scientific studies that may support such a statement? Perhaps you could list them. Try to distinguish between what the unqualified journo says and what your quasi-qualified scientists say.



There was no discussion on "spiritual wiring" by any of the participants and no one mentioned "someone must have hardwired them." You're making things up. Again.

Of the 12 people in the article, one - Richard Sloan who has spent considerable time studying studies purporting to show a relationship between religion and health - basically said that there was no connection between the two and said that most, if not all, studies arguing for a connection were flawed.

Dr. Andrew Newberg was the lobes man. He did say "a large body of science shows a positive impact of religion on health" but didn't mention any particular studies.

He has spent the last 15 years study how religious acts are revealed in brain activity - during this time he discovered, for example, how praying causes a reaction in the brain. Wow! What does this prove? Nothing! Everything we do produces some chemical buzz in the brain. Farting for example. Does this mean, to paraphrase Newberg, "The way the brain works is so compatible with farting and faith that we're going to be enmeshed in both for a long time"?

Newberg is just another agenda-driven knob trying to defend his own ridiculous beliefs. Nothing here that goes even close to being proof we are hardwired for faith as a healing power.

Interestingly, Newberg's tests showed the the brain "powered down" or went "quieter" when we prayed. It would seem the brain itself is aware of the uselessness of prayer and refuses to waste energy on them. It would seem also, Karl, that the same thing happens to your brain when you read and post.

Next was Dr. Gail Ironson who says "spirituality predicts for better disease control." The problem is of course defining and measuring "spirituality" which makes any related studies, at the very least, borderline non-scientific.

Gail includes in her definition a sense of peace and compassion for others, along with some god things. I could also include love of music, feeling for nature, etc. These things have nothing to do with religion or irrational belief ie faith but could argued as having a sense of spirituality. Nothing here that supports Karl's faith aids healing premise (outside mere placebic effects).

Social demographer Robert Hummer carried out a study apparently showing a correlation between attending church and health (well, not dying over the following 8 yrs). Does this measure the healing power of faith? No, of course it doesn't. There may be many people of faith who don't go to church and there may be those with little or no faith who do go to church eg politicians.So is faith merely contingent on whether one goes to church or not? Do some people have more faith than others and do they live longer? How do we measure this faith (other than the church thing)? How old were the people tested? Did they all have full-blown medicals before being tested? What were the lifestyles, diets, etc of the participants? I could go on.

The 'research' at best shows some loose correlations between the possible effects of being a part of a community and health. Even Hummer admits this when he says "People embedded in religious communities are more likely to rely on one another for friendship, support, rides to doctor's appointments."

To give this study at least some meaning, people involved in other regular community activities should be included. Once again, a flawed test with no little to do with faith and healing (outside mere placebic effects). And no mention of faith.

The rest of your scientist didn't even talk about anything remotely close to 'faith and healing'.
No one mentioned evolution.

Anyone who gives any scientific credence to the Time magazine is either desperate or intellectually challenged.

That was almost a good post but you ventured into abuse for some unknown reason. You also made the mistake of assuming I actually agreed that our bodies are wired for faith - I was just raising the argument here after reading the article. Also, you failed to understand a few of my points, or you took them the wrong way, but that's expected from time to time.

A lot of your disagreements seem to be based on your opinion that journalists are less credible resources than opinions on football message boards. You are entitled to this opinion but I consider it illogical.

Thanks for your contribution either way.

 

[JavaBlue]

That was almost a good post but you ventured into abuse for some unknown reason. You also made the mistake of assuming I actually agreed that our bodies are wired for faith - I was just raising the argument here after reading the article. Also, you failed to understand a few of my points, or you took them the wrong way, but that's expected from time to time.

A lot of your disagreements seem to be based on your opinion that journalists are less credible resources than opinions on football message boards. You are entitled to this opinion but I consider it illogical.

Thanks for your contribution either way.

Complete dodge.

You said this >> "But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't."

Hardly just "just raising the argument." Show me "the scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread)" or admit you got the article completely wrong.

You quoted (and misquoted) the journalist while giving the impression of scientific expertise.

My guess is you're not desperate.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Complete dodge.

You said this >> "But there is scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread) that actually proves that people with faith live longer and healthier, and recover quicker than those who don't."

Hardly just "just raising the argument." Show me "the scientific and empirical evidence (which I've posted in this thread)" or admit you got the article completely wrong.

You quoted (and misquoted) the journalist while giving the impression of scientific expertise.

My guess is you're not desperate.

I can't see anywhere that I was wrong by making that statement. Do you have a counter argument?

If you show me I was wrong I'll happily admit it, it's hardly rare for someone to not remember the exact details of everything he reads. So be it. I also think you might have only read the online article rather than the hard copy, which had more content. My quotes were more accurate than you are giving credit.

But the fervor and aggression you are showing here, is really quite disturbing and misplaced.

 

[Ill Chicken]

That was almost a good post but you ventured into abuse for some unknown reason. You also made the mistake of assuming I actually agreed that our bodies are wired for faith - I was just raising the argument here after reading the article. Also, you failed to understand a few of my points, or you took them the wrong way, but that's expected from time to time.

A lot of your disagreements seem to be based on your opinion that journalists are less credible resources than opinions on football message boards. You are entitled to this opinion but I consider it illogical.

Thanks for your contribution either way.

Ha that is terrible. Basically you've ignored legitimate questions because of so called abuse, which then hold no value because you were personally offended.

