Evolution and the 'Wisdom of Crowds'

An anonymous reader writes "An essay by a developer of recommendation systems makes a case for why so many people have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution. Downplaying its conflict with religion, the essay suggests that evolution is in a specific class of "equilibrium seeking" concepts that tend to be extremely counterintuitive to most people. The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective. Particularly fascinating is the description of his surprisingly simple algorithm for competing in the Netflix prize contest."

Eh.

[Desipis (775282)]

The hypothesis is supported by the observation that so many people reject the notion that evolution-like systems such as Wikipedia, prediction markets, and recommendation systems can actually be effective.

While there may be many that reject that these systems can be effective at all, I'd suggest that there's many more that would actual argue that while these systems do work, they aren't necessarily the best or only method that is effective.

He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[Chapter80 (926879)]

Interesting discussion, but the obvious missing piece is the evolution of ideas.

Societies may have "invented" the notion of religion because religion led to ethics, which led to less killing of their neighbors. All of the sudden, it's survival of the fittest, as non-ethical tribes tended to be killed off, while religious tribes thrived.

An obvious second example is the notion of being against birth control (or for large families). Tribes that were for large families and passed those beliefs down to their children tended to grow.

So my question is: Even if there is no God, and you are an atheist, is it possible that a world containing religious people is actually a "better" society than a world full of atheists? The Earth's people evolved into a world of mixed beliefs (some religious, some not), which could be argued to be the survival of the fittest idea or world. The mixed-belief world appears to be the "fittest" world, as opposed to such less-fit worlds of all atheists or all Christians, as examples.

If we evolved to be a mixed world of beliefs, as the "fittest", perhaps we should accept that, and quit trying to convert people with arguments for our favorite religious/non-religious belief.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[Smidge204 (605297)]

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

Historically, some of the worst atrocities have been carried out in the name of God. While your idea has merit for a very young civilizations, religion as a means of social control became obsolete as soon as secular law was invented. Since then it's only been abused to manipulate and extort people, at least on a scale that has any impact on society as a whole. (Exceptions made for those small groups who actually practice what they preach.)

Evolution is a pretty slow process... I guess 3000 years or so isn't quite long enough to breed out the religious nutjobs.
=Smidge=

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[ArcherB (796902)]

I find it very difficult to think a world with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson is better than one without them.

Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson do not make up all of Christianity. Just like Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and Stalin do not make up all of atheism. But if we were to play by your rules:

I find it very difficult to think a world with Pol Pot and Stalin is better than one without them.

For that matter, I think these two have killed more people this century than all of Christianity has in the past 500 years. So, using your logic, it seems to me that the world would be a better place without atheism.

Just adding up the body count should convince anyone that religion is a bad idea for humanity.
I think that statement has just been shot to hell!

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[mdwh2 (535323)]

1. Hitler was not an atheist. I don't know why this myth keeps coming up so often. His religious beliefs [wikipedia.org] are unclear, but he referred to "God" at various times, and there seems to be no evidence of him actually being an atheist.

2. The claim is not "some people who happened to be theists also did bad things", but rather that "people did bad things in the name of their religious belief". If you want to counter that, you need to show how someone's lack of belief caused them to do bad things.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[dunkelfalke (91624)]

hitler was a catholic, stalin also was (an orthodox) christian, was even in a church school.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[nicklott (533496)]

The Romans were pagans not atheists

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[greg_barton (5551)]

Stalin once studied to be a priest.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[rthille (8526)]

No, you can't say that a world of atheists would be a better or worse world, since a world of people who don't believe in God isn't really different from a world of people who don't believe in pink unicorns or celestial teapots. Saying what someone doesn't believe doesn't tell you enough about what they do believe.

I suggest a new strategy, believe in the god.

[Boronx (228853)]

Except teapots don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they're disbelieved.

actually...

