A new book produced by scientific advisers to the government in support of evolution says science and religion, as two separate ways of human understanding, can be compatible and it is possible for one person to embrace both.
"Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience," reads “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.
The former is empirical and the latter is not, acccording to the 70-page book released on Thursday.
"Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist,” states the book, asserting that one does not have to abandon belief in God to accept evolution.
It is the third pro-evolution book put forth by the scientific organization but the first where the panel of authors addressed the religion question for an intended lay public audience.
According to Alan Leshner, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science, the scientific community is “working more and more with religious communities so that we can talk about ways that people can have this co-existing understanding (of science and religion),” he said Monday on The Diane Rehm Show.
“This really doesn’t have to be a debate. We don’t pitch science against religion,” said Leshner. “Over and over, religions that see the Bible as an allegory, as a description of an overall process that isn’t tied to literal day by day, those religions seem to understand better how science can co-exist with a religious belief or even a biblical belief. It’s the literalist point that has tremendous problems.”
Barbara A. Schaal, NAS vice president and evolutionary biologist at Washington University, noted, “We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy,” according to the New York Times.
She is also a member of the panel – led by Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine and a former Dominican priest – that produced the book and that has agreed evidence was growing for evolution.
One piece of evidence referred to in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish displaying "intermediate" features, such as four finlike legs, which was believed to play a role in helping the creature pull itself through shallow water onto land.
At four chapters long, the report devotes one entire chapter to "Creationism" – the Biblical view that God created the universe – describing a creationist as one who rejects scientific findings "in favor of a special creation by a supernatural entity." In this chapter, the book states that one can believe in God, not reject science – or in other words, accept evolution – and not be called a "creationist."
A 2006 Pew Research Center poll showed that while 51 percent of American adults embrace evolution, nearly half (21 percent) of them said evolution was guided by a supreme being. Only 26 percent said they believe in Darwinian evolution while 42 percent rejected evolution altogether, saying humans and other living things have existed in present form only.
The book also doesn't end without muddying the concept of intelligent design – the teaching that features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause as opposed to an indirect process – much to the dismay of its proponents. Continue >>
RSS
Seedy,
Read up on DNA evidence, particularly ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion for common ancestry, especially the details on what the data infers for evolution. That coupled with fossils of past hominids and early primitive apes like Australopithecus Afarensis give fairly good credence for human evolution.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (whole Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
NOVA Judgement Day ,Intelligent Design onTrial. part1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4
Humans and chimpanzees have at least 7 IDENTICAL inactive retroviral DNA sequences (Endogenous Retrovirus) in IDENTICAL locations in their genomes. Most importantly is the ERV insertion via reverse transcriptase occurs entirely at RANDOM. The ONLY way this could occur is if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor which also possessed the inactive retroviral sequence. What about the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes.
With respect to DNA evidence, especially the Fusion and 7 Identical ERV's, the only response AIG and ICR has is well, 'god made it that way'. Logically this is foolish as it's suggesting god intentionally leaves evidence for evolution, all the while it's somehow not true according to AIG and ICR.
i await your reply to this.
“I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God.”
So, now you agree with me that ID = god, where earlier you denied it? Hilarious. Not just god, but of course the Christian god.
“.He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning”
Really, WHERE?. Cite that one for me please.
“Often enough their work overlaps, but it is distinct in their approach, this story is also similar to the young earth creationists.”
You know it is, and there’s more likeness so it’s quite obvious that ID = god, it’s a no brainer.
AO-“ Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.”
Seedy “Hugh Ross has taken a lot of time to explain his results leading to an opposite conclusion.”
Please, do tell. This would be interesting.
(referring to the ‘atheist gene you mentioned) “It apparently is somewhere along the spinal cord, we don’t know exactly. It disables them from being able to humble their self before God. Lol”
A typical creationist failed attempt at making a joke. Hardy har har. It would almost have weight if your god had enough evidence to be believed in to pay homage to in the first place.
Since we have gone off on this morality, ethics, and this entirely different tangent than what my first question posed, allow me to retort. PLEASE finally answer these 2 pieces of evidence as they relate to evolution in the post above.
PEACE.
“You believe that we have been begotten through random acts of blind impersonal materialism, step by step in a world of hostility. Yet guided by Mother Nature it somehow was able to over come the obstacles by sheer determination”
Obviously you don’t understand the 4 universal laws (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) if you had you wouldn’t have made such a claim. Matter has to exist (refer to 1st law) it can’t NOT exist, and it also must seek a resolute state, and it operates according to those universal forces. Those forces is what ‘guided’ naturally if you will the universe we see before us. No magic man behind the curtain pulling strings required for any of that.
“The fact that it was relatively recent that the scientific community threw out magical spontaneous generation reveals problems with your analogy.”
No it’s not, science strips away ignorance, it lives off of new data that is tested added and used, unlike religion which never uses any new data in it’s scriptures as to alter scripture is heresy!.
The two are totally different in this dept. Religions work best when no new evidence for anything is uncovered and while the masses are ignorant of evidence; while science thrives as new theories are created, edited (relativity) or crushed to explain the evidence of our world. Science is all about progressing knowledge and explain our universe. Religion asserts there is no reason to even research anything as it asserts it has all the answers in their ancient book.
“God is not merely a ‘posit,’ but rather deduced from the evidence. Looking at the technological advancements of science, how could one say that this is a result of years of accumulated random chance processes by which material came together to form complex structures.’
What technological structures? Please do list, I love refuting ID complexity.
“The evidence is not so persuasive for natural evolution; certain aspects of evolution, yes; natural evolution, no.”
Fine what aspects in natural evolution are so confounding to you that the whole notion that it works naturally must be tossed? My guess is you’ll opt for biological systems and not mention any of the paleontology evidence or any other evidence for natural evolution. ID resides in arguing from personal incredulity and attempts to hammer in a designer in place of ignorance. Most disingenuous.
“How could I have guessed that you would have introduced atheism of the gaps? The point here is that if a miracle was staring you in the face, you would not believe it until you discovered some kind of a way to dismiss it, in spite of the evidence affirming it.”
No, I want to explain everything that can be explained in a scientific natural method and not resort to opt to use the ‘god did it’ clause which has been used over and over when attempting to explain confounding things. I asked for the evidence of ‘how dead this guy was’, IE was he brain dead? You didn’t bother to answer so I’ll assume he wasn’t and so he was never really dead to begin with.
(regarding spontaneous generation) “To be quite honest I did not know the scientific establishment had changed its mind.”
It’s been over a decade, read up on it. They don’t think it poofed out of nowhere in a single instance. Refer to the chemically bonding processes that molecules naturally have and why such nucleotides and poly nucleotides would have formed, that is one of the leading ideas leading to primitive RNA that composes DNA. No current scientists think DNA in a single instance was up and formed and nor do they consider ‘magic’ to be involved, rather they’re investigating the natural means to explain it as even according to Occam’s razor it makes more sense for things to occur naturally and without adding more complex factors (god) into the equation, especially as this factor can’t be substantiated.
“To say that imperial evidence is the only plausible evidence only reveals the inability on your part to recognize multi-dimensional realities that do not suite your taste buds’
EVIDENCE is everything. If some other dimension exist and there is credible evidence that is the case that it’s logical to accept it. Religious beliefs such as miracles fly in the face of this reality and they assert credible evidence isn’t required, but just ‘faith alone’ and this is why I reject them. To have ‘faith alone’ in any proposition is delusional.
“Peter Singer”
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood; that is, in the sense of a being's rationality and self-consciousness. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.
His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is admittedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, which is defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant.
His views on such things stems logically concluding using sciences evidence for what is defined as a human as it relates to conscisouness, sensory of pain and so on. Is a zygote a human, it has no memeory, no sense of conscious being, nor does it feel pain and this can be said further out past when it’s an embryo. Od you consider a zygote human and if so on what grounds? If you ground them on your religious belief in a soul, something that none have even prooved then it’s perhaps time to see what science has to say as to what a human really is.
“Again, without a moral compass, I think that the natural tendancy as noted here prior is one of domination and control.”
Right, no theists have ever tried to assert political control or domination. What are you kidding me?
What religious doctrines HAVEN’T been used in the past to assert domination, control and subjugation over the masses is the real question. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
‘Naturalism is based on certain beliefs and presumptions that are carried into science.”
Gee, I wonder why?! It’s b/c for something to be included in science an it must be studied in the NATURAL world, that's why naturalism is prefered.
“My point merely is as simple as this, if it is bad to take the Bible literally, how much worse is it to take survival of the fitest literally”
Well, if you read biology you’d realize that in evolution ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly mean ‘only the strong survive’. In most organisms they only survive b/c of their altruistic and symbiotic relationships with other species and their own species. Only by ignoring this and other biology information would one conclude that evolution or natural selection some how gives a license to go out on a rampage.
We don’t see too many scientists and biologists going on rampages (at all literally) and they’d never blame it on some processes the excuse their actions. We don’t see scientists doing such rampage acts as they fully understand evolution and natural selection and that ‘survival of the fittest’ is a misnomer. It’s not always the most fit, but many times the most cooperative, the most ethical, and most moral species that win out, but of course you’d have to read a biology book and not sound bites to know this.
“This does not mean that all atheists and naturalists are in fact nihilists, but they are in the same religious category”
Fine, how are atheists, agnostics religious at all? We have no sacred holidays, no doctrines, no places of worship, we don’t worship anyone, etc.
“If you presuppose religion should be eliminated because people take it too literally,”
This isn’t my only reason, but it’s among them. Taking anything too literally and not acting rationally and logically is most absurd, theistic or not.
“If you really want to work on some type of social harmony it is counter-productive to come into a Christian sight posting anti-theistic messages.”
No it’s not, my goal is to strip away at unchallenged dogmas that most theists never question. My goal is to inform theists, Christians in particular on what evolution and other sciences REALLY suggests and so they’re no mislead. I have been doing this, but as it seems some Christians here don’t want to even hear of the evidence and so I am censored. If they are still religious in the end then fine, if they move toward Deism fine, if they choose non religious views fine. Perhaps more importantly is to show my Christian brethren that as un believer I have many of the same aspirations in life and can offer a view that they otherwise can’t or wont’ see. I am here to demystify the stigmas attached to non believers as being less ethical or someone un able to know morality without the notion of god.
“I am sure that you are including atheists [in your diagnosis] as well, such as the Columbine High [massacre], Jeffrey Dahmer…”
Well of course I am, any dogmatic literalist approach, theistic or atheistic isn’t rationale or wise.
“Nevertheless, atheism as a whole is proven to be the most destructive ideology’
No it’s not, only those that are NIHILISTS view the world in such ‘meaningless’ terms.
“Even though non-religious affiliated people only make up around 80% of the world’s population, this small percentage is responsible for the vilest acts of human depravity ever perpetrated on mankind.”
Non religious people globally make up 80% of the worlds population huh? What nonsense, the majority of people are theists! I guess you meant 8%? As if theist organizations haven’t done anything wrong then, is that what you’re saying? Both sides have done wrong and both have done right.
“Meanwhile you are complaining about the extremely few churches that practice snake handling because they don’t know how to properly exegete Scripture and institute hermeneutics.”
Oh those hics are hardly the only ones that don’t interpret the bible as it should be and you know this. Part of the problem is religious doctrines give otherwise san people a license to do stupid things.
“ Meanwhile, what violence have they committed to others?”
Say this about the Muslims who took their holy book literally and flew planes into our world trade center. Taking anything to such a degree of certainty is retarded, and mixing 21st century nuclear weapons with 1st century or 6th century beliefs is like mixing drinking with driving.
“but again I do not see them as raging atheists who are plotting the next coup.”
Where do you even see this? WHAT coup?
And now that were getting more polite and tolerant:
“I however do not see how anything short of the miraculous, whether it be theism or pantheism, could account for the complexity and fine tuning of creation”
AO: “I do agree with this in the most broadest sense, and this would only suffice for a Deistic or Pantheistic view of god. However, give science some time to determine how if at all the universe could be tuned before assuming it was. There is the anthropic principle afterall.”
Interesting.
Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.”
Hugh Ross has taken a lot of time to explain his results leading to an opposite conclusion.
Final note:
“The atheist gene has been discovered”
AO: “It has, where’s it located? I have heard of science studies regarding the ‘god gene’ though.’
It apparently is somewhere along the spinal cord, we don’t know exactly. It disables them from being able to humble their self before God. lol
AO: “ID most certainly implies god, Dembski even says ‘ID = God’. You’ll never hear ID proponents inferring that ‘ID means an alien that crafted these irreducible complex biological systems’, that would kill their whole neo-creationist focus.”