The points you raised were easy to comprehend and were responded to, you have neither raised or gave an example to a point that was not read correctly or comprehended. You've copped out again by saying that "you failed to understand my points" followed by "that's expected from time to time". You don't understand my points, therefore you are wrong is not a legitimate response.

Journalists are not experts in other field's and they are also agenda driven. It would be illogical not to question their motives, the article and how it is put across. Nor would it be wrong to question the neutrality of the journalist or the magazine when it comes to articles that deals with the beliefs of it's readership.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Originally Posted by Pawtucket Patriot
Very few people doubt the occurrence of evolution, however the evolutionary mechanism is debated. .

What are the conflicting mechanisms?



I think you'll find that punctuated equilibrium is to do with the speed of change not mechanism. Unless you know something I don't?

I agree that punctuated equilibrium concerns the speed of change, but it infers a mechanism that is different from natural selection. Natural selection involves incremental evolution, hence the creationists use of the argument concerning irreducible complexity. However, this could not account for the rate of evolution according to punctuated equilibrium. There must be another mechanism as natural selection could not account for this rate of evolution (or at least this is the argument of supporters of punctuated equilibrium). The precise mechanism responsible for evolution, although well understood, is disputed. This is not an attack on evolutionary theory, but rather is just highlighting the dynamic nature of science in which debate is considered positive. Perhaps it would be better to say that the mechanism is disputed as opposed to saying that there are specific alternatives to natural selection.

 

[JavaBlue]

I agree that punctuated equilibrium concerns the speed of change, but it infers a mechanism that is different from natural selection. Natural selection involves incremental evolution, hence the creationists use of the argument concerning irreducible complexity. However, this could not account for the rate of evolution according to punctuated equilibrium. There must be another mechanism as natural selection could not account for this rate of evolution (or at least this is the argument of supporters of punctuated equilibrium). The precise mechanism responsible for evolution, although well understood, is disputed. This is not an attack on evolutionary theory, but rather is just highlighting the dynamic nature of science in which debate is considered positive. Perhaps it would be better to say that the mechanism is disputed as opposed to saying that there are specific alternatives to natural selection.

Mate, I agree that evolution is as good as a given and if there were to be a dispute it would be on the mechanism. However, there is no dispute, hotly or otherwise, on the mechanism because no alternative mechanism has been put forward - not in the world of evolutionary science anyway. Ok...you've kinda said that.

An inferred mechanism is no mechanism and if punctuated equilibrium needs a mechanism but doesn't have one then it's dead in the water. Fortunately punctuated equilibrium has a mechanism - natural selection. Gould does not deny this. I get the feeling he may have liked to but the only alternative available to him was the widely discredited macromutation and he is on record as denying this as his mechanism.

The problem is for Gould is that punctuated equilibrium wasn't anything new altho he did focus evolutionist on this facet of evolution a bit more. Punctuated equilibrium is just incremental change over a shorter geological time - 100,000s of years rather than millions.

Gould > "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."

Darwin > "it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life... but when this adaptation had once been effected ... a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms"

It is interesting to speculate tho...

 

[simpleton]

We've evolved in a way that the mind and body have excellent healing properties but the conscious needs to be believe it will work. It so happens that faith is one of those things that assists people with that. Another is an optimistic outlook on life. Another will be trust in the doctor treating you.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20040209/attitude-doesnt-affect-cancer-survival

Attitude Doesn't Affect Cancer Survival
Optimism Doesn't Extend Life, but Can Improve Its Quality After Diagnosis

Despite the popular belief that being optimistic may improve cancer survival, new research finds that attitude plays no role in survival outcome -- at least when it comes to advanced lung cancer.

Australian researchers report patients with a positive attitude fared no better than their less-upbeat peers, leading them to suggest that doctors who encourage cancer patients to remain hopeful following a diagnosis may be doing more harm than good.

Despite the somber findings, published online today and in the March 15 issue of Cancer, at least two experts hailed the study as an important one.

 

[TheBloods]

It's naturally not going to apply to every illness.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Mate, I agree that evolution is as good as a given and if there were to be a dispute it would be on the mechanism. However, there is no dispute, hotly or otherwise, on the mechanism because no alternative mechanism has been put forward - not in the world of evolutionary science anyway. Ok...you've kinda said that.

An inferred mechanism is no mechanism and if punctuated equilibrium needs a mechanism but doesn't have one then it's dead in the water. Fortunately punctuated equilibrium has a mechanism - natural selection. Gould does not deny this. I get the feeling he may have liked to but the only alternative available to him was the widely discredited macromutation and he is on record as denying this as his mechanism.

The problem is for Gould is that punctuated equilibrium wasn't anything new altho he did focus evolutionist on this facet of evolution a bit more. Punctuated equilibrium is just incremental change over a shorter geological time - 100,000s of years rather than millions.

Gould > "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales."

Darwin > "it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life... but when this adaptation had once been effected ... a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms"

It is interesting to speculate tho...

I am glad to learn something new on BF.

 

[JavaBlue]

I am glad to learn something new on BF.

That's just my (orthodox) reading of it. I'm sure there are other things going on.

 

[Hollow Knight]

If intelligent design exists, why are our testicles hanging precariously exposed between our legs?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

If intelligent design exists, why are our testicles hanging precariously exposed between our legs?

The designer is clearly a woman.

 

[Schism]

If intelligent design exists, why are our testicles hanging precariously exposed between our legs?

Temperature control apparently

 

[TheBloods]

Temperature control apparently

Yes, which looks much more a case of evolution than ID.