[misanthrope101 (253915)]

Even if there is no God, and you are an atheist, is it possible that a world containing religious people is actually a "better" society than a world full of atheists?

Well, no [creighton.edu]. Japan, Holland, Canada, and a slew of other nations have a lower instance of religious belief, and a lower rate of crime, lower infant mortality, etc. Even within the USA, the Bible Belt states (actually the Red States in general) have higher infant mortality rates, lower productivity rates, higher crime rates, worse education systems, along with being worse-off in a range of other criteria. It isn't a stark difference--I'm not saying they're in the dark ages--but the difference is easy to spot if you look at the data.

And in one way or another, we're all atheists. Is the world worse off because people don't believe in Thor anymore?

Re:actually...

[VenTatsu (24306)]

I've seen a few of those studies and they never really address causation. It is just as valid to assume that pour living conditions tend to promote a need for social and psychological support networks often found in religious institutions leading to religious belief, as opposed to religious belief causes pour living conditions.

Re:He doesn't address the evolution of ideas

[v01d (122215)]

I suspect that the original humans had no notion of religion - not that everyone was an atheist, but that every human on earth had no notion of a higher being, one way or the other.

I've wondered about that as well. I suspect that the "believe your parents" bit is partially the origin of religion. My reason is partially the fact my daugher (3.5 years) wants an explanation for everything. "Just because" does not satisfy her, but she isn't quite ready for the real explanation for a lot of things. I'm sure I could get to quit asking "Why?" with enough references to god. Humans seem to want to understand but frequently don't have the capacity or knowledge required, so left to them selves they abstract the problem away another step. ie. Saying god causes the rain isn't a explanation of how or why god would want rain, but it answers the immediate question of why it's raining.

I really don't want to read "The God Delusion" as you suggest. Why are you pushing your religion on me? ;-) That's my point!

Just to be pedantic I did say, "if you read." I mentioned it more as a citation for an idea that wasn't really mine.
But in reality I do believe the world would be a better place if religion would go away.

"Wisdom Of Crowds"

[mastershake_phd (1050150)]

The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice. Had Americans believing Saddam caused 9/11 and was a threat. Then of course there is religion..

I can't wait for this meme to die.

[oncehour (744756)]

As the parent mentioned, the "Wisdom of Crowds" put Bush in power. Honestly, it seems to me to be nothing more than overhyped bullshit pushed alongside "Web 2.0" and other over-hyped concepts that are filling the current bubble with hot air. People love to cite Wikipedia as proof of the wisdom of crowds, but let's stop and analyze that for a moment:

Who controls the content of Wikipedia articles? Is it a large crowd of seemingly random contributors each imparting their own bits of wisdom? Or is it a small set of contributors providing the base of an article with a few mostly minor revisions submitted by random people passing by? In my experience, it's the latter. Usually a small set of people, no more than 3 to 5 which make the core of a Wikipedia article.

These same people are also generally the ones that cultivate the article and keep it consistent and well editted. Occasionally these same few people come to disagreements and end up in "edit wars" in which they call in another set of few members interested in judging to judge the issue. There's no "crowd" at work here, it's a lot of small groups of vested individuals who have interest in a particular domain and an efficient way of contributing and collaborating in that domain.

There may be hundreds of such groups, but they typically stick to their domain or they become edit whores and stick to minor revisionary work on a large amount of articles. Either way, I don't see much of a "crowd" once I break it down and look close, much less a wise crowd. Have you ever noticed that different subsections of Wikipedia have their own "feel" or "identity"? Maybe the particular manner of phrasing or the type of consistency shown throughout that sub-section which differs somewhat from another unrelated domain. This is largely a result of edits by the aforementioned small group of vested individuals. Each group leaves their own tint which colors a section and gives it life.

Wisdom of Crowds? No. Small, intelligent groups of people focused on achieving a well defined goal? Yes. If you really want to test this "Wisdom of Crowds" concept, take a look at SomethingAwful.com or any of the various large web forums and learn of the "Wisdom of Crowds". Even there, it's generally a very few amount of people contributing intelligently with the rest just being meaningless drivel. This meme needs to die.