I think that it is correct to presume that in the order of things a Designer necessitates one that at least looks like the Christian God. You are wrong however about ID automatically referencing God. I have heard Dembski himself state that this is not the case. Now you can call him a liar, or say that he has changed his stance, but nevertheless this is the case. He actually has stated that ID does not rule out alien spawning. This is exactly why Hugh Ross and other scientists have not hopped on the ID community. Often enough their work overlaps, but it is distinct in their approach, this story is also similar to the young earth creationists. While I do recognize that deism, pantheism could be argued, I personally have distinguished my argument around the nature of your obsession with eliminating religion. All of these other things are merely to answer your criticisms and presumptions, which you have been largely either wrong, misinformed, uninformed or just difficult to follow on these posts; to speak more politely.
AO: “Religion and its claims (what happens after we die for instance) particularly deal with items that are void of credible evidence and in this sense are mere hearsay. This is why evidence is everything.”
It is interesting that you brought this up. I just heard a lecture from a doctor who became an outspoken believer after dealing with people going in and out of death. Of course I should automatically presume that you have a natural explanation. But of course it does not necessarily warrant the occasion, since faith was not the centrality of the issue.
AO: “Sure you can site you doctrine, but anything in our Universe that doesn’t conform to its claims will instantly negate its defacto authority that normally would have sway over ignorant masses.”
That is an ironic twist. It does not take into account the problems that science itself has had over even the last century. The fact that it was relatively recent that the scientific community threw out magical spontaneous generation reveals problems with your analogy. It is not Christians alone who have had problems interpreting science and the way it relates to reality, naturalists have also had this problem. Thus your defacto argument works on both Christians and naturalists, exposing spurious thinking on both parts.
AO: “If you posit god and that he poofed us here instantly, you have some explaining to do and why all the evidence for evolution exists at all, namely Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and the 7 Identical ERV’s we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations.”
God is not merely a ‘posit,’ but rather deduced from the evidence. Looking at the technological advancements of science, how could one say that this is a result of years of accumulated random chance processes by which material came together to form complex structures. Thus non-life begets life; non-personality begets personality; non-complexity begets complexity; material structures beget immaterial structures; seems a little odd doesn’t it?
“You see in the end it all comes down to faith doesn’t it?”
AO: “Well, no it doesn’t. For something to fall under the realm of Science it must be falsifiable and show evidence to give it credence, so there is no faith that when I drop my remote it will fall from Gravity, or that HIV viruses evolve via reverse transcriptase. These are observable, falsifiable evidence based knowledge.”
Well now, not so fast, your scientific theory cannot be out under the microscope. To say that imperial evidence is the only plausible evidence only reveals the inability on your part to recognize multi-dimensional realities that do not suite your taste buds. The reason why you adhere to the scientific theory is because you find it to be a reliable method of understanding the real world as you understand it. This also coincides with the numerous other ways that you feel most comfortable in the real world, with moral judgments, moral prescriptions, justice, purpose and meaning. These are all facets of the life that we not only take for granted, but it would seem awkward and foreign to live life without. Yet they all testify to a much higher purpose than scientific naturalism. Although I think that this faith is without warrant, it is nonetheless faith. You believe that we have been begotten through random acts of blind impersonal materialism, step by step in a world of hostility. Yet guided by Mother Nature it somehow was able to over come the obstacles by sheer determination. Where the determination came from one cannot say, but it was there and so we have to take it for science that that is that. Woweeee!
AO: “…evolution and other theories of science don’t require ‘faith’, they persist on evidence alone.”
Naturalism is based on certain beliefs and presumptions that are carried into science. The evidence is not so persuasive for natural evolution; certain aspects of evolution, yes; natural evolution, no.
“He was dead for a number of hours and miraculously came back to life”
AO: “In cases like this I wouldn’t recommend to apt for ‘miracle’ as a knee jerk reaction, rather many times these are things in which we are ignorant of and have yet to fully explain naturally.”
How could I have guessed that you would have introduced atheism of the gaps? The point here is that if a miracle was staring you in the face, you would not believe it until you discovered some kind of a way to dismiss it, in spite of the evidence affirming it.
AO: “Spontaneous generation was proven impossible not too long ago.”
I was wondering how long it would take for natural evolutionists to catch on to this reality. To be quite honest I did not know the scientific establishment had changed its mind.
AO: “As far as the dictators, the regimes they used were highly dogmatic, non rationale, removed dissention and skepticism of divinity of rulers, all of which mirror religion in their approach. And they replaced their leaders in place of idolizing god.”
Again, without a moral compass, I think that the natural tendancy as noted here prior is one of domination and control. You really have no basis for critiqing Christianity on the social level or even the survival level. Christianity wins out in both categories well over and beyond atheism. This tendency towards domination is reflected in the fact of your presence here arguing for the elimination of theism. I think that your spite for Christianity and your power grab if only given the opportunity would reach the height of dictatorship. You may think yourself better to handle such dictatorialships, but I think democracy is not a given. You have revealed no such dignity that I have seen. I think your animosity betrays what is hidden beneath your rheteric.
AO: “These regimes mirrored religion in how they prevented dissenting people to speak openly and critique the power structure.”
Sounds like methodological naturalism to me, science community barring inquiry, not to mention humanistic secularism of the Dawkins ilk.
My point merely is as simple as this, if it is bad to take the Bible literally, how much worse is it to take survival of the fitest literally. Eric Harris and Jeffrey Dahmer was the perfect example of this. This does not mean that all atheists and naturalists are in fact nihilists, but they are in the same religious category. My main contention has been with your seemingly blurred references to eliminating religion and that without warrant. If you presuppose religion should be eliminated because people take it too literally, then you have the same thing with atheism and naturalism. If you really want to work on some type of social harmony it is counter-productive to come into a Christian sight posting anti-theistic messages. This I think reveals less than honest intentions on your part. If you really wish to harmonize people, I would think that it would be more productive to promote tolerance and brotherly love, especially since your arguments against religious belief seem to infer more of a pragmatic tone, albeit hostile in nature.
AO: “…so it’s a non argument to reason that we should kill off those that are handicapped, diseased and so on.”
I disagree with your conclusion. You should take into account the work of humanist Peter Singer who argues in favor of Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide on the foundation of naturalism applying his own brand of ethics known as moral naturalism (after all there are is no standard prescription).
AgentOrnery,
"and the atheist dictators who have taken Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion; no morals, no purpose, no God, no dignity'
AO: “I am sure you realize Atheism doesn't imply Nihilism and only a morbid teenager would assume natural selection would somehow be viewed as a license to kill others.
Lets put what I said back in context;
I was responding to your self-refuting diagnosis that it is bad for people to take their religious beliefs literally. AgentO: “…some people take it literally and interpret that if they follow it accordingly they can defy poison and snakes. This is another reason why religion, or more exactly, a literalist stance to it is harmful and something humanity would be better off without.”
I am sure that you are including atheists [in your diagnosis] as well, such as the Columbine High [massacre], Jeffrey Dahmer, and the atheist dictators who have taken Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion; no morals, no purpose, no God, no dignity. The last century has seen more bloodshed in the name of the new progressive science than all the religious wars in the history of the world.
Of course not all atheists take their worldview literally as Marx did; not all atheists are anti-theists as say Kim Jong-il. Nevertheless, atheism as a whole is proven to be the most destructive ideology in the world. Even though non-religious affiliated people only make up around 80% of the world’s population, this small percentage is responsible for the vilest acts of human depravity ever perpetrated on mankind. Meanwhile you are complaining about the extremely few churches that practice snake handling because they don’t know how to properly exegete Scripture and institute hermeneutics. Meanwhile, what violence have they committed to others? Of course they have attempted to propogate their peculiar irregularities amongst themselves, but again I do not see them as raging atheists who are plotting the next coup.
“You believe natural evolution exists and has the power to spontaneously generate complexity and even life itself”
I believe in the proposition of evolution, not b/c of ‘faith’, but b/c of the evidence for it that gives it credence. Well, if you realized how complex non-organics are you’d realize that even for non living things to come about naturally aren’t that far off from organics from organizing themselves.
“I believe the Designer was a person, namely God.”
I don’t know if you’re a biblical literalist, but if you posit god did it all you’ll need some evidence to back your claims, otherwise it's hearsay/whitenoise. Sure you can site you doctrine, but anything in our Universe that doesn’t conform to its claims will instantly negate its defacto authority that normally would have sway over ignorant masses. Thu why many in Science aren't very religious.
If you posit god and that he poofed us here instantly, you have some explaining to do and why all the evidence for evolution exists at all, namely Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and the 7 Identical ERV’s we and Chimps share in the exact same genetic locations.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
“As I told Bob, strictly philosophically speaking ID does not necessarily infer the supernatural”
ID most certainly implies god, Dembski even says ‘ID = God’. You’ll never hear ID proponents inferring that ‘ID means an alien that crafted these irreducible complex biological systems’, that would kill their whole neo-creationist focus. What else besides aliens could ‘ID’ infer? Well, if not aliens, obviously its god and god is obviously a supernatural agent A simple dedcution in logic, it’s a no brainer!
“I however do not see how anything short of the miraculous, whether it be theism or pantheism, could account for the complexity and fine tuning of creation”
I do agree with this in the most broadest sense, and this would only suffice for a Deistic or Pantheistic view of god. However, give science some time to determine how if at all the universe could be tuned before assuming it was. There is the anthropic principle afterall. Moreover, you must admit if there is a god that is behind it all, it’s not an omnibenevolent one, it’s one of indifference. A short glance of the chaos in our Universe and domestically on earth will attest to that.
He picks and chooses what he wants to believe, all the while pretending to theorize a premise that is based on science…”
Well, I don’t think Science is the sole reason people are Atheists, but I do concur that greater knowledge in science, western philosophy and such does cause one to doubt the religious depictions of god and see them for what they really are. My Atheistic stance isn’t premised off of science alone, I can thank all the horrid acts of all religions over the millennia’s to gauge how sensible and rationale theism really is.
“Natural evolution is truly a weak and dying theory when its propagators have lost their faith”
Riiiiight, evolution and other theories of science don’t require ‘faith’, they persist on evidence alone.
“The atheist gene has been discovered”
It has, where’s it located? I have heard of science studies regarding the ‘god gene’ though.
“He was dead for a number of hours and miraculously came back to life”
Define ‘dead’ in this context. Was he ‘brain dead’? Brain death is technically when you’re considered dead. Can you link this one? In cases like this I wouldn’t recommend to apt for ‘miracle’ as a knee jerk reaction, rather many times these are things in which we are ignorant of and have yet to fully explain naturally. Prior to medicines those that overcame sickness were also coined as ‘miracles’ as they considered them the result demons. Give science some decades on neurochemistry and we’ll know why.
“In my experiences I have not seen spontaneous generation of any kind”
Spontaneous generation was proven impossible not too long ago. Evolution ONLY deals with life changing AFTER IT ALREADY EXISTS; it doesn’t deal with how life arose at all. How life got here on earth is a different realm of science, Abiogenesis.
This is why Darwin’s book was Origin of Species and NOT Origin of Life. Whether life arose here naturally, or via aliens, or if magic man *poofed* it here is a non factor to life evolving. Once it’s here, it adapts and evolves. Theists continually think evolution somehow negates god, in the most-broadest sense, but it doesn’t.
“You see in the end it all comes down to faith doesn’t it?”
Well, no it doesn’t. For something to fall under the realm of Science it must be falsifiable and show evidence to give it credence, so there is no faith that when I drop my remote it will fall from Gravity, or that HIV viruses evolve via reverse transcriptase. These are observable, falsifiable evidence based knowledge.
Religion and its claims (what happens after we die for instance) particularly deal with items that are void of credible evidence and in this sense are mere hearsay. This is why evidence is everything.
1. Well, belief in itself isn’t bad; it’s the actions of such beliefs that really matter. But I agree, no single instances should matter in the abstract.
2. It can, but having the belief that god/big brother is always watching you and that you’ll end up in eternal hell isn’t healthy. Having Catholics priests’ sexually abusing young kids b/c of their sexual repression isn’t healthy either.
3. So does some medicines, but yes inner strength and will are important and some people need a crutch it seems.
4. We can still find meaning and purpose outside of the belief in god. God or not our actions have meaning and consequences and if one can’t find purpose outside of god then they’re pretty shallow.
5. True, but so do any sort of group community functions.
6. False justice if you ask me. Theism extends justice beyond the grave, so those that we wished we could have got our hands on (Hitler) will (hopefully) have their justice and vice versa. No proof of this, so its wish full thinking.
7.Tell that to the Buddhists and other mystics that are highly spiritual and yet have no god in their lives.
8. See #5.
9.You mean it resorts to fear mongering and scare tactics to compel people to behave. Sorry, we don’t need a ‘carrot and a stick’ to understand philosophically reasoning why behaving ethically is better for humanity.
10.Music , art, and many other things can be and already ARE inspiring. Never mind how much theism and its dogmatic views have retarded scientific progress.
11.How is it an incentive? You mean non genuine acts of ‘sucking up’ for sake of heaven, that non theists do anyway? You shouldn’t have to have an incentive to act just to others. Many times theists cause more harm, case in point AIDS in Africa and Catholics.
12.The hell it does, the core theist belief is that this life is only temporary and many evangelicals would no doubt see a silver lining in a nuclear cloud over NY and to an extent don’t see global warming as a real threat either.
