esse quam videri (to be rather than to appear)

I admit I usually get distracted easily, but no distraction has been more welcome that this morning’s “argument” with Nico about evolution. :) I can’t do justice by summarizing it.. So read the transcript if you like. I DARE you. :P


pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
did they teach evolution at assumption?
Chiko says:
barely.. just darwin
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
sigh. is there a similar intelligent design movement in the philippines?
Chiko says:
sorry.. was in a meeting. hahaha.. i'm not sure, sweetie..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
ok good. i guess not then
Chiko says:
i do know people who prefer creationism over evolutionism but i personally prefer a good mix of both.
i don't think men were formed by accident but i don't think it was all a fluke of nature either. we were made with a purpose, and i believe we would've become ourselves eventually
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
sigh. that sounds like intelligent design
Chiko says:
really
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
yeah
Chiko says:
i don't completely buy into evolution as the reason for our existence kasi. i believe there's more to us than that.
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
sigh
Chiko says:
come on, nico.. even YOU have to believe there is more to life than science. after all, where do the arts come from? or beautiful music?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
what does art have to do with evolution?
Chiko says:
because if it's all about math and sounds and all that.. what i'm saying is that there are a lot of things that point out to something far greater than just.. adapting to things
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
what makes you think art and music aren't adaptations to things?
Chiko says:
that's a very sad way of looking at life.. just adapting
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
just because we haven't changed in physical form doesn't mean we haven't evolved. sad? i think its the complete opposite in fact!
Chiko says:
don't you feel we have a greater purpose in life than just evolving
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
isn't it even more astounding that the chiko that you are today, is built on the lives of all your ancestors from long ago?
Chiko says:
we stand on the shoulders of the giants.. where was that from?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
newton said that
Chiko says:
yes, it's fascinating..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
but that was in reference to his accomplishments, not evolution
Chiko says:
but did you ever wonder why we evolve? or why we change or why we began to change?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i think people who have trouble with evolution don't understand the difference between fact and truth
Chiko says:
hahaha..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
evolution is fact, religion is truth. truth is personal, fact is universal
Chiko says:
but even you have to admit that everything can pretty much be disproven, that facts can change, because things, ideas also evolve
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
why do we need a purpose? and just because there isn't a "purpose" laid out for us, that doesn't mean we have to live our lives without morals. true, facts can be disproven
Chiko says:
morals don't have anything to do with purpose
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
but nothing has disproven evolution so far, just as nothing has disproven gravity so far
Chiko says:
you can be moral but not have purpose or have a purpose but not be moral
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
science makes the allowance for future knowledge, religion doesn’t
Chiko says:
so far.. but you'll never know.. hey, i happen to love science. my great grandfather was a scientist
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
all of biology only makes sense under the light of evolution
Chiko says:
like i said, i believe that we've evolved as beings.. but to isolate it like there's nothing beyond that.. i have trouble accepting that because like it or not, biological beings or not, there is more that our physical nature, more to us than brain signals and neurological impulses, more to us than reactions
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i disagree. and i don’t see why we should be saddened by the reality. in fact, it's even more astounding. i think the problem people have with evolution is not that it "disproves" god,
but that it disproves that man is spiritually elevated, divinely favored, that we have special status in the eyes of god and on earth
Chiko says:
that's creationism, sweetie
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
no, intelligent design is basically the same thing. in fact, its even worse because it masquerades as a science
Chiko says:
i don't think evolution disproves God either..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
ID is just saying that the complexity of biology cannot be explained by random events, but that there was an intelligent designer behind it. call the designer god or what have you. same banana
Chiko says:
hahaha. i just really think there's more to existing than biology, is all
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
there is. but that doesn’t mean that biology did not give rise to us
Chiko says:
and not everything can be explained by science
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
religion explains things by telling you to believe it or else. that it just is that it will always be
Chiko says:
i believe in science but we were also taught that even scientists must be able to admit that there are things we cannot fully know
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
there are things that we don’t know yet
Chiko says:
we took up philosophy of religion in ateneo
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
science is about asking questions and discovering answers
Chiko says:
a lot of it has to do with society, and how people tend to cope. remember pascal's wager?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
yes
Chiko says:
it's like that for both of us..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
but that has nothing to do with evolution
Chiko says:
we don't both know the answer, right? i could be mistaken or so could you. we'll never know
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i would say that my answer is more likely to be correct because its based on evidence
and not conjecture
Chiko says:
on a scientific approach. but how do you validate your facts when science itself dictates what is fact and what isn't?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
science is not a bureaucracy, its a way of thinking
Chiko says:
empirical data.. isn't that based what scientists said? exactly..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
yes
Chiko says:
so how sure are you that your way of thinking wasn't influenced by something else
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
empirical meaning it can be observed, tested, and replicated. because before it can be proven,
Chiko says:
yes.. and by what measure do you observe, test and replicate?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
it has to be done over and over again. reliably.