Re:"Wisdom Of Crowds"

[richieb (3277)]

The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice.

Actually in 2000 the "wisdom of the crowds" picked Al Gore. The electoral college and the Supreme Court put GW in the Whitehouse.

the wisdom of the crowds

[jacquesm (154384)]

Is a great theoretical concept, but unfortunately it only makes sense in the context of assuming that everybody really thinks for themselves. As soon as the media enter into the equation the crowd becomes as manipulatable as the most stupid upper limit that can still be sold a bill of goods. If that's > 50% then the equation no longer holds, no matter how much the rest invests in staying educated. You'd almost have to filter out media bias somehow because otherwise anybody with an agenda and some money to burn will come out on top. Witness politics, marketing of unnecssary goods and services and so on.

Crowds contain individuals ...

[threaded (89367)]

Crowds contain individuals, and some of these individuals know what they are on about. Collect together a sufficiently large crowd and you will find a number of experts on many different subject.

Isn't that the obvious conclusion?

Bad analogy?

[IkeTo (27776)]

> Comparing it to evolution, an edit of Wikipedia might be considered equivalent to a genetic mutation. A
> mutation, of course, is non-directed...that is, "random." It could be bad or good, but most of the time
> it is bad.

IMNSHO this is simply untrue. If this is true Wikipedia is dead for long: it never keeps a large, visible "pool" of "genes" (different version of the same article) that the "nature" (viewing public) can "select", and the "nature" simply is too busy to "select" them anyway. They have many version of the same article, but there are not many who will go into the version and select to revert to one of those. To me, the success of Wikipedia is that those who don't know much about a subject will normally refrain from editing the subject, so most edits are actually of a rather high quality. It is a social behavior, not an evolution behavior.

Re:

[JimboFBX (1097277)]

No, wikipedia is evolutionary- an incorrect edit will be removed, edited, or fixed while correct edits will be changed back to the way they were if they become vandalized. Essentially it's an equilibrium function because equilibrium is clearly achieved once everything is correct. Of course, its the kind of wobbly equilibrium you get when you try to hold your hand steady without support- but equilibrium nevertheless.

Two Ways of Summing it Up

[Telephone Sanitizer (989116)]

1. People -- as a general rule -- process complex ideas granularly. People are also generally lazy thinkers who do not attempt to refine their comprehension with falsifiable methodology. As a result, individual perceptions of value are often biased towards the simplest conclusions at the greatest level of granularity that a person can casually grasp rather than on evidence that intellect and practiced reasoning might produce. In large groups, it is possible to predict behaviors through statistical sampling using assumptions based on this model of granularity and intelligence. The conclusions of such studies are, themselves, subject to individual evaluation under the same model of granular perception. People who don't understand this are stupid religious types. If those same people were smart then they would be compelled to believe in evolution.

2. Most people can't see the forest for the trees. Everybody who is not as smart as the author needs to take remedial education and secular-deprogramming classes.

Now you don't have to read the article.

You're welcome. :)

Nothing new..

[12357bd (686909)]

Just a n-dimensional random distribution, with small adjustment steps. The 'n' of the system being chosed by hand, not even automatically computed. It works for Netflix because the domain being modeled is not 'wild' statistically, and have a very simple topology.

The 'presumed' relation with a 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is just coincidence, try to apply such a simple system to a really complex domain (ie: natural language syntax) and it will fail.

On the other hand, it's true that simple statistics can be used for a lot of tasks (ie: language/topic detection), but nothing really new here.

Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

[Jayde Stargunner (207280)]

"Conventional wisdom says that the primary reason why so many people do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution is that they find it threatening to their religious beliefs. There is no question that religion is a big part of the reason behind the large number of people who reject evolution. But I am convinced that just as often, the cause and effect is reversed: people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator -- is so counter-intuitive to so many."