13.Doctrines do cover love, however this isn’t a universal as gays and members of other religions aren’t generally loved, usually they’re persecuted.
15.Inner peace huh, tell that to the closet gay Christians, or wahabbi Muslims
"and the atheist dictators who have taken Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion; no morals, no purpose, no God, no dignity'
I am sure you realize Atheism doesn't imply Nihilism and only a morbid teenager would assume natural selection would somehow be viewed as a license to kill others. In the abstract of all of Darwinism and how organisms survive, killing off the weak amongst your own is rarely ever done. As mentioned earlier, most organisms survive out of symbiotic nature alone and killing off more than is needed is essentially unheard of. Usually only the weak are picked off by predators who seek the old, sick, weak and this in turn ensures a more robust and healthy community. In essence, it's for the greater good. However, with humans we have no natural predators and our intelligence will allow us to modify our genes to rid ourselves of the most debilitating diseases, so it’s a non argument to reason that we should kill off those that are handicapped, diseased and so on.
As far as the dictators, the regimes they used were highly dogmatic, non rationale, removed dissention and skepticism of divinity of rulers, all of which mirror religion in their approach. And they replaced their leaders in place of idolizing god. None of these places were run under a Democratic consensus either and so the people had no political power. These regimes mirrored religion in how they prevented dissenting people to speak openly and critique the power structure. In essence, anything in such a dogmatic form, theistic based or not is never for the best intentions for those involved.
“As you stated, this altruistic gene theoretically explains how animals in fact behave, but it doesn’t explain ‘why’ we should behave a certain way, nor does it show me how I ‘ought’ to behave.”
The answer to ‘Why’, is b/c to do otherwise is counterproductive to the group community or at the very least to either parties involved. In groups, organisms are more successful than if alone and their ability to respond to each other, especially in pain, would be important in knowing how to act accordingly. Organisms that can identify pain, empathize and relate are more apt to go out of their way and offer reciprocal and altruistic aid, even without asking for it. This type of behavior would no doubt be favorable as a single organism could be viewed as not solely taking care of just its immediate offspring, but also those related to it.
For humanity, it has a lesser implied meaning as we devised our own laws and ethics regarding morality. We as a society, via Democratic consensus will decide what is moral and ethical.
BobCoup d'état,
It is humorous how you both assert humility of mind and at the same time arrogance in your presumptions.
"Nothing good can come if the will is wrong and to give evidence to him who loves not the truth is only to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation."
-Richard Weaver, University professor and author of, Ideas Have Consequences
seedplanter, I got a quote for you to read and think about.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin
“…if you were handed a death certificate by the man whose name was on the dotted line, you would find some way of explaining it away as natural causes”
AO: “Right we would, everything should be rigorously to be validated and verified via natural means before even hinting at supernaturalism explanations. But your example is a pure hypothetical and one that everyone knows doesn’t happen in reality so it’s of little consequence.”
I agree that everything should be evaluated, especially unnatural and supernatural claims. The example that I submitted is actually a genuine case that someone used with an atheist. He was dead for a number of hours and miraculously came back to life. But as I stated before, the atheist merely shrugged off the death certificate and said well the doctor must have been wrong. Incidentally, this is not the only case of a documented miracle.
It is by this same standard that I argue against un-natural evolution. In my experiences I have not seen spontaneous generation of any kind. You see in the end it all comes down to faith doesn’t it? You believe natural evolution exists and has the power to spontaneously generate complexity and even life itself. I believe the Designer was a person, namely God. Both by necessity overcame what we would think to be considerable odds according to nature, nothing short of miraculous. As I told Bob, strictly philosophically speaking ID does not necessarily infer the supernatural. I however do not see how anything short of the miraculous, whether it be theism or pantheism, could account for the complexity and fine tuning of creation. Since you have taken up Bob’s debate perhaps you should familiarize where we were at.
“Then again if I thought my brain evolved from monkey brains, why should I trust it to be right?” This is known as Darwin’s Doubt as I noted prior if you would have read it a bit more carefully.
The atheist gene has been discovered.
AO: “We see other organisms that have empathy and a level of ethics and morality”
As you stated, this altruistic gene theoretically explains how animals in fact behave, but it doesn’t explain ‘why’ we should behave a certain way, nor does it show me how I ‘ought’ to behave. This is another one of the leaps of faith that naturalistic evolution makes in an attempt to close the gap between the human immaterial mind and the physical brain.
AO: “not everything that exists is beneficially attributed to evolution or natural selection…Religion and its believers do show they are generally more happy, but this is the result of wish full thinking in that which they can’t validate (like life after death).”
This is quite revealing as to the thought that goes into your prejudices; entirely too simplistic. Allow me to educate you on some of the relationships between theism and society. Some of them may overlap a bit, but do stand up on their own.
1. Theistic belief cannot be considered bad just because of a few bad apples.
2. Theistic belief has psychological benefits and leads to mental health & self esteem.
3. Theistic belief helps cure self-destructive characteristics such as addictions.
4. Theism provides a foundation for meaning and purpose.
5. Theism provides a moral framework to guide social interaction.
6. Theism provides us with at least a sense of justice.
7. Theistic belief enables the development of spirituality that is rooted in human nature.
8. Theistic belief allows for the deep development of social connections.
9. Theism provides us with a greater sense of accountability.
10. Theism inspires great accomplishments; including art, self-sacrifice, etc.
11. Theistic belief is an incentive for helping the defenseless, oppressed, widows, orphans, outcasts, handicapped, etc.
12. Theism speaks to us on being good earth stewards.
13. Theism teaches us how to love properly; it distinguishes the difference between giving love and taking love.
14. Theism gives people confidence and a sense of well being.
15. Theistic belief affords inner peace.
In conclusion I maintain that the scientific naturalist’s hostility toward theism is an internal conflict of interest that reveals his inconsistencies. He picks and chooses what he wants to believe, all the while pretending to theorize a premise that is based on science, where the emperor has no clothes. Natural evolution is truly a weak and dying theory when its propagators have lost their faith. Nevertheless, the next time you are tempted to cut off someone’s head because you do not recognize its evolutionary benefits, you should think through your assumptions and cross check it against the reality of its benefits and theism has far greater benefits than atheism.
AO: “Yes, sorry Mark not Matthew. Either way some people take it literally and interpret that if they follow it accordingly they can defy poison and snakes. This is another reason why religion, or more exactly, a literalist stance to it is harmful and something humanity would be better off without.”
I am sure that you are including atheists as well, such as the Columbine High, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the atheist dictators who have taken Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion; no morals, no purpose, no God, no dignity. The last century has seen more bloodshed in the name of the new progressive science than all the religious wars in the history of the world.
On his Web page, Eric Harris listed many things he hated, but Darwin’s theory of evolution, particularly his suggestion of natural selection, stood in stark contrast. “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION!,” he crowed. “It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms … but it’s all natural! YES!” On the day of the massacre at Columbine High, Eric Harris wore a white T-shirt with the inscription “Natural Selection” on the front.
Thence, we should also be much better off without the theory of natural selection.
“Neither does it say that they cannot care for each other”
You’re right it doesn’t. however, without a soul there is no need to be moral as a being without a soul has no reason to worry over heaven or hell, thus they don’t act according to their souls and to something else. This alone shows why
Evolutionary theory, like all other theories in science has its own boundaries on what it can address and conclude via testing.
“Scholars look at it as metaphorical language to describe authority over demonic activity.”
Yes, sorry Mark not Matthew. Either way some people take it literally and interpret that if they follow it accordingly they can defy poison and snakes. This is another reason why religion, or more exactly, a literalist stance to it is harmful and something humanity would be better off without.
“if you were handed a death certificate by the man whose name was on the dotted line, you would find some way of explaining it away as natural causes”
Right we would, everything should be rigorously to be validated and verified via natural means before even hinting at supernaturalism explanations. But your example is a pure hypothetical and one that everyone knows doesn’t happen in reality so it’s of little consequence.
Show me where the credible peer reviewed evidence is that backs a biblical 6000 year old earth/universe then.
“Then again if I thought my brain evolved from monkey brains, why should I trust it to be right?”
No, wrong assumption. Our brains being evolved doesn’t mean we shouldn’t or can’t trust them, if we couldn’t then we wouldn’t even be here talking about it as we’d always doubt our most natural thoughts and never even create anything for sake of infringing on doubt.
seedplanter,
“why would you try to destroy its processes?”
Firstly, not everything that exists is beneficially attributed to evolution or natural selection. Some things animals do don’t serve any purpose at all benefiical purpose, but are traits that still exist as they were selected along with other beneficial traits. Radical islam is a good reason why to destroy it. Religion and its believers do show they are generally more happy, but this is the result of wish full thinking in that which they can’t validate (like life after death). It’s comforting and consoling to think we can live on and be immortal, but there is no evidence for this. It’s an illogical escape of reality is what it comes down to. It’s no different than illogically and falsely assuming one has a diamond the size of fridge buried in their backyard.
Not all things that stem from religion are peaceful and progressive. Many Evangelicals would rather we teach creationism in place of how the world and universe actually is in sake of persevering their faith. They in turn retard progress of humanity and piss in fountain of knowledge. Religion is in principle against new information, especially new information that reduces the authority of its supposed prophetic texts and in this regard they are more of a hindrance as great texts should be able to adopt new progressive information and not be set in stone.
“Do you think ethics are genetic or immaterial processes akin to the mind?”
Ethics/morality are at least partially controlled and defined genetically and via the physical brain/mind. We see other organisms that have empathy and a level of ethics and morality, that via religion makes no sense. For animals that according to religion have no souls, they have no reason to be moral or ethical at all. The levels of morality and ethics are both tied to how the brain is hardwired and how genetically its evolved.
www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/05/are_our_brains_.html
www.corante.com/brainwaves/archives/2004/02/22/empathy_is_a_hardwired_feeling.php
www.empathogens.com/empathy/animal.html
“Altruism and Altruistic Love: Science, Philosophy, & Religion in Dialogue
By Stephen Garrard Post”
My point about the atom was not to equivocate philosophical and scientific approaches; it was however one of the many, many examples of scientifically deduced realities that was not proven by using empirical evidence.
AO: In Matthew, it’s recorded that believers will be able to handle venomous snakes and drink poison and believers won’t be harmed.
It was in Mark and it is not included in the earliest manuscripts. Scholars look at it as metaphorical language to describe authority over demonic activity.
Miracles would not be miracles if they were common occurrence. With that in mind I know you atheists enough to know that if you were handed a death certificate by the man whose name was on the dotted line, you would find some way of explaining it away as natural causes.
AO: theists are the ones who gloat about their belief purely on 'faith' alone and not in verifiable, credible evidence.
I don’t know of any Christian denomination or Bible scholar who believes that except for maybe the radical left wing nuts called the Jesus Seminar. Evidence is an integral part of Christian belief and you can even find that in the Bible. It is atheists who choose to ignore any evidence that runs contrary as I asserted above. Then again if I thought my brain evolved from monkey brains, why should I trust it to be right? (Darwin's Doubt)
Thank you AgentOrnery for sharing your opinions with me, but I was inquiring of BobCoup d'état and pointing out some of his very personal inconsistencies, which I would very much like for him to answer for himself. But since you have decided to come along for the ride, may I ask you, if evolution favors religion in its social endeavors, knowing that it is statistically proven that religious people live happier, more satisfying lives; knowing that it is foundational to the moral structure that your life and livelihood depends on (there’s no point in denying it); why would you try to destroy its processes? This is an inconsistency that I pointed out numerous times here and elsewhere that has been completely ignored.
AO: “…natural selection and evolution (like with us H.Sapiens) favored ethical conscious considerations when dealing with closest kin.”
Do you think ethics are genetic or immaterial processes akin to the mind?
About your animal studies, do you have this documented study on line? The Bible merely states that God created animals; it does not say that they do not have certain instincts that allow for social benefits. Neither does it say that they cannot care for each other. Neither does it say that they cannot change and adapt to one degree or another. What it does clarify is that we were made in the image of God. In short, most theologians would say that this means we were created as individuals originally to mirror God’s personality and mind as autonomous, creative, logical, loving (moral) beings.
AO: “It’s not a worldview; it’s a scientific theory to explain how and why organisms evolve and the processes involved.”
It is true that evolution is a scientific theory, but it must however come with self-explanatory power within our world fueled by the full force of logic while remaining consistent with reality, not only in nature but also in human experience and practicality.
Thanks agent orange for helping me out here. My time is limited and so I will let you take over. Thanks again.
Seedplanter,
“BC: See an atom with my own eyes? No. So what?
-My point is that nobody has seen an atom, their presence is a deduction; yet we take the existence of the atom as reality.”
Your fixation with comparing a scientific theory with the existence of god is ill form. 1st, with atomic theory the knowledge gained, from 1000’s of independent, observations, predictions and tests allows for us to have a net gain from it’s proposition of existence and as being actual truth. We can conclude that via predictions and analysis that regardless of not being able to view individual atoms, they do in fact have accordance to atomic theory. The key is we can’ predict how they will behave and in response we can create nuclear power or nuclear weapons.
