[Preechr]

Alright... It's 5 May and Friday, so I'm gonna give this a two beer long effort at explanation. Kahljorn, please excuse me if I don't answer all of your many questions just yet. In an effort to satisfy Supa and keep more than just you and me in this discussion, unlike the last time and every other "debate" we've held, I'm going to try to sum up how we got here and clear up what misconceptions you and these other guys have about my point of view on this.

*cracks first beer*

Please note, before I get started, that going back and reading through that earlier thread to make sure what exactly we did and did not argue would take at least another beer or two, so I'm gonna wing it on memory...

When a previous evolution thread started, I began to follow it for a page or two, noting that the difference between evolution within a species and common descent completely ignored. The thread involved those that support ID being taught in school systems next to "Darwinism," an expression which I tend to equate with common descent, not evolution in general.

Since then, it's been assumed I am a disciple of the ID movement, a Christian luddite that believes the world is only 100 or so years old, a troll and a person that believes all scientists are Godless athiests that are going to Hell just as soon as lightning picks them off. I have also screwed up, wading into unfamiliar waters as I am, when I confused genus and species (and rather than figure out the difference as it relates to my thoughts I've just learned to use the term "common descent") and when I misread ziggy's post to mean the big bang happened 4.5 billion years ago since that's when he said life began rather than when the universe got started up... Well, I'm very sure I've screwed up way more than that, but I never intended to make more than that first point, which brings me to my biggest mistake in this whole mess: trying to argue point for point with kahljorn.

No offense intended, kahl. You are as aggravating as you are bright. I take full responsibility for letting our discussions get so far off track, though you were wrong about the definition of "ignorant." It simply means you do not know something. We all qualify.

Anyhoo... *cracks second beer*

Ziggy, I will definitely move on later to try my best to explain how common descent need not be the only theory. To do so, I will need to do the discussion justice and have reference material at hand, as other than the occasional book or article, it has been a while since I've been in school and the names of periods and my terminology is no longer accessible by memory alone. Ok? It's supposed to rain all day Sunday. I'll try to tackle it then.

Pjalne, it is personal to a point, and though I really respect your respect for that I have no problem at all responding to goat's questions on the sociological effects and or causes of common descent... mostly because I find it fascinating.

Goat, to start out I would ask you to think up a few historical points at which science flopped common belief systems upon their heads... a few examples:

The world is actually round.

The Sun is the center of our solar system.

Matter is just another form of energy.

...stuff like that.

Almost always, these revelations are met with tremendous criticism. Tradition is not easily cast aside, generally. However, we live in the beginnings of an age of contrast to all the history of what's happened before, at least among the general population. We are more educated and "modern." Thanks to medical technology, we live longer lives in general, so on the whole we are more mature. Educated people are much more likely to be skeptical of tradition, just as mature thinkers are much more likely to allow new ideas to influence their thoughts.

Economics and politics are both scientific disciplines, though admittedly bastard cousins of physics, chemistry and biology. The softer "Social Sciences" in our modern era have been easily corrupted by guys like Marx (I appreciate you using that example) to such effect that socialist economics and politics still thrive today. As I said before, governments and science have always had an uncomfortable marriage, as successful politicians long ago realized the importance of scientific funding just as scientists accepted that their experiments didn't exactly fit into a successful business plan, generally and historically speaking.

At the risk of starting yet another shitstorm, I would offer "global warming" as an example of the corruption of real science by politics. Rather than allowing a tangent to usurp the thread, I will restrict my example to the political reaction to the data collected: the Kyoto protocol, which was a bunch of crap. Hell, let's add in CARB, too...

I am offering evidence to the idea that science CAN in fact be proven to have been corrupted in the past for political reasons. Politics is the art of aquiring power from people, and the easiest way to do so is feeding a need the people have.

I have, by the way, just finished that second beer.

So, I will now try to end this installation in an effort to get to the business of lighting charcoal...

One of the most powerful needs people have is that of self-destruction. We love to do the things that are worst for us. That is the human condition. I do not have time at this point to expound further on why I believe common descent to fall into this catagory, but I hope that you can extrapolate where I'm going.

Please remember, I am coming at this from a point of view that our prescence here is intentional rather than random chance and thus meaningless. I understand fully that common descent only explains HOW and the WHY could still be intentional, but I still feel that the concept allows way to many inroads to immorality. Hopefully, these two beers of insight have helped just a little to that end and enticed to wait for a bit more while I indulge myself in the spirit of the holiday.

Vamos tomah, Amigos!