Chiko says:
using criteria that science has chosen
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
and you propose that science be approached from a philosophical perspective? from a religious perspective?
Chiko says:
hahaha. what i'm saying is.. it should matter to you if the perspective you choose is one of science. i'm not choosing that perspective so to me, it's flawed. just like my perspective looks flawed to you
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i'm wondering because perspectives not based on fact will often lead to fundamentalism
Chiko says:
see? you can't isolate it
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
the beauty of science is that we are trying. unlike religion which has already decided that it and it alone is right
Chiko says:
yes, to understand life.. right
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
not understand but discover
Chiko says:
but religion is also trying to understand, or discover, life but in its own way. same as philosophy
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
not life. the abstract. but not fact
Chiko says:
fact as science validates it as fact
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
fact as everyone who understands logic validates it as fact
Chiko says:
hahaha.
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
isn’t that what science is anyway? logic. thinking. rational thought
Chiko says:
some philosophers would disagree with you. but that shouldn't matter because you won't consider that as fact
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
they are subjective
Chiko says:
just free thinking or a mental exercise
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
not based on physical evidence. no substance
Chiko says:
can you say that ALL of science is objective?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
all of science should be objective
Chiko says:
physical evidence as science dictates it. but not always
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
if its not objective, its not science
Chiko says:
because facts can be disproven
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
then its bad science
Chiko says:
you just change the measure
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
yes they can. thats what great about it. what? 2.2 lbs of feathers is the same as a kilo of feathers.
i didnt want to get in this discussion, really
Chiko says:
hahaha. i didn't mean metrics.. i meant the tools you use to establish facts
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i wont say that i am saddened that you feel the way you do, that i am not i mean
Chiko says:
i don't think you're mean
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i'm not. science should be taught better in the philippines, we were hardly taught evolution at xavier
Chiko says:
no, you're not. and it's admirable that you're passionate about science.. and you believe what you do. because xavier is a catholic school
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
science doesn’t interfere with religion
Chiko says:
exactly
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
it is religion that has a problem with science. because science doesn’t say what it wants it to say
Chiko says:
that's why i'm for giving people knowledge and having them decide what to do with it.
that's generalizing
also because, the same can be said in reverse
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i’m not following your logic
Chiko says:
generalizing = it is religion that has a problem with science because science doesn’t say what it wants it to say
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
when has science ever said that god does not exist? never, because science doesn't care.
when has religion said that facts are forbidden? that the pursuit of knowledge should be impeded? countless times
Chiko says:
and do you expect many religious to care about science? they just care about what they eat, where they sleep, etc.. but that doesn't mean that it's not at the back of their minds. science is important. and so is religion
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
ok
Chiko says:
no one ever said anything about knowledge being wrong
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
anymore and I’m gonna burst a blood vessel
Chiko says:
hahahaha
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
this is why i need to read more dawkins
Chiko says:
dawkins?
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
richard dawkins. an evolutionary biologist
Chiko says:
ah..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
most of his life’s work was to champion evolution in the popular press
Chiko says:
i had fun arguing with you..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i am not as eloquent as he
Chiko says:
you're doing a good job, sweetie..
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i will get you a copy of the blind watchmaker
Chiko says:
what's it about
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
to those who think that there's an intelligent designer behind all of life, dawkins argues that he is blind, that life arose from random events, which is why so many times things fail, but enough happens that life goes on.
did you know that 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort 2 weeks after fertilization? enough time for the prospective mother to not even notice that she was pregnant in the first place
Chiko says:
hahaha. i can argue with you on that.. from a religious perspective.. but you might have a heart attack
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
i will. and then i fear i would forget myself and eat you. so lets not go there. at least, not tonight
Chiko says:
hahaha. okay then
pocampo@learnlink.emory.edu says:
good night ms. fancy pants
Chiko says:
hahaha. goodnight, scientist