What evidence for gods existences, for instance the miracles attributed to it, can show predictive results that mirror those of any other scientific theory? Even by indirect observation as is used in Atomic Theory, what can be substantiated by predctable testing and analysis?
In Matthew, it’s recorded that believers will be able to handle venomous snakes and drink poison and believers won’t be harmed. Clearly we know this isn’t the case. Evidence like this doesn’t bold well as it refutes the very claims and removes the authority of the precepts that necessitates it. Namely religion. For why are people religious if not for the miracles?
"AgentOrnery, let’s see your evidence?"
Elaborate, evidence or or against what exactly?
Seedplanter,
“You do not want to talk about the reality of morality, why not? I think it is because it is something that not only natural evolution cannot explain, but it is also inconsistent with what we observe in nature.”
I’ll talk about it and tell you first hand that evolution, as a theory has no bearing on human ethics and morality towards each other and our community at all. Anyone who consults a science theory for ethical considerations in life is already lost.
Evolution via natural selection does show us that those species which are altruistic, and work in a symbiotic nature are far more likely to survive and their collectively team work is mutually beneficial. In many instances, two organisms work together b/c it’s in their best interest to do so and they evolved to do so. Do they have to be moral? No, they don’t, but natural selection and evolution (like with us H.Sapiens) favored ethical conscious considerations when dealing with closest kin.
Studies with rats, chimps and other animals with enough grey matter have shown they have empathy and are moral in response to preventing their closest kin from harm. The studies showed that when a one party of the group would attempt to eat, its closest kin would be electrically shocked and shreek. After a number of times, the rats and chimps that were to eat to prompt their kin to be shocked caught on and gave up eating altogether in sake of harming their kin. Many in turn starved themselves to death as opposed to harming their kin.
Why would they have to be moral? According to scripture, they are just beasts with no souls and have no morals anyway, so biblically it makes no sense. But, with evolutionary biology that has shown that higher levels of morality are more beneficial then utter corruptness, it makes perfect sense.
As it turns out, some animals with enough grey matter are hard wired to care according to their brains.
“It also reveals the bankruptcy of evolution as a worldview.”
Well, that’s just it. It’s not a worldview; it’s a scientific theory to explain how and why organisms evolve and the processes involved.
AgentOrnery, let’s see your evidence?
BC: The only thing the creationists contribute is "god-did-it".
-Your ignorance precedes you. You really need to inform yourself of the history of science. Just because evolution lacks explaining power does not necessitate that the alternative lacks scientific inquiry. Reverse engineering for example has been postulated by some of the biggest names in science, from Kepler to Carver; both were ‘Creationists.’ All too often evolution becomes the theory merely by default, because of the unwillingness to consider the only apparent alternative. Whenever a problem is discovered such as the Cambrian explosion, the ‘fact’ of evolution is relegated to faith in the theory without missing a beat. This is not scientific inquiry. By the way, although the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it was only capable of sustaining life for around 50 million years, as the Cambrian explosion discloses on account of its sudden appearance.
BC: See an atom with my own eyes? No. So what?
-My point is that nobody has seen an atom, their presence is a deduction; yet we take the existence of the atom as reality. When scientists and philosophers observe nature and deduce that there is a God it is not an imposition, it is reality. Within the context of reality there are many things that evolution cannot account for. This does not necessarily delegate the issues to a Creator. It is when the theory breaks down in the real world that necessitates the adjustment of the theory. Darwinian evolution
Free of charge:
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/2933961.html
BobCoup d'état,
Speaking of Neanderthals you noted; “I wouldn't rule out the idea our ancestors ‘murdered’ them.” This is exactly what I made note of prior. You assume here and elsewhere a sense of morality that transcends culture and I think you are correct in doing so.
You do not want to talk about the reality of morality, why not? I think it is because it is something that not only natural evolution cannot explain, but it is also inconsistent with what we observe in nature. It is no more possible to generate morality from mere protoplasm than it is for the magic of spontaneous generation to breath life into raw material. By asserting such morality you are assuming a real morality which is evident of a moral law giver. By denying morality in the pursuit of secularism the result is tyranny. This was my basic premise and still is.
Ideas have consequences. Nothing has trampled on human dignity and human rights more than the combination of secular humanism and natural evolution. When I pointed out your desire to eliminate faith without clarification, you were agitated because of it being morally reprehensible to consider such a thing as to include people of faith. Furthermore, not only does evolution not account for morals, even if it could do so, it would not make sense to destroy people’s faith as you have stated, since it gives a foundation for morality in the first place.
This reveals the inconsistencies of your behavior vs. your thoughts on the theory of evolution.
It also reveals the lack of explanatory power of evolution.
It also reveals the bankruptcy of evolution as a worldview.
Chris333,
"The brains of some people are permanently shut closed. Shut closed with cement. Nothing can change their minds about anything. All evidence, no matter how powerful it is, is completely meaningless to them. These people are called atheists"
What balls,. theists are the ones who DENY EVIDENCE against their particular god or precepts that defy his biblical, quaran or torah deptictions. theists are the ones who gloat about their belief purely on 'faith' alone and not in verifiable, credible evidence.
this is why literalist theists, (xtians for this example) reject all of the evidence for evolution, cosmology, astronomy, physics, and so on that refute their literalist interpretations.
anyone like you Chris333, that equates Atheism with Nihilism is already gone off the deap end and doesn't know that they aren't the same derived meaning.
"try imagining that God is true" equals "try imagining that magic is true".
Magic is impossible. Scientists back up their claims with evidence. There could never be any evidence for magic, and that's why it makes no sense to compare the denial of magic (god) to the denial of scientific evidence.
Bob, I am going to show you a problem in your logic.
The brains of some people are permanently shut closed. Shut closed with cement. Nothing can change their minds about anything. All evidence, no matter how powerful it is, is completely meaningless to them. These people are called atheists. They are convinced that science will never fail them. They are convinced believing in God, or denying anything outside of the scientific method, is the worst of all sins.
I hope you are not one of those people whose lives are totally wasted and nothing can be done for them.
(I know it will be difficult but try imagining that God is true, then this restatement of yours will make perfect sense. I really do like the way you said it too, it sounded very nice)
seedplanter: "To me the nature of mankind vs. that of animals is an obvious breach in the theory."
seedplanter, humans are animals. You do understand that, don't you?
We are not separate from the other animals. We are animals. All animals are related to each other. We are part of the tree of life. We occupy one small branch on that tree of millions of branches.
Do you have some problem with this concept that humans are part of nature? Has your religious indoctrination made this concept difficult for you to accept?
The reason I ask is the brains of some people are permanently shut closed. Shut closed with cement. Nothing can change their minds about anything. All evidence, no matter how powerful it is, is completely meaningless to them. These people are called creationists. They are convinced their preacher never lied to them. They are convinced thinking for yourself, or denying anything in the Bible, is a one way ticket to hell.
I hope you are not one of those people whose lives are totally wasted and nothing can be done for them.
seedplanter: "Your assumption of a ‘mind’ separate from the brain conflicts with evolution."
I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about?
For anything else you said that I didn't bother to respond to, I have the same question: What the heck are you talking about?
I am trying to talk about science and you are talking about everything but science.
seedplanter: "Your thoughts and actions about morality are inconsistent with evolution."
seedplanter, could you please cut out this morality stuff? We are talking about science here, not morality. Evolution says nothing about morality. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. It's not about what is right and wrong.
I don't understand why creationists make evolution into more than what it is. It's just science, nothing more.
seedplanter, there are many branches on the tree of life. Neanderthals were one branch. Modern humans are another branch. There were several species of human-like creatures that died out. We are the only species that has survived. Isn't it interesting that our ancestors and Neanderthals very likely encountered each other. Perhaps we will never know for sure what wiped out the neanderthals, but I wouldn't rule out the idea our ancestors murdered them. There's lots of interesting questions about the history of life. It's the scientists who are making the discoveries to answer these questions. The only thing the creationists contribute is "god-did-it".
hello seedplanter. See an atom with my own eyes? No. So what?
"evolution takes too long"
How much time do you think it needs? The earth has been here about 4.5 billion years, and it's been estimated the first living cells appeared almost 4 billion years ago. That's almost 4,000 million years. You couldn't count that high in your lifetime.
Before we continue, I need to know how old you think the earth is. If you don't agree it's more than 4 billion years, then we are wasting our time. So please, how old is the earth? Huckabee's answer "I don't know" is not an answer. Thanks.
seedplanter, scientific ideas change when new evidence requires scientists to modify them or throw them out. My point in my previous comments was science will NEVER change to make some religious person happy. Even religious scientists, if they are competent, if faced with the choice of throwing out a scientific discovery, or throwing out one of their religious beliefs, will always throw out the religious belief. Science ALWAYS wins and religion ALWAYS loses. Science does not give a fig about what any religion says.
I suggest, if we are going to talk about science, let's leave god out of it. Gods do not have anything to do with science. Gods are a philosophy of ignorance. Science is a philosophy of discovery.
Whatever information you have regarding chimpanzees mating does not change or remove the necessary information sequentially invested into them that is required for mating in the first place. The complexity of just the reproductive systems, both male and female simultaneously developing alone is a statistical monstrosity. There just isn’t enough time or chances available to go through all of the sequences at random in the time frame given to support life for naturalistic evolutionary development. I do not deny that there have been some evolutionary changes and adaptations. Spontaneous generation along with Darwinian evolution doesn’t fit the real world that we live in. Rather than seeing slow developments and changes, we see dramatic bursts of different species in the fossil record. To me the nature of mankind vs. that of animals is an obvious breach in the theory. Frankly speaking, I would have no qualms with the idea of animals evolving, theoretically speaking. My problem is scientific evidence is not persuasive enough. Evolution would have to necessarily cut straight through the laws of logic or depend upon a guiding hand, or the magic of spontaneous generation.
I added a few other points and made some adjustments to my list:
1. You automatically assume a theistic world in your reliance upon logic.
2. Your thoughts and actions about morality are inconsistent with evolution.
3. Your behavior regarding genetic determinism is inconsistent with evolution.
4. Your assumption of a ‘mind’ separate from the brain conflicts with evolution.
5. Your actual beliefs are inconsistent with what you say you believe.
6. Which concludes that evolution relegates itself to that of a cosmic comic strip.
7. If we are essentially immaterial consciousness as presumed above, then it is not too much to assume that it is at least possible for there to be another immaterial consciousness.
Now, I have a question for you; have you ever seen an atom?
BobCoup d'état,
BC: “Some mentally retarded teenagers shoot other students, then commit suicide. They didn't believe in the magic man, therefore the magic man exists. Is that your logic, seedplanter.”
-I presumed that you had a higher level of understanding. Anyone can claim that someone is mentally deranged. I agree that they were disillusioned – disillusioned about evolution. That is the point and nothing more.
BC: “This kind of anti-science ignorance is why the world would be better off with beliefs in gods.”
-That is humorous, I have to laugh.
BC: “There haven't been any pogroms lately, but religious fundamentalists destroy the minds of young people every day when they lie to them about science, and when they teach children that religious myths are facts.”
-You mean like teaching human dignity rather than yielding to ‘animal instincts’, such as blood lust?
BC: “Your comment about evolution being magic is not compatible with scientific evidence.”
-You are right, that’s why I don’t subscribe to the evolutionary magical sciences. This does however explain why some scientists have crossed over to pantheism; like Einstein who developed a steady state theory to prove that the universe is eternal; a Russian scientist showed him his miscalculation in which he seemed to opt for some form of pantheistic faith, although it is uncertain exactly what he believed. He was trying to prove that there was no need for a first cause, namely God.
BC: “If you want science and god to be compatible, your religious beliefs are going to have change because science will never change to accommodate anyone's religion.”
-This reveals the lack of education on the history of science. Science has changed numerous times over the years, i.e. flat earth to spherical, etc. It is ironic how evolutionists cry ‘progress,’ when they are the ones blocking the road. Science is not complete in its understanding and definition, it never will be complete. Heaven and earth help us, if we ever think we’ve reached the climax of knowledge. We will never stop learning about the wonders of God’s creation.
BC: “You need to understand the change from one species to another is an extremely gradual process that requires a long series of baby steps that can require millions of years.”
-Good point! As a matter of fact, evolution takes too long. Even the Neanderthal man is now considered to be inconsequential to human evolution according to pro-evolution scientists, due to the relatively short time between them and us.
"Micro-evolution is apparent, but on the macro level it is nothing short of magic."
Well, at least this is on-topic, seedplanter. The topic of this thread is "Pro-Evolution Book Says Science and God Compatible"
Your comment about evolution being magic is not compatible with scientific evidence. If you want science and god to be compatible, your religious beliefs are going to have change because science will never change to accommodate anyone's religion.