Honestly, I find these kinds of statements to be a bit off-base. I really get the feeling that Creationism and Evolution/Darwinism are artificially pitted against each other as if one or the other has to "win."

The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing in either of the standpoints that cannot coexist with the other. I would say that the consistant framing of them being exclusive is what causes resistance (from both sides, most likey) when it isn't even needed.

If one wants to get anyone to believe in a scientific theory they are having difficulties with, framing it as, "you should believe this because what you believe is wrong and you are stupid," is not really going to win anyone over. Especially when one could easily take the stance of, "here's why this theory makes sense, and really it doesn't have anything to do with what you may or may not believe."

I've seen no strong theology that would rule out that evolution did not happen. Creationism is about a supernatural force overseeing things--it says nothing specific about how things actually happened. (And, I think, most theologists will agree that Genesis is highly metaphorical.)

So, bottom line is, if science-minded people want others to "see the light" on this one, stick to the facts and leave the religion-bashing alone. Making people defensive generally is not an effective way of getting an idea across.

Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

[Nephilium (684559)]

Generally, the use of creationism references young Earth creationism... where part of the belief is that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old. This flavor of creationism can't stand alongside evolution.

Nephilium

Re:Creationism and Evolution Artificially at Odds?

[Tom (822)]

The interesting thing is that there is absolutely nothing in either of the standpoints that cannot coexist with the other.

Err... I'm actually lost for words. You are seriously saying that evolution (things change into whatever is most appropriate at that moment, with little regard for past or future) and design (things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way) are not diametrically opposed theories?

Well, there's just the small, unimportant, inconsequential matter of intent.

Also, a total reversal of roles, look:

I've seen no strong theology that would rule out that evolution did not happen. Creationism is about a supernatural force overseeing things--it says nothing specific about how things actually happened. (And, I think, most theologists will agree that Genesis is highly metaphorical.)

No, creationism isn't about that at all. The very point of it is that it starts with something complex, in fact the most complex things of them all - the creator.

Evolution, on the other hand, claims that complexity emerges during the process of evolution, which starts with very simple things.

I really see no way for two theories to coexist if their claimed starting points are exact opposites. If you can't even agree on that, everything down from there is either dishonesty or an intentional scam of one theory to not have its core assumptions examined too closely.

Randomness

[pubjames (468013)]

I think the main problem with people's understanding of evolution is the fact that it is not taught very well in schools, and people get the strong idea that evolution is a random process. I also think it is a problem with the timescales involved, which are hard for the human mind to grasp.

What about the "madness of crowds"?

[grandpa-geek (981017)]

There is a book written in 1841 by Charles Mackay titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". It describes some "bubble" markets, such as the Dutch Tulip Craze (when people would invest their life savings in a tulip bulb, only to see the market eventually crash) and then goes on to describe other non-market crazes.

The book is frequently referenced in discussions of investment strategy, especially so-called "contrarian investing", which often makes money for its followers. The contrarian investing principle can be summarized as being that when the crowd overwhelmingly agrees on something, go the other way.

The book describes market behavior at least as well as Adam Smith's "unseen hand", and may also well describe other aspects of crowd behavior. I had never heard of the "wisdom of crowds" before this posting, but I have heard of the "madness of crowds" for many years.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Who rated this funny? Insightful, rather.

Every other developed country in the world has a significantly higher number of people who prefer the scientific version to the religious one when it comes to the origins of the species.

When it comes to evolution, the USA is closer to Turkey than the west-european nations. In fact, in a lot of Europe, Creationism/"Intelligent design" are almost unheard of. (AFAIK, and I just live there..)

Not only that, but the USA is the only country in the western world with a decli

Re:typo

[ultranova (717540)]

All religions seem to be awash with variations, each sure they are the One True Version and that the others are deluded.