You need to understand the change from one species to another is an extremely gradual process that requires a long series of baby steps that can require millions of years. There is no invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop just before a species starts to look like another species.
I would like to explain something that scientists know thanks to the fossil evidence and even more thanks to the extremely powerful genetic evidence that shows beyond any doubt all life evolved and all life is related.
About 6 million years ago our ancestors and the ancestors of chimpanzees were the same ape-like creatures but they did not look like modern humans and they did not look like modern chimpanzees. These creatures split into two groups and over a long period of time evolved differently in their different environments. The DNA evidence is so powerful, scientists have discovered these two groups of animals, after they split apart, continued to mate with each other for up to hundreds of thousands of years when they encountered each other and still did not look too different from each other. It was only about 5 million years ago that these 2 species completely separated. This history of life is found in the DNA of both of these species, humans and chimps. If you deny this DNA evidence, then you also have to deny the DNA analysis used for paternity testing and DNA evidence used to put people on or remove people from death row. The same method is used for both paternity testing and determining evolutionary relationships. It's no longer possible for an educated person to deny the fact of evolution, including the fact that humans developed from other animals.
"When is the last time you heard about an evangelical killing people in the name of God?"
There haven't been any pogroms lately, but religious fundamentalists destroy the minds of young people every day when they lie to them about science, and when they teach children that religious myths are facts.
"This kind of anti-science ignorance is why the world would be better off with beliefs in gods." should have been written "without beliefs in gods."
"atheists slaughtered students in the Colorado massacre."
Some mentally retarded teenagers shoot other students, then commit suicide. They didn't believe in the magic man, therefore the magic man exists. Is that your logic, seedplanter.
"Micro-evolution is apparent, but on the macro level it is nothing short of magic."
This kind of anti-science ignorance is why the world would be better off with beliefs in gods.
Was that your response????
Some anti-theocrats are dead, but not all. Hitler’s human experiments are the natural consequence to natural evolution mandated by secularist government. When is the last time you heard about an evangelical killing people in the name of God? Hollywood movies do not count. You may find a few instances of religious nuts going off the deep end, but atheists slaughtered students in the Colorado massacre.
Micro-evolution is apparent, but on the macro level it is nothing short of magic.
Atheism is a disease, truth serum is the cure.
seedplanter, one reason I'm in favor of the eradication of all supernatural beliefs is because these beliefs contribute to the world's massive ignorance of science. For example, you deny the science of evolution, don't you? All competent scientists would compare you and other evolution-deniers to flat-earthers. The basic facts of evolution are no longer questioned by scientists because the science of evolution has withstood extensive testing for 150 years. Yet you still deny it, and probably the only reason you deny it is your belief that god did it. This is why if the world is ever going to grow up and accept modern science, all gods must be eradicated first.
The other reason I look forward to when the entire world becomes like Sweden, where only 15% of the population believes in a god, is religious violence, including 9/11/2001, the 2 wars we are in now, the daily suicide bombings, the violence in Northern Ireland (which is fortunately over now), the pogroms (also fortunately over but could occur again).
Christians like to talk about the dead 20th century communist dictators and they blame their insanity and violence on their atheism. They forget these dictators are dead, and they forget communism is virtually dead. Russia and China are capitalist countries now, despite what the government of China is called. The atheists of today are mostly capitalists like me, they love democracy and peace, and they notice virtually every war going on right now is at least partly caused by differences in religious beliefs. Eliminating gods from the world may not completely rid the world of wars, but at least one reason for people to kill each other would be eliminated. How many people have been killed because they believed in the wrong god, and how idiotic is it to kill because of a childish fantasy? That's all every god that has ever been invented is, a childish fantasy, no different from a child's invisible friend. The world needs to grow up, educate itself, and face facts. We are all alone here. No god is going to help us.
To Theotrek:
"Slacker--Isn't it somewhat inappropriate to answer for someone else?"
Huh???
BobCoup d'état,
I sensed your uneasiness to my earlier allegations of genocide. I can understand why it would seem morally reprehensible. There is a deep sense of morality that mankind shares that transcends culture. We can even see this in what is called prison justice, i.e. Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by a fellow prison inmate.
If religion plays such a fundamental role in the evolution of society by introducing morals and meaning to individuals, why would you want to eliminate such an integral and necessary support system? Are you second guessing evolution? It seems contradictory to me.
Furthermore, how do you expect genetic determinism to permit you to change a person’s predetermined codes? You are automatically assuming that ‘thoughts’ are not a state of the brain, which demonstrates the gravity of reality; which is inconsistent with natural evolution. It also seems to betray your personal belief in natural evolution.
Consciousness is different from the material brain, it is invisible. God is invisible. You believe in your consciousness, it isn’t too far from there to believe that there could be a higher consciousness.
We can conclude the following inconsistencies with the evolutionary worldview:
1. Your thoughts and actions about morality are inconsistent with evolution.
2. Your behavior regarding genetic determinism is inconsistent with evolution.
3. Assuming the presence of a mind separate from the brain conflicts with evolution.
4. Your actual beliefs are inconsistent with what you say you believe.
5. Which concludes that evolution relegates itself to that of a cosmic comic strip.
“FACT” is a pretty strong word. Naturalistic evolution cannot disprove anything until it is proven. Every time a gap is said to be filled more gaps open up.
BC: “Sooner or later, all religions and all gods will be found only in museums. Science education is a tremendous threat to all supernatural beliefs…”
This must be why secular evolutionists are threatened by open dialogues.
BC: “Scientists don't have to say anything about religions. All they have to do is completely ignore religions and they will die out by themselves. With no more anti-science supernatural beliefs, there will be an explosion of human progress.”
You mean like Milosevic, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot, and the rest of the humanistic secularists. LAME is an encoder.
BC: “Scientists are starting to notice the existence of religions only because anti-science religious people are attacking science education.”
Backwards, it is evolution proponents that initiated the attack on science and education. The Scopes trial was a pathetic blunder. As evolution gained momentum, its proponents assumed the authority of science without regard to peer review.
BC: “Scientists don't like the idea of know-nothing school boards trying to force science teachers to lie about science, so they are fighting back.”
This must be why the text books in public schools still use erroneous evolutionary constructs that belong in comic books.
ID does not necessarily infer the supernatural from a purely philosophical point of view.
Slacker--Isn't it somewhat inappropriate to answer for someone else?
BobCu--
"Unfortunately for religious people, if they are anti-science they scare away intelligent young people. If they are pro-science their religion becomes meaningless." I am pro-science, but I do not find my faith to be meaningless. It gives, purpose, structure, and direction to my life, among other things.
As far as religions ending up in museums, I don't believe the current studies will justify that prognosis. There has been growth in belief in the supernatural. Specifically, I recently saw a study that a majority of Americans believe in ghosts. Eastern mysticism is growing in the US, as well.
seedplanter asked "If religious belief evolved in a social framework, why should evolutionists attempt to destroy it and its influence?"
Scientists don't have to say anything about religions. All they have to do is completely ignore religions and they will die out by themselves. With no more anti-science supernatural beliefs, there will be an explosion of human progress.
Scientists are starting to notice the existence of religions only because anti-science religious people are attacking science education. Scientists don't like the idea of know-nothing school boards trying to force science teachers to lie about science, so they are fighting back. That's what this new pro-evolution book from the National Academy of Sciences is about, which by the way, the creationists here should download for free and read, unless they prefer to be willfully ignorant about science.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
seedplanter said "You might want to make a note that ID does not necessarily infer the supernatural..."
You might want to make a note that you're not being honest. Everyone, including you, knows the designer is god. The professional liars who work for the Discovery Institute, also known as the Institute of Lying, have been repeating this "we don't know who the designer is" nonsense for years. Everyone, even the creationists, knows they are lying.
Slacker said: "Don't you see that you have created evolution to replace God..."
Scientific facts are not created. Nobody created evolution. Evolution is just how the world works.
Evolution disproves Genesis, but that's your problem, not mine.
The diversity of life has been explained without the god hypothesis, but there's still some gaps in our knowledge for the god of the gaps to hide in until scientists chase it away. How each species appeared is not one of those gaps. Please keep god out of there, or else some scientist will step on it.
Unfortunately for religious people, if they are anti-science they scare away intelligent young people. If they are pro-science their religion becomes meaningless.
Sooner or later, all religions and all gods will be found only in museums. Science education is a tremendous threat to all supernatural beliefs, so if you want to delay the inevitable death of your religion, don't let your children get anywhere near a science teacher.
BobCoup d'état says: "No, not genocide."
Dawkins doesn't make that distinction.
Furthermore as I put forth in my opening statement, for those of you who do subscribe to evolution; If religious belief evolved in a social framework, why should evolutionists attempt to destroy it and its influence? It is counterproductive to the process of evolution. Your Mother wouldn’t like that.
You might want to make a note that ID does not necessarily infer the supernatural; spontaneous generation does however sound a lot like magic. I can see why you would lean toward pantheism and worship Mother Earth, as naturalistic evolution is being flushed down the toilet as a self-refuting adolescent game of moral-free-for-all.
Don't you see that you have created evolution to replace God, that you preach it on the highest mountain. Instead of acknowledging God you have turned your back on him and created your own false Religion to worship, no different then Baal Worship from the Old Testament. I have to say tho, you are proving the bible by what you are doing...
Slacker: "Because even one miracle would disprove his God, Evolution..."
What about gravity? Do you call gravity a god?
""BobCu--Could you tell me why one is too many? (Remember that miracle means that those experiencing perceived God's action, even if there could be a natural explanation of the event. The miracle may be seen in an event's timing, for example.) ""
Because even one miracle would disprove his God, Evolution...
Hi theotrek, I just noticed your question.
www.theotrek.org: "BobCu--Could you tell me why one is too many? (Remember that miracle means that those experiencing perceived God's action, even if there could be a natural explanation of the event. The miracle may be seen in an event's timing, for example.)"
Are you suggesting even if miracles are delusions, they are still miracles?
miracle: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God"
Miracle = supernatural = magic. There never has been and never will be any miracles.
A possible exception would be the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series.
No, just kidding. There's a natural explanation for everything, even if the natural explanation is unknown.
seedplanter: "The Dawkins camp that you swear allegiance to comes entirely to close to declaring an American genocide on people of faith."
No, not genocide. What will finally rid the world of religions is science education. Science is the greatest threat to beliefs in supernatural magic, and science education is what will eventually put all religions into museums where they belong. The most anti-science religions will die out first. Eventually all churches will be empty. Already in Europe religious people are the minority. In Sweden only 15% of the population believes in a god.
Theotrek, you may find this movie interesting:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/?gclid=CKbatuKtxJACFUV0OAodJUZ7Ww
These guys are delusional, if you are interested in some decent material on line, Alister McGrath has some pretty good stuff. William Dembski is also recommended. William Lane Craig is interesting. They all have mp3s out there that you can download, just google their name and ~mp3.
BobCu: “I prefer to be honest and say evolution is a major threat to god, and I'm very happy evolution conflicts with god. I would like the Christian religion, and all other religions, to become extinct. I'm convinced religions are slowing down human progress, and the world would be a better place without them.”
“…I suggest let's talk about the science of evolution and leave moral values and dead dictators out of it.”
Interesting, ideas do have consequences. The Dawkins camp that you swear allegiance to comes entirely to close to declaring an American genocide on people of faith.
BobCu--Could you tell me why one is too many? (Remember that miracle means that those experiencing perceived God's action, even if there could be a natural explanation of the event. The miracle may be seen in an event's timing, for example.)
"BTW, the Bible is rather sparse with miracles."
One miracle is too many miracles.
I am not capable of believing in any miracles. I just don't have what it takes to believe something that's impossible actually happened anyway.
"Makes me wonder as well why you, agentorange, Citizen, etc. bother with this site?"
If I went somewhere where everyone agreed with me I would die from the boredom.
BobCu--I am a Christian, but most Christians who believe that evolution is sound science and does not contradict faith in God are not going to be reading Christian Post articles. Makes me wonder as well why you, agentorange, Citizen, etc. bother with this site?
BTW, the Bible is rather sparse with miracles. Covering a span of a couple thousand years or so, very few miracles are actually reported other than in Jesus' ministry. In some of the "great prophets," one or two in a lifetime are all that are recorded. Miracles are not God's normal plan of action. God works in sync with the world as planned in its "natural, guiding principles," the ones science seeks to discover and describe. Biblically, they are exceptions.
Seedplanter,
“Nothing has done more to advance ID than big bang cosmology. “
No it hasn’t. All of the main arguments for ID hinge off of complexity within biological systems.
Show me the ID in Cosmology and we'll see how intelligently designed it was made speciically for life, namely us.
“Which is more probable: nothing made something out of nothing or someone made something out of nothing?”
See this is what I am talking about in how far behind USA really is in science. The big bang (BB) never implies that ‘something came from nothing’ and that is just like those that think evolution implies ‘men came from monkeys’.
Rather, the BB is the unfolding/expansion of space and time aka space/time in 4 dimensions. Where did it come from? The singularity is where it all began and the singularity is certainly something, so this is a misunderstanding on your part of it coming ‘from nothing’ as you so eloquently put it.
Some will say from a cosmological viewpoint that all things that exist have a cause and therefore the singularity had to have a cause, namely god. According to this logic though god itself would also require a cause, and his creator and so on creating an infinite regress. Some Theists will say in response by fiat that god is ‘self created’ (somehow?) and then leave it at that so they don’t have to answer any further. However, if god can be ‘self created’ why can’t the Universe be equally self created? Logically it works and according to the conservation of energy it also works.
“Presupposing the validity of evolution, it does not have an internal mechanism that deals with morality in an honest practical way….If the survival of the fittest comes into play,….. . Its function is not to provide meaning, value or morality; therefore the atheist who chooses to espouse it as such is disillusioned”
Well , no scientists or atheist are claiming evolution should answer such questions regarding human ethics and morality concerns; these are questions that should be answered based on rational decisions for all parties involve. In other words, Democratic consensus; something non of those leaders and their countries had. And typically only those that misunderstand Darwinian evolution confuse this and think it implies this. The ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly say ‘only the strong survive’, many times organisms that are altruistic and symbiotic collectively work together far better than they would be alone. In fact, they have become so dependent that they require the utmost ethical behavior to survive at all. But again, this only pertains to biological systems and isn’t sufficient for ethical reasoning for our actions in a human society.
Hello seedplanter.
"Which is more probable: nothing made something out of nothing or someone made something out of nothing?"
I vote neither. I don't remember any scientist saying matter appeared from nothing. I'm not too educated about what modern science says about cosmology, but for questions that haven't been answered yet, and may never be answered, I prefer to say "scientists are still working on it" or "I don't know" or "who cares". I'm not too keen on invoking God, also known as magic, just because some problem hasn't been solved yet.
You said "I see many things in which evolution has no or at least little explaining power" then you talked about some dictators, a moral compass, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is just a scientific fact like gravity. It doesn't say anything about moral values and the other things you talked about.
"... when it came to stepping on the rights and dignity of others. If the survival of the fittest comes into play, along with the absence of a moral compass and lack of basis for dignity, since we are all animals anyway; why not?"
I know I'm just an animal, and I don't step on the rights and dignity of others. The biologists who make new discoveries that support evolution do not step on the rights of others. There are nasty people in the world, but they are not nasty because they developed from other animals, they are nasty because they are (some word I shouldn't use here).
"Survival of the fittest" does not necessarily mean survival of the strongest, it just means the animals most likely to live long enough to reproduce are the animals most likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. Survival often requires cooperation with other members of the same species. A species of animals that kill each other is likely to become extinct very fast. You might be interested to know altruism has been observed in our closest non-human relatives, the chimpanzees. Survival can also require being able to run fast enough to not become another animal's lunch, or having some other defense like a turtle's shell.
I suggest let's talk about the science of evolution and leave moral values and dead dictators out of it.
Nothing has done more to advance ID than big bang cosmology. Which is more probable: nothing made something out of nothing or someone made something out of nothing?
Bob, I agree with your premise that evolution and God do not mix; I liken it to mixing oil and water. Phillip Johnson points out the irreconcilable differences in Reason in the Balance.
My conclusion is quite a bit different than yours however. I see many things in which evolution has no or at least little explaining power. I don’t think that most atheist bigotry from the Dawkins camp has taken a good hard look at the ramifications of evolution as a worldview. Most of the time it is used as a tool to disable the voice of conscience without regard to the nuclear fallout, philosophically and socially speaking. Presupposing the validity of evolution, it does not have an internal mechanism that deals with morality in an honest practical way. Examining the social impact of evolution, one would have to assume that religion is part of the evolutionary construct of morality and human dignity, which when taken away naturally are proceeded by the likes of Milosevic, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot, etc.; who not only had their own brands of anti-theocratic rule, but also who had no regard or regrets when it came to stepping on the rights and dignity of others. If the survival of the fittest comes into play, along with the absence of a moral compass and lack of basis for dignity, since we are all animals anyway; why not? Natural evolution lacks the epistemic support to withstand its critics. If it is true, the only meaningful context that it plays into our animate construct is relegated to that of a pacifier for the conscience of an atheist who wants to dance the night away with his DNA. Its function is not to provide meaning, value or morality; therefore the atheist who chooses to espouse it as such is disillusioned. In other words, natural evolution is not useful to promote atheism, anti-theism or any other ‘ism, it is just there and it cannot be changed by “will power.” In reality he, the atheist, is making false leaps of despair and attempting to do so by using evolution to his political advantage, when there is no ballot box, he is under a dictatorship.
agentorange, I wasn't sure if you were Christian or not, now I know you're not. I used to be Catholic, but threw that out more than 40 years ago. Thanks for the Hubble telescope video. There's trillions and trillions of solar systems. I can't figure out why so many people think the earth is a big deal when it's really almost nothing compared to the rest of the universe. It seems crazy to pretend a god would select earth for all these miracles the Bible talks about.
Yesterday I learned about a candidate for president I never heard of before, Mike Gravel from Alaska. Here is an interesting quote from Gravel:
When LiveScience asked the senator if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools, Gravel replied, "Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."
BobCu,
" If creationists really understood how powerful the evidence is for evolution, they wouldn't be spreading lies about, and they might even accept evolution and learn to like it."
I've always viewed creationists who view the bible as literal as a bit of strangness. They won't acknowledge how large, how beutiful and just how amazaing the Universe really, all details in all sizes. No prophet could have ever imagined such a views that Hubble and Spitzer telescopes provide.And this isn't there fault, this was the best they could provide in their era for spiritual trancendence and enlightenment.
Theism or Atheism aside, if you can watch this vid and not be awe struck by the sheer size of our Universe and really how small we really are in it all then I think people aren't giving Astronomy and Cosmology the respect it dully deserves. To me, and I am sure other science buffs would agree, such small glimpses of this Universe and other realms of Science are quite moving and akin to a humbling feeling that theists would likely define as spiritual.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ
BobCu,
I am not Christian. Sorry to dissapoint. If I had to affirm any type of belief in the nature of god it would fall under the realm of Deism or Pantheism, ( I am Agnostic of these) but I am not a Theist and retain that I am Atheistic towards religious depctions of gods nature. Still, I don't think Christians have anything to worry about in regards to their faith as only a truly literalist stance would prevent the openmindness needed to see evolution for what is it - Science. They can still have their cake and eat it too, this is why Catholics follow evolution and they incorporate it into part of how gods creation workded and unfolded.
My concern is how rejecting evolution and other realms of science that conflict a literalist view would cause harm nationally and economically where biology and other derived science jobs are concerned in the USA and those that require evolutionary, astronomy, etc. understanding will move abroad instead of staying domestically. A country that doesn't educate its citizens, especially in a global economy where competitivness will be very high will in the end be its own demise.
We must be verry clear, China and India are by no means going to roll over and if we don't hold onto Scientifitc advancement they will certaintly take it from us and not ever look back. That much is for certain. They both have very large growing, well educated masses and I am afraid we will be hanging ourselves if we reject forms of science as the Arabs did in 1100 in sake of afirming to religous literalism.
www.theotrek.org and agentorange, I am encouraged there are pro-science Christians like yourselves.
I look forward to the day when the adjective "theistic" is no longer attached to the word evolution. Nobody talks about theistic gravity, and I don't see any reason for people to say evolution can be theistic. Half of America accepts evolution, but only 13% of Americans accept evolution without invoking God to invent and/or help evolution. Whether or not a person is religious, they should accept evolution as much as they accept gravity, and without invoking supernatural magic to explain it.
BobCu--Even some Christians who say they take everything literal accept evolution. To me, the Bible is not a book of history or science. It is not so concerned with the questions of how and when. It is concerned with who, why, and so what?
Folks who claim Genesis says how God created have not read it with as much care as they believe they have. There are different accounts of creation. There are different orders of creation process in those account. They are narrated to different purposes. They are all, however, accounts of theology in narrative form. They were not intended to say how, but to describe the character of the God with whom all creation originated.
The science in those accounts is laughable by today's standards, yet the theology still stands. We no longer think of rain as entering the clouds by God opening windows in the firmament to empty a portion of the celestial waters. We no longer think of stars and planets as celestial beings circling the firmament. We no longer think of God sitting above the clouds on the throne in the heavens as a physical place. The Bible still uses that language, and so do we at times.
We have learned to overlook aspects of these views of cosmology. Perhaps in a while we will as a whole learn to overlook the concepts many have towards creation as described in terms of scientific process.
I learned a long time ago that when people have less foundation for their pet ideas, the yell the loudest. Sorry you have had to endure that!
agentorange, What you said makes sense. Now I understand better how some people can be Christians and still accept evolution. If all Christians could do that, I would have a much higher opinion of their religion. It might be helpful if the pro-science Christians helped educate the anti-science Christians. If creationists really understood how powerful the evidence is for evolution, they wouldn't be spreading lies about, and they might even accept evolution and learn to like it. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I learned something from you.
BobCu,
I understand your stance, but Deists, Pantheists and even Christians who don't adopt a literalist view of their holy texts would be compatble with the idea of Evolution. Some, like a Theistic Evolutionist, while others are like Ken Miller who believes in god, but as he elequently put it, not a deceptive god. The key, with all things considered is to have an open mind and objectively think critically from whence such religious doctrines were written and how they translate today.
Part of the reason for why so many in the USA doubt evolution is they're purposely misled on its implications and what it means. Some misinterpet it to have meaning in human ethics, but it's science theory and theories in such matters have no bearing on how we should behave ethically towards eachother.
Too many get hung up on darwinian survival of the fittest and think this some how includes a licence to kiill, lie and steal. They overlook or are ignorant of the fact that many organisms operate in an altruistic and symbiotic nature that generally benefits both parties and rarely is one party benig taken advantage of. This in evolutionary terms explains our system of human ethics as to be cooperative and collectively work together is more benficial in the long run then to be act otherwise.
Some of that is directly the result of parents whom home school their kids, which Evalngelicals comprise 75% of, or some 1.25 million of those that home school. This is the only way they can achieve to have them think in such literalist terms as to do otherwise would mean the parents would have to answer scientific evidence that negates much of their biblical claims such as a 6000 year old universe/earth. It also doesn't helpe the education of them when they can go to a creationist museum that uses no facts or evidence to back their claims other than the bible.
Jesus' devinity aside, the work he is creditied with doing is all that matters and really his ascention and resurection are more so for those that overlook his changes he caused and claim miracles as the supreame virtue above all else.
"Pro-Evolution Book Says Science and God Compatible"
I downloaded the Evolution book from the National Academy of Sciences and I highly recommend it. There's a lot of misconceptions people have about evolution and that's why this book should be read. Science is not my career, but I have been studying evolution for many years. It really does have quite a bit of evidence, and the newer DNA evidence, that most people don't understand, is extremely powerful. If people educated themselves about this subject, I don't think there would be any evolution-deniers.
While I agree with the science in this book, I don't agree that science and god are compatible.
Evolution is a tremendous threat to the Christian religion and the idea there's a god. I know many people both accept the science of evolution and have a belief in god, but in my opinion, they have not really thought about this enough.
Evolution should give people many reasons to throw out god, or at least the Christian religion.
1. Evolution makes god unnecessary to create millions of species. (Scientists have not yet worked out how the first living cells arose, but they know enough about it to rule out a supernatural cause.)
2. Evolution means all humans are closely related to the other apes, and humans are ape species. We are all apes, including Jesus. Why would god send down an ape to save us? That sounds kind of nutty, doesn't it?
3. Evolution means humans are just one of many animal species, just one branch on the tree of life, so why would a god single out human animals for special treatment? (Also, why would a god single out the earth for special treatment?)
4. Since we are just animals, the ideas of heaven and hell start to look kind of dumb. The idea we need to be saved from something looks even dumber when people understand we are not special creations of god.
Anyway, this is just something to think about. These are my ideas only. Most scientists will tell a Christian he can accept both god and evolution, but most of the scientists who say this are atheists like me, and I don't think they are being honest about it.
I prefer to be honest and say evolution is a major threat to god, and I'm very happy evolution conflicts with god. I would like the Christian religion, and all other religions, to become extinct. I'm convinced religions are slowing down human progress, and the world would be a better place without them. While there are some pro-science religious people, it seems to me most religious people are very anti-science and that couldn't possibly be a good thing. Only 13% of Americans accept the idea all life evolved without any supernatural magic, and that's disgraceful. The only way to turn this problem around, in my opinion, is get rid of the cause of this ignorance of science, and the cause is religion.
It is humorous to ask for peer review discussions when evolution is considered an open and shut case by to the gatekeepers. No discussion is allowed or it is off with your head. Ben Stein is coming out with a documentary that deals with the issue. Anyone interested can check out the trailers at:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/?gclid=CKbatuKtxJACFUV0OAodJUZ7Ww
I flagged myself due to a type-o.
DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
karl: Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig will actually enjoy it. Science doesn't need this debate - ID does since the science is in and evolution is a fact. If he wants a debate, create some peer reviewed data and let the debate be civilized.
If you've got legitimate math that disproves evolution, we'd of heard of it before, otherwise its probably the same half-baked ideas in "new and improved" packaging.
Hawk,
"The Dover case was decided partly due to the confusing arguments by Ken Miller mixing creationism with ID along with other issues. The case was decided against creationism, not ID"
No it wasn't. In court the ID crowd lied under oath and ended up admitting that how Behe defined 'ID as a science', astrology would be equally called a science. So, if we teach ID, or b/c we'd like to 'teach the contreversy' BS, then we should equally teach other science controversies. If we adopt Behe's definition of ID being scientific then we have to also teach astrology, stork theory, and the demons cause static electricity and tons of other nonsense.
This and how ID resorts to an unfalsifiable agent, ie 'god' to explain away the ignorance was deemed as creationism.The judge ruled out ID b/c it is creationism, look up his judgement yourself.
Just who exactly do you think the Intelligent Designer is Hawk? if you're going to tell me that the Intelligent Designer could be an alien that is fine, but in the end one must ask, 'what created the aliens then, and so on infinite.
All Ideas are NOT Created Equal
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OHiyMOqWNbE
But propents of ID will never say that.aliens created organic life here, in fact, Dembski himself admits that the ID = god, so it's quite clear it's creationism.
it doesn't matter that it's not biblical or native american creationism, the flavor of the creationism is a non factor. creationism is creaionism.
Hawk,
"• Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds; "
Oh but todays birds don't have teeth, nor do they have claws on their wings. and you left out the the modified wishbone which also wasn't modern. Also, the ascending process of the ankle bone, interdental plates, an obturator process of the ischium, and long chevrons in the tail, none of which are around in todays birds. so if this is a bird, why does it have all these non bird features? Also, consider how similar Archaeopteryx is to known Dromaeosaurids.
Here are just SOME Dinosaurs that had feathers or proto feathers: Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus,
Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, andVelociraptor.
Dromaeosaurids, look up Velociraptor, Builtreraptor, Sinusonasus
Coelurosaurs, look up Sinosaurpteryx
Tyrannosaroids, look up Dilong and Eotyrannus
Ornithomimosaurs and Alvarezsaurs, look up Shuvuuia and Alvarezsaurids
Oviraptorsaurs, look up Caudipteryx and Citipati
Deinonychosaurs, Troodon, Microraptor, Deinonychus, Epidenosaurus
Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, Longipteryx, Archeopteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornis, Enantiornis, patagopteryx, Hesperonis, Enantiornis, Ichthyornis.
Karl,
I am really interested how you prove evolution as false via math, as biology is really what matters with regards to organic life changing and adapting overtime in new habitats, aka Evolution.
Iregardless if we are from pond scum, or *poofed* here by magic man doesn't negate that organisms change over time. the origins of the life, universe and everything else have no bearing on how life evolves as they are different scientific realms.
Perhaps since your're teacher you would care to explain why we and Chimps share the exact same 7 Identitcal ERV signatures in the exact same locations of our genomes?
or, why does the Human Chromsome 2 appear to be the apparent result of a telomere head to head fusion?
I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.
For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students. After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/
Infidel: This is for you
The Wedge of Truth
Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
By: Johnson, Phillip E.
Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Many Darwinists gloat over having supposedly exposed the allegedly secretive “Wedge project.” What they never acknowledge (or realize) is that Phillip Johnson openly discussed the full meaning of the “Wedge” in this book years before the widespread internet circulation of the supposedly super secret “Wedge document,” which summarized many of the points in this book in order to clarify for our supporters the important cultural implications of the battle over intelligent design, and explain the importance of forging ahead by calling attention to the growing body of scientific evidence for design in nature.
Where is the deceit and where is the truth coming from?
The continuing debate should be embraced by us, played on a level playing field, taught in schools to show the real world of science and the assumptions it is based upon, its abilities, limitations and its usefulness for some, but not all, knowledge.
Have a good weekend and looking forward to the Expelled debate with you coming up in a month or two.
God Bless and take care
Hawk
theotrek:
"the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. "
I don't believe your argument holds water. The real issue you need to dispell for a valid argument would be whether the principals of peer review for ID articles were adhered to or violated. If the principals were adhered to then it is legitamate work. Ben Stein's new movie should adequately address the focus you were pointing towards, however.
Mama's calling me away for the weekend. I'm sure we will debate each other again when CP publishes commentary about Expelled.
Take care and God bless
HAWK49--"peer review" generally means that other Ph.D.'s in the area of study have reviewed and offered critique. It would seem that the Discovery Institute reviews all its materials internally. Who from NASA, Princeton, Harvard, or some such reputable institution has reviewed and accepted the claims as substantial? The National Academic Press book mentioned (http://www.nap.edu/sec) does not accept ID as peer-reviewed science. I am afraid you need to look beyond DIscovery Institute's propaganda.
Slacker,
>You posit, “The problem is that man created Evolution to destroy God…”
>That’s not true, total fallacy, complete rubbish. "
>Read the story behind Charles Darwin, and you will see what i am talking about...
What books or articles do you recommend that would inform me of how Evolution was created by men to destroy God, because, honestly, it appears from your comments that you’ve read only the creationist/ID propaganda on this subject? I recommend that you read Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, Edward J. Larson, it’s a good general overview history of the development of evolutionary theory, and recently published, 2004. It will give a far less partisan view.
Link to book in case you would like to get it: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0812968492/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200072895&sr=1-1
Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, "Science, Evolution, and Creationism." This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.
Icons of Evolution: When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian evolution, most people--including most biologists--give the same set of examples, because all of them learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most common examples are:
• a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
• the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;
• similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;
• pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;
• Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;
• peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;
• Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;
• fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;
• a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and
• drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.
These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.
Science or Myth?
Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in Stephen Jay Gould's words, they are "incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature." Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory. Worst of all, some are directly contrary to well-established scientific evidence.
Infidel
First, I want to thank you for your very civil response.
What is your source for this conjecture regarding Flew? I read the interview with Flew after his conversion and he appeared highly lucid.
You make a confusing argument. You admit you are incapable of unraveling the deceit then how can you possibly know it is deceit or truth?
You are correct, also, about me not being able to unravel the deceit. The following article “Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells, I have attached shows the deceit I bought into at the govt schools in my day.
The Dover case was decided partly due to the confusing arguments by Ken Miller mixing creationism with ID along with other issues. The case was decided against creationism, not ID. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3135. A more specific example (one of many): Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity and Judge Jones couldn’t discern the truth. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3718. I would take this as intentional deception on the part of the evolutionists. The criticisms for and against both Darwinism and ID are still very much alive and legitimate and Judge Jones’ decision is highly suspect.
IDers and the Discovery Institute still have the utmost integrity for me. The continuing debate should be embraced by us, played on a level playing field, taught in schools to show the real world of science and the assumptions it is based upon, its abilities, limitations and its usefulness for some, but not all, knowledge.
theocrat: ID is science, not theology. It would seem that since it is a subject matter taken seriously enough for peer review by the scientific community then it is a worthy scientific subject for continued research and debate. PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED) http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science As best as I can determine, ID doesn't start with the presuppostion of there is a God, not does it start with the current presuppositon of science that there is no god. The slate begins clean and includes the study of force, material and intelligence. This allows us to travel the path were the evidence leads rather than a restricted path for truth levied by one or the other of the worldviews.
To Infadel...
"Slaker,
False god? You've got to be kidding! Every religious person believes everyone else's god is false. There is not even agreement among Christians about the nature of God. As a result, some Christians worship a kind, loving and forgiving God, while other Christians are more attracted to the Old Testament God, mean, capricious and vindictive. So, even Christians aren't worshipping the same god.
As for Biblical errancy, there are several sites documenting errors and contradictions:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The last link also links to a dissection of the Quoran.
This is not a new view. Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, also wrote Age of Reason and was jailed for it because of his views of the Bible.
Thomas Jefferson made his own New Testament by cutting out all the supersitious nonsense and leaving the ethical teachings of Jesus."
Did you happen to read any of those websites you posted up, most of them misrepresent the bible and the biblical passages to a great extent, they take the bible out of context and in a couple of spots actually make stuff up... It amazes me that you wouldn't research this stuff for yourself instead of just taking their word for it... Good Luck to you in your journey and May God Bless you...
to Infadel:
"Unless you've been conditioned since birth to believe that the Bible is "God's word", you can't help but see the absurdity of the Bible (or Quoran) as inspired by some divinity."
Actually this line alone shows that you should really review and learn about other people, I was Saved in 2001 when i gave my life to Jesus, I am 34 years old and never grew up in a "religious" family, we didn't attend church and God was just Ok, but when I started to read and reflect on my life I knew that God had been there in the downtimes and the uptimes of my Life. I believe that the Bible is "God's word" and I wasn't brought up from birth on it, but out of all that i have read it is what has proven itself over and over again...
"Slacker,
You posit, “The problem is that man created Evolution to destroy God…”
That’s not true, total fallacy, complete rubbish. "
Read the story behind Charles Darwin, and you will see what i am talking about...
infidel57, I realize this is your opinion - doesn't make it fact.
If you read Lamont's book, you'll see it all thoroughly researched and documented. There's really no need to be so condescending.
maranatha7593
This is called the "Argument from Authority", a logical fallacy. This is not suprising since Ann Lamont is a member of Creation Ministeries International, a fundamentalist organization which believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are the nuttiest of the religious nut jobs who believe in young earth creationism.
The reason that the Argument from Authority is an idiotic ploy by creationists because it actually works against them since most real scientists recognize evolution as the foundation of modern biology.
One does not have to believe in evolution for God's Word and science to be compatible. In her book _21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible_, Ann Lamont shows clearly that the most brilliant scientists, who made the truly groundbreaking discoveries and upon whose shoulders today's scientists stand, found true science not only consistent with the Bible, but also were often led by scripture to make those groundbreaking discoveries. This has been true for several centuries.
Hawk49
Flew's conversion to being a deist his highly suspect. Indications were that he, in his delcining mental state, came under undue influence by Christians who helped him write his book.As far as Behe's book is concerned, Flew is not an evolutionary biologist. He was just as incapable as you or I in unraveling the deceit. That's what Behe and Dembski count on, writing stuff that is impossible for the laymen to refute.
But both Dembski and Behe have been destroyed by other scientists. And Behe was humiliated at the Dover trial. There a federal judge found that, legally, ID was not science, it was religion.
Again, I urge you to read the Wedge Document. It is the blueprint from the Discovery Institute. It admits that there is no science involved in ID. That's why the "teach the controversy." They can't teach anything else. These guys are unprincipled slime, and if they have their way, our country will suffer because other, more enlightened country will be doing real science while we will be wallowing in superstitious nonsense.
HAWK49--I don't have a problem with the idea that God created the universe. I do have a problem calling that science. It is rather my religious, theological, and doctrinal conviction. My faith does not depend upon science, nor does science need to depend upon my faith. They are complementary. The main problem I have with mixing them is that then faith becomes intertwined with a specific scientific perspective. That causes problems as it did in the days of Copernicus and Galileo. We used to say that disease was caused by evil spirits (the Bible was used to back that up). I would rather keep my scientific conclusions separate from my theology. The church as a whole is better off that way, as well.
Infidel and theotrek: You both appear so paranoid. Intelligent Design is approaching science without the atheist or creationist worldview. Open to all options no matter where the evidence leads unlike either of the two worldviews allow. Look what happens when the blinders of atheism are removed from an honest search for truth. Mr. Flew has been called the most influential atheist philosopher in the world, and his arguments against the existence of God are staples of many college anthologies and textbooks. Now he says that he believes there is a God. Mr. Flew still does not accept any revealed religion, including Christianity. He has simply become a "theist," or, as he says, a "deist," believing that God created the world. Nevertheless, as philosopher Angus Menuge says, for "one of the 20th century's most famous atheist philosophers" to become a theist is "huge news in philosophy." Key to his conviction that there must be an intelligent mind behind the universe is the nature of DNA. As Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth, explains it, "At the heart of life, at the center of each cell in every living thing, is a language, a code, or what we would call information. There is no known natural process capable of producing information. A message or information is diagnostic of an intelligent source." [atheism doesn’t recognize intelligence] Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. For the 81-year-old Mr. Flew, renouncing his life's work and the reason for his fame is a matter of intellectual honesty. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates," he says. "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Teach the controversy in school from respected experts from a balanced, peer reviewed text and let the students decide for themselves rather than from the current indoctrination process.
SportinLife--While characteristic of Deistic thought, it is also consistent with doctrine regarding God's economy of action. God created a universe that performs in accordance with a guiding purpose, method, and "natural laws." By definition, miracles are God's interference in those created processes.