That's true of humans in general. Religions don't have a monopoly on arrogance.

Re:typo

[ZeroExistenZ (721849)]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that all muslims think that way.

Welcome fellow Belgian. It's horrible to see how we've been conditioned in excusing ourselves for statements which "potentially could be read in a racist way" because of the constant idea we are "against multiculturism" and are overly sensitive to "cultural differences".

Re:

[OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)]

You know, just because in 80% of countries around the world there just isn't any discussion, that does not make it a given that evolution wins.

EVERY muslim university preaches creationism (even more stupid than that : young-earth creationism)
Most Indian universities preach creationism
and most Chinese also believe in creationism

That's 50% of the world where there isn't any discussion ... creationism is the truth. The fact that there can even be discussion about this without violence in America is a very rare

Re:typo

[by Anonymous Coward]

But you're cowards, so simply lamenting that the universities of ankara or teheran or baghdad for example preaches creationism, you just don't do. Because doing it, might get you actually hurt. Ok brave guy, get your facts straight: Ankara is in Turkey, a secular country where religion and state are separate. Women with Islamic head garb are not allowed into universities, let alone preach creationism at institutions of higher learning. Until we (americans) moved in, Baghdad was in a secular country, with a definite anti-religion bent. It's only because we f**ked it up that worthless religious leaders found the ability (and the arms and the encouragement) to kill people who do not think like them. Read this [blogspot.com] for a heartfelt, first-person account of what it was like before and after americans moved in. Tehran is a mess where creationism is indeed taught in universities. True secularism is probably a very foreign concept to most Americans, as the usual middle-class American experience is to belong to a church or synagogue from a very early age. That kind of education colors your thinking (and non-thinking) for life. But you just wanted to engage in bashing muslims. Too bad your xenophobia was coupled with ignorance (not very surprising). You picked 3 examples, and 2 were outright wrong. I'm sure you'll try your muslim-bashing again, in another thread. Better luck next time!

Re:typo

[OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)]

I do not just think that. And yes, for the moment this is not going to happen in (most of) America.

muslims inside england use terror to avoid evolution in biology lessons :
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=37975 [muslimvillage.net]

in france:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/02/france-muslim-anti-evolutionist.html [blogspot.com]

This is in Turkey, the most moderate muslim nation existing (where both islamists and atheists massacre eachother, creating a balance) :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [nytimes.com]

If you thought Christians are trouble when it concerns evolution, you're in for a rude awakening. Christians don't kill you. Don't threaten you. And they don't gang up on your family just because you don't "respect" creationism. Muslims do.

Re:typo

[clickclickdrone (964164)]

>Christians don't kill you. Don't threaten you
There is a theatre production by the Reduced Shakespeare Company where they do the entire bible in 90 mins or somesuch. *Everytime* I have seen it there have been jossling, abusive Christians outside telling me I was going to hell for watching it. I've also numerous reports of people killing in the name of Christianity. I think we need to be clear on this, all religions, whether Muslim, Christian or whatever have extremist factions and that's where the problems are. the mainstream ones are generally fairly laid back.

Re:typo

[arivanov (12034)]

Journalist to George Bush (senior): Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Current stats:

85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
  7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
  38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
  37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
  Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
  11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)
  s/Christian/Muslim/g

Nuff said... No further comment...

Re:typo

[thegnu (557446)]

Do kids ever get polled on these things?

NAMBLA polls kids all the time.

*ducks*

Re:typo

[vadim_t (324782)]

Actually it's largely an American thing.

I brought this subject up several times in a conversation with europeans. Those who don't follow slashdot and similar sites hadn't heard about the concept of "intelligent design" at all, and needed it explained. And all of them went "WTF?" at the explanation.

The vast majority of the population hasn't even heard of ID. All the religious arguments I participated in (and there were quite a few) always revolved around the existence/inexistence of a deity, evolution wasn't brought up even once.

Re:typo

[aymanh (892834)]

From the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe [coe.int]:

1. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
[...]
19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;
19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

So yeah, Europe is doing something to stop pseudoscience from finding its way into schools.

Re:typo

[bigtomrodney (993427)]

That's a big logic jump you made. Not all religions ban the teaching of evolution. Pope John Paul II never condemned evolution. Catholic schools throughout Europe teach evolution without any conflict of interest.
Religion and science are not viewed as polar opposites. They do disagree on several points but that does not mean anyone with religion is against scientific teaching. Darwin himself was obsessed with the Bible.

Re:typo

[pubjames (468013)]

Not just Americans, but most people across the world don't believe in evolution.

Got any proof? Because I've got some that shows you're wrong. Link [nationalgeographic.com].

Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[asliarun (636603)]

why so many *Americans* have trouble grasping Darwin's theory of evolution

IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us. We are today not very different from our cavemen ancestors in the sense that we still go through most of our lives in a state of bewilderment, and most of our efforts focus on bringing some measure of control and understanding over the complexity that is bombarding us every minute! Technological evolution for that matter is not very different from biological evolution. The only advantage we have with technological evolution is that it is evolving in our lifetime. Trying to make your grandparent understand modern technology is probably as difficult as making them understand evolution and the related nuances such as game theory and Nash equilibrium. This is merely because the said technology of our time did not evolve with our grandparents, but with us. For our grandparents, this is simply a case of trying to cope with future evolution instead of past evolution as is the case with the Darwinian/Dawkinsian theory.

What is happening today to the common man is that he/she is getting immune to technology, which leads us to the possibly false premise that the lay person understands technology any better than say, evolution. Given this assault of seemingly illogical and complex information (which completely undermines a person's ego, mind you), religion provides a very convenient framework to make life simple, seemingly secure, and less fragile. Religion is hence, more of a survival tool for a society that shields away a person's insecurities. For that matter, that is the reason why societies and families formed in the first place, which is to increase the probability of our survival and proliferation. For the common man, religion and society practically mean the same thing, and hence interchangeably attribute the positive aspects of one with the other. This is also why they are willing to put up with the restrictions and rules of religion, just as we do for society's laws and restrictions!

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[rucs_hack (784150)]

IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us

Apart from the fear thing, I have exactly that reason to explain why I have always believed in evolution (since reading about it myself in a book at 7). Even then I was struck by the vastness of the universe, and the idea that some god person had made it all seemed a bit too simple. Even then I was utterly fascinated by astronomy, and looking at the night sky, especially in Australia, where we actually had a visible star scape, was an experience that filled me not with religious conviction, but with a determination to find explanations for what I saw. 'God did it' was never an option.

Having grown up now I realise why so many people need to believe in the biblical creation myth. Believe that and everything becomes easy, simple enough that you don't have to worry about it. Reject it and boy have you got a lot of work to do. For one thing you actually have to understand things, not pass it of as 'the work of god'.

I find it amusing that creationists/ID'ers seem to want a stupid god, incapable of anything but focusing on one planet in the vast universe, as interested in the fall of birds (why is it always bad stuff?) then the formation of galaxies. I prefer the idea that if god exists, he was smart enough to set things in motion at some point (at the start of this universe? a previous one, no idea), and it all works without intervention. Of course this implies that there is no god, since a system that does not require a god to run doesn't need one to exist at all.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[liquidpele (663430)]

That's pretty much what I tell people when they start preferring religion to science - they are the same thing! Do you really believe God was too stupid to create a universe that didn't have to be held together with magic? Studying science is studying God's work, and thus you are in fact learning about God.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[Hognoxious (631665)]

One extra thing which I thought about was why the bloody hell would a God create us?

Have you ever drunk a lot of beer, woken up the next morning and gone through that special "I did what?" moment?

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[rucs_hack (784150)]

Denying God because you understand the tools he uses is like denying Michaelangelo because you once saw a chisel.