Hi didymus, I don't think evolutionary theory is incompatible with traditional theism or with christianity, but it does imply that God chooses to work primarily (some would argue, only) through naturalistic means, which is a characteristic of deistical thought.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, by the way. The idea that the natural order provides us with (some) knowledge of (some aspects) of God is, I would hope, non-controversial.
HAWK49--Discovery Institute has a predefined agenda. "The leading minds on the subject matter" you refer to are focused not on discovering truth, but discrediting evolution theory. If you want true debate, the book would need to be dialog between Discovery Institute and working evolution theorists.
didymus--Paul definitely used a lot more flexibility in quoting scripture than we are accustomed to today. We somehow forget in using the Bible as our authority for faith and theology that its own writers looked to God's active revelation, as well as the written record of revelation. I like the solidity of Biblical witness as a canon for theological discussion, but have to wrestle with the fact that God still is in the process of active revelation today.
infidel57--Sorry you have been exposed mainly to the concept of inspiration as God dictating every jot and tittle of the Biblical text. Inspiration has been interpreted in many ways. I understand the Bible as inspired, but that does not mean that I see no human participation in that process of recording God's revelation.
Beyond some of the historical inaccuracies, the message of God's revelation through the Bible has changed the lives of generations in significant ways.
John Claypool has some interesting comments:
http://www.explorefaith.org/LentenHomily03.10.00.html
I hope you would read them.
Hawk49
Here is what one real scientist says about "Explore Evolution."
"In general, the book presents the subjects superficially, cherry picks examples, and sets up shallow hypotheses that bear little resemblance to what scientists actually think about the subject, and then shoots down the examples in such a way as to cast doubt on entire disciplines. It's a dirty, dishonest book in a slick package. It's gonna sell like hotcakes to every lazy, stupid teacher who wants to substitute vacuous c... for an honest and serious examination of a difficult and important subject.[16]
One of the co-authors, Stephen Meyers, keeps trying to pass himself off as a scientist. His Phd is in the history of science.
Suspect anything which comes from the Discovery Institute. Their dishonesty is legendary. They try to promote ID as science while undermining real science. Don't take my word for it. Google "Wedge Document" and do your own research.
Perhaps this discussion should focus on what is taught in the classroom. Here is the first peer reviewed science textbook of its kind that looks beyond the blinders of atheism and doesn't include creationism. Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers Ltd., Melbourne and London, 2007) is the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution.
“Sadly, the majority of biology textbooks in use today are ‘dumbed-down’ and do a poor job explaining evolution,” said Dr. John West of Discovery Institute, the book’s United States distributor. “Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level.” West is Associate Director of the Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
Explore Evolution promotes inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation, and argument that scientists use to form their theories.
“Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals,” emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. “Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science.”
Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels.
The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin’s theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion.
Basically, teach the debate with the best factual information available from the leading minds of the subject matter.
Slaker,
False god? You've got to be kidding! Every religious person believes everyone else's god is false. There is not even agreement among Christians about the nature of God. As a result, some Christians worship a kind, loving and forgiving God, while other Christians are more attracted to the Old Testament God, mean, capricious and vindictive. So, even Christians aren't worshipping the same god.
As for Biblical errancy, there are several sites documenting errors and contradictions:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The last link also links to a dissection of the Quoran.
This is not a new view. Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, also wrote Age of Reason and was jailed for it because of his views of the Bible.
Thomas Jefferson made his own New Testament by cutting out all the supersitious nonsense and leaving the ethical teachings of Jesus.
Unless you've been conditioned since birth to believe that the Bible is "God's word", you can't help but see the absurdity of the Bible (or Quoran) as inspired by some divinity.
Slacker,
You asked (in regards to infidel57’s statement, "many contradictions and the fallacies in the Bible"), “Show me them instead of just saying it...”
I’m not wanting to defend infidel57, but since you asked about contradictions and the fallacies, here’s just one that has me thinking. I’ll just post a link to it, comment on it here there, or wherever. (I have a few other favorites as well, but we can look at them later if you like :^)
http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/2007/10/apostle-pauls-funky-hermeneutics.html
Chris333,
Actually, theotrek is correct about what he said concerning Galileo. The church did take him to task for opposing the Bible, but really it was a conflict with the church’s interpretation of the Bible. I would say the same is happening today. Darwinian evolution is in conflict with a certain way of interpreting the Bible, not the Bible itself.
You mention, “however I do agree with you that either way the Bible is able to be completely believed in.”
I’m glad we can agree on this point, but I would like to reiterate not just for you but for others reading – the Bible, itself, is completely safe from Darwinian evolution, there is no threat there, but a certain way of interpreting the Bible, a man made way of interpreting the Bible in an absolute literalist sense is proven false.
Slacker,
You posit, “The problem is that man created Evolution to destroy God…”
That’s not true, total fallacy, complete rubbish.
The Bible and Evolution have always been compatable. Any conflict is the creation of religous leaders misleading the people-The theory of Evolution is about how species evolved, not how life was created
Me personally, I think Evolution is made of man and the Biblical Creation account is born of the spirit, if Evolution meshes with the teachings in the bible then what does it matter. The problem is that man created Evolution to destroy God, I trust the Lord, i put very little confidence in certain men...
To Infidel57
"If you admire people of faith, then you've to to admire suicide bombers. Their faith in those 72 virgins has to be pretty strong to do what they do. And how about the Heaven's Gate cult who believe that a space ship awaited them on the other side of a comet. That turned out well, didn't it."
There is a difference between believing in a false God or One's own self as God, then believing in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But what is the best way to turn the blind from God is to create sucide bombers or Cultists.
"many contradictions and the fallacies in the Bible"
Show me them instead of just saying it...
SportinLife,
How is it not conducive? I believe in the Bible and I believe in evolution. I don’t have any conflict problems, and neither do several other friends of mine who believe in Jesus and the resurrection. None of us are deists.
"One does not have to abandon belief in God to accept evolution."
Technically true, but evolutionary theory isn't particularly conducive to belief in God as described in the Bible. It's compatible with a deistic conception of God certainly.
In order for this book to be unbiased and correct then all religion should be removed from the study of science as follows:
A review of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism By: Cornelius G. Hunter (Brazos Press, 2007)
In law, one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user is held strictly liable for the physical harm to the injured party. One way for the injured party to win a case is to successfully argue that there is a design defect in the product. Put another way, the plaintiff is entitled to damages because there is something wrong with the blueprints for the product. At this point, expert witnesses are found to testify to the design's integrity or its defectiveness.
Perhaps the most common blind spot that inhibits the proper functioning of a product is the quite literal blind spot we experience when driving our cars. If modern science and the pre-suppositions that support it were an automobile, then Dr. Hunter's new book would be the testimony of an expert witness who has found a significant design defect. The defect has created a blind spot that is not necessary for the proper functioning of science.
Dr. Hunter begins his book by pointing out the design defect: "The problem is that religion has joined science." (Hunter, 2007, pg. 9) He goes on to explain that, while today's science is thought to be empirical and free of theological premise, nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hunter examines the complex interaction between religion and science in history and arrives at what may be a surprising conclusion for many: the modern design of science is based on theological naturalism, a phrase he uses to describe the restriction of science to naturalism for religious reasons.
Unfortunatley, the authors of this new book are operating with this blind spot.
"Yes a childlike faith is important..."
Of course theist stress the importance of faith. When you don't have evidence, if you don't have faith, then you don't have religion.
If you admire people of faith, then you've to to admire suicide bombers. Their faith in those 72 virgins has to be pretty strong to do what they do. And how about the Heaven's Gate cult who believe that a space ship awaited them on the other side of a comet. That turned out well, didn't it.
I'm thinking that if these people of faith had asked for evidence, we would all have been better off.
When I hear someone say "have faith," I think of an oily con man saying "trust me."
"*by fully above I mean that there is an intellectually satisfying explanation for the so called contradictions in genesis creation. "
Well, it's not intellectually satisfying to those of us who have resisted religious brain washing. There are, in fact, many contradictions and the fallacies in the Bible and a whole branch of Christian apologetics are devoted to these. Non believers, when we read these explanations, can only shake our heads at the breathtaking inanity of these explanations. You'd have to be so emotionally invested in religion that you are blinded in order to the obvious to accept these "explanations."
gavulav, it is true that the Bible tells us to have faith like a child, however Paul goes on to say that the time has come for us to be adults in our thinking (referring to faith). Paul himself also said that if Christ did not resurrect then our faith is worthless, a child could never tell the difference. Yes a childlike faith is important, but also real understanding is highly valued in the Bible. I know you did not mean it this way, but it is important to make the distinction.
Didymus, I have heard arguments that say that evolution is overwhelmingly supported, and extremely deficient (even by atheist, pro-evolution, anti-ID scientists). I am a lay person and unable even to fully understand the arguments, however I do agree with you that either way the Bible is able to be completely believed in.
Theotrek,
You are using outdated and *fully disproved so-called contradictions in the Bible. No, the 1st and 2nd accounts do not contradict each other in any real way. It is clear that the plants mentioned in the second account are clearly of a certain domesticated kind.
You said science has its realm of interest and theology a separate and distinct realm. I disagree, the two are separate in their goals of describing the world, but they are directly linked in affecting each other and the way the other approaches its explanations. To say otherwise is faulty and intellectually unsatisfying.
You used galileo as some example of how science trumps religion. You then had the audacity to make the claim that the Bible actually teaches that the universe revolves around the earth! You are wrong on both accounts, Galileo believed he was right and wanted to benefit the Church, he was never against God in his own personage, it was culture that dictated that the universe revolved around the earth not the Bible. Get your arguments straight before you present them.
*by fully above I mean that there is an intellectually satisfying explanation for the so called contradictions in genesis creation.
The complete text of the book mentioned in the article, "Science, Evolution, and Creationism", is available online here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc
I once had a discussion with a minister about this topic, he mentioned to me that if evolution was proved to be true, then the Bible must be false. I told him that I thought his understanding of things was terribly short-sited. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, but that doesn’t prove the Bible wrong, it just meant that his interpretation of the Bible needed to change. That’s all.
The thing that is important to note here is that science and evolution don’t prove the Bible wrong, they just prove that some of our interpretations of the Bible are wrong.
Good folks......
I'm hoping that this little "aside" will be of some use to you in your current debate on the merits and demerits of both evolution and creationism. On this issue, I am standing firm on Mark 10:15 - I am not going to indulge in rhetorics and histrionics, I am assuming the position of a child and accepting everything about the Kingdom of God, including what the bible says about the origin of things , with a child-like faith.
Quecat--I wish it were always as clear to know when a Biblical text is historical-factual, and when it is something else. What do you do with Genesis 2, where God creates man, then goes on to figure out what to do with him, plants a garden, then places him in it? There were no plants, yet, and nothing to eat. Yet in Genesis 1, man is created as the culmination of God's creative work. Either 1) one passage is wrong; 2) neither passage truly intends to describe the process of creation; 3) one passage is figurative; or 4) both passages are wrong.
How about this: the Bible teaches about God (issues of theology and faith) and science has as its purpose to study the workings of God's created order. The church took Galileo to task years back for going against the Bible in proclaiming that the earth revolved around the sun. Shall we turn back to that way of thinking?
Well there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth!... You can most certainly square humanism laden scientific fact (unproven theories) with religion, so long as you are willing to compromise your standpoint regarding the authority of scripture.
Gosh! - why didn't I think of that? I'll get right on that (not)
Scripture is many things; literal, historical, factual, cultural, and yes sometimes allegorical, but even more often, many of these things all at once. These good folk (and I use that term loosely) would have you believe that all scripture is allegorical - therefore there is no conflict.
I won't apologize for going with God on this one. "Thus saith the Lord" is good enough for me, and what's more, is true even if I'm unwilling to accept it. Jesus made it quite clear when he was using a parable to teach and when he was referring to real life events. God's nature is unchanging and as such, if God says "this happened", then it happened, and it s NOT an allegory!
"Many pro-evolution reports, including the latest book, often mistakenly portray intelligent design as a sister concept to creationism, injecting a religious element where none exists."
This is no mistake. ID was created as an end run around the prohibition of teaching creeationism. Don't take my word for it. Google "Wedge Document" and do the research yourself. There is no science, just data mining, the same ploy embraced by creationist frauds like Gish and Hovind.
ProfessorX says:
"Since their is no evidence on mutational advance from common ancestors, all we are left with is God Created. (period)"
Two factually wrong statements in one sentence. Thee is both fossil evidence and genetic evidence of common descent. And even if there was no such evidence, the default answer is not "Godidit." The correct answer would be, "we don't have enough information yet to answer the question."
Since their is no evidence on mutational advance from common ancestors, all we are left with is God Created. (period)
DARWINISM and ATHEISM both UNSCIENTIFIC and MYTHICAL.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
My selfishness and rebellion
My violation of God's perfect law
My confession
My repentance
God's mercy and forgiveness
Faith
Hope
Love
Eternal life through the grace of God through the most precious blood of Jesus Christ!!
Distraction
Doubt
Disbelief
Disobedience
Death
The tools of the devil...