Understand? did I say that? Want to understand yes, but understand the reason for the existence of the universe? hah, as if I could. The best I can do is study and research using the scientific method.

What I do though is not put myself into a cushioned frame of mind that requires no conclusions beyond 'god did it'.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[bWareiWare.co.uk (660144)]

Actually Darwinian evolution makes that extremely unlikely. Anything as common as religion can not poses a selective disadvantage.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[Starayo (989319)]

1) invent god(s)
2) market said gods
3) prophet

Fixed.

Re:Religion vs Darwin vs Technology vs Society

[liquidpele (663430)]

"Retailers in the U.S. are in the red all year up until "Black Friday" -- the day following Thanksgiving. This is mostly due to the existence of multiple religious holidays where gift giving/exchange is encouraged that fall on or around the winter solstice."

I know for a fact that for many retailers this is not true - unless you have a source I call BS.

Your other examples are rather meaningless as because there is a demand for the bible and other books, and so people write and sell them. That's just economics. You'd be better off pointing out the amount of money Churches take in every year from donations and not paying taxes.

Darwin's theory of natural selection

[KnightTristan (882222)]

Are you kidding me? Calling Darwin's theory a theory of random mutation show how little you understand of it, because you emphasize the wrong half of his theory. There's basically two parts about Darwin's theory: (1) mutation and (2) selection. Most people consider the first one as most important, but nothing could be further from the truth than that. It's SELECTION that is the keyword here. The mutation part is merely the "fuel" that feeds the selection "engine". In fact, the mutation doesn't even need to be random at all. Let me say that again:

The mutation in Darwin's theory does NOT have to be random!

Although random mutation is perhaps the most effective way compared to its complexity. It surely is the most simple way for nature to "implement" it. And most of the time it results in very good "fuel". About your example: although the mutations are made by intelligent designers, some designs are rejected and some accepted (to be built further upon). The mutations are not random, but the selection is still in place. That's good enough.

So if you don't want to call Darwin's theory a theory of evolution, call it a THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION instead.

Keep in mind: you do not need DNA, big gene pools, parallel mutations, sexual mutations, ... to have a Darwinian evolution at work. It doesn't have to reflect the biological method of evolution at all. At its core you only need (1) mutation (2) selection. Once you have that, you have Darwinian evolution. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who coined the term MEME to apply Darwin's theory to cultural evolution! Though it is has entirely different mechanism than biological evolution, it still consists of mutation and selection. Not all variants work equally well though: sexual mutation seem to work better than asexual mutations , cultural evolution is much faster than biological evolution, because the latter can only pass information between generations what is very slow. The evolution of mankind in the last few thousands of years are mostly cultural driven.

Re:This is a stupid conclusion

[dave420 (699308)]

Evolution, in the Darwinian natural sense, is accumulative, not completely random. Richard Dawkins explains it very well in "The Blind Watch Maker". Wikipedia's content is just like evolution. Articles are first created (and as we know, the theory of evolution does not cover actual creation of life, but how it changes), and are slowly perfected, with each "edit" being a mutation/new trait in the gene pool which is carried on to the next generation. The parts of the article which are not altered are analogous to genes which are not affecting the "organism" of the article as severely (either positively or negatively) as the change which was effected. As an article reaches its most suitable state, where further edits are not required, you have an article that is completely correct, with no "genes" (edits) that need removing/adding.

The notion of n monkeys typing randomly is used to illustrate the absurdity of evolution. It would be a great illustration if it were not intrinsically flawed from its very conception. A better analogy would be, again as Richard Dawkins again demonstrated in said documentary/book, that each change the monkeys made that took their current works of Shakespeare away from the actual works of Shakespeare were ignored, or favoured less, than changes which improved the similarity of the monkeys' work with that of Shakespeare.

So, in a nutshell, it's similar to evolution as you clearly don't understand evolution enough to ask that question :)