The science thread - Controversial

[MDLarson]

Okay, so the leviathan is nothing more than a whale and the behemoth is some sort of land creature, could be an elephant.

No, I don't think so. Whales don't have scales, or "rows of shields" (verse 15-17) and whales don't breath fire (verses 19-21), as some dinosaurs have been speculated to do. And elephants don't have tails like a cedar (verse 17), they have little tails. And if the author of Job meant "snout" instead of "tail," that would mean there is a mistake in the Bible, and therefore fallable.

I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it's clear that these animals are something that we have not seen in recent years. A straight-forward reading of the passage leaves little "wiggle-room" in interpretation. Of course we don't know exactly what they are, but they are most likely honest-to-goodness "dinosaurs."

Humans have not evolved? I think there has been a big change in the physical human body in the past 200 years.

Be careful with the term "evolution." There are different kinds; micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution: Evolution within a species.
Macro-evolution: Evolution between species.

The question should be, have humans been "changing species?" 200 years is a very small sample space to conclude that humans have "evolved."

There may well have been changes, and I don't dispute that. I wouldn't call them "big" changes, however (given the context of mutational evolution.) I think this is a case of micro-evolution. I do think nutrition has a lot to do with humans generally being taller. Maybe environmental factors like diseases are worth considering.

I remember in 5th or 6th grade my science teacher was teaching basic evolutionary theory. She used this example: The change in wing color of the peppered moths during the industrial revolution. (This is from memory, so hold on...)
Nearly all of the moths had dark wings. This allowed them to rest on the bark of dark trees and evade the feeding birds, but a small percentage of light-winged moths were produced out of the population due to the randominity of the gene pool (just like human eye or hair color.) It was bound to happen by chance that these light-winged moths exists in a predominately black-winged population. The birds were able to pick these moths out very easily and kept this lop-sided ratio intact.
But, the factories in the vicinity began spewing out light-colored ash or something, which coated the tree bark a light color. Now, the light-colored moths became much more safe then their dark-winged brethren, and the ratio between dark and light winged moths eventually flip-flopped as the birds chose the dark colored moths.
More time passed, factories became cleaner or went away, and trees regained their dark hue once again. The ratio between dark and light flip-flopped again.

This is a perfect example of mis-application by evolutionists. This is micro-evolution, or change within a species. I think evolutionists now deny that this is true evolution, but I'm not sure if it's still used as a "textbook example." It shouldn't be.

 

[Arden]

No, I don't think so. Whales don't have scales, or "rows of shields" (verse 15-17) and whales don't breath fire (verses 19-21), as some dinosaurs have been speculated to do. And elephants don't have tails like a cedar (verse 17), they have little tails. And if the author of Job meant "snout" instead of "tail," that would mean there is a mistake in the Bible, and therefore fallable.

Okay, you caught me, I didn't read the passages very closely.

Nearly all of the moths had dark wings. This allowed them to rest on the bark of dark trees and evade the feeding birds, but a small percentage of light-winged moths were produced out of the population due to the randominity of the gene pool (just like human eye or hair color.) It was bound to happen by chance that these light-winged moths exists in a predominately black-winged population. The birds were able to pick these moths out very easily and kept this lop-sided ratio intact.
But, the factories in the vicinity began spewing out light-colored ash or something, which coated the tree bark a light color. Now, the light-colored moths became much more safe then their dark-winged brethren, and the ratio between dark and light winged moths eventually flip-flopped as the birds chose the dark colored moths.
More time passed, factories became cleaner or went away, and trees regained their dark hue once again. The ratio between dark and light flip-flopped again.

It was actually the other way around, the trees were lightly covered, favoring light-colored moths. The factories put out lots of dark stuff, turning the trees dark. But the point remains.

 

[Cat]

Also let me remind you that the "dynamics of 2000 years of rational inquiry and methodological doubt" is a result of evolutionary chance, as you might put it. How can you trust your own thoughts, if they're only a product of a brain that was, in the end, the result of billions and billions of accidental mutations? This is getting pretty philosophical, but I'm only describing my point of view; which is that the human brain (and reason, for that matter) is a wonderfully designed part of the human body.

If rationality has evolved instead of being created, I still fail to see why that would be a liability instead of an asset ... Through millennia of conscious thought the fittest thinkers, the more logical, rational, intelligent have propagated their methods and results by example and by teaching. Science as we know it today is a product of a long tradition and the critics thereof. We are constantly climbing on the shoulders of our predecessors, challenging what they did and adding to it. Methods have been refined from Aristotle, through Bacon and Newton and are being fine tuned as we speak. Like a tool our thought gets sharper and sharper being more and more capable of penetrating through the fog of ignorance and carving nature at her joints. Like the evolution of the microscope has been dictated by what we wanted to discover, wanted to be anble to see because we deemed it important, our physical lenses, our eyes have been constructed by evolution to bring forward those aspects of reality that matter to us most, for our survival. Rationality is a tool, like our fingers, that is becoming more and more specialized with the years. Evolution is constantly pushing us beyond, posing new challenges to which we must rise.
What has the bible and faith given us? Static, unchanging doctrine. Force used against rational thought and inquiry. Giordano Bruno was burned in 1600 for challenging the world view of the church. Newton and Galilei have suffered from idiots that took the bible literally: "stop o sun, and thou o moon do not proceed further". Spinoza and Cartesius had to adapt their text to repression of creative thought and advancement of science because of the faith in a fairy tale.
I believe in science because science admits doubt. You can always challenge the theories in a book and it is because of this that they change and we advance our knowledge. The bible and faith do not admit of similar ciritcism, so there is no advance, no evolution. Science and rationality evolve constantly on all levels. Religion is like astrology.
You can claim that god is beyond what we can think and say, but my world consists solely of what I can see, know and think. I do not need any gods beyond me. I am my own god. I supply to myself the explanantions and theories necessary to understand reality. Science and reason are my intruments. I have no need for blind faith, because I can see my reality day by day before my eyes. Open your eyes and follow the advice of St. Augustine: "Nole foras ire, rede in te ipsum." The truth is not out there. Est deus in nobis.

 

[pds]

If rationality has evolved instead of being created, I still fail to see why that would be a liability instead of an asset ... Through millennia of conscious thought the fittest thinkers, the more logical, rational, intelligent have propagated their methods and results by example and by teaching. Science as we know it today is a product of a long tradition and the critics thereof. We are constantly climbing on the shoulders of our predecessors, challenging what they did and adding to it. Methods have been refined from Aristotle, through Bacon and Newton and are being fine tuned as we speak. Like a tool our thought gets sharper and sharper being more and more capable of penetrating through the fog of ignorance and carving nature at her joints. Like the evolution of the microscope has been dictated by what we wanted to discover, wanted to be anble to see because we deemed it important, our physical lenses, our eyes have been constructed by evolution to bring forward those aspects of reality that matter to us most, for our survival. Rationality is a tool, like our fingers, that is becoming more and more specialized with the years. Evolution is constantly pushing us beyond, posing new challenges to which we must rise.

Who was it that said that neither of these disciplines are good on the other's turf. Present theological doctrine, espoused by modern prostestant churches are the product of the debate of 17th and 18th century theologians like Bart and Pendergast, influenced by philosphers like Kant and Jung, and spiritualists like Swedenborg which in turn grew out of the ideas of the reformation which was an attempt to re-capture the intellectual energy of Augustine. There is development and doubt and debate in the realm of religion.

Most laypersons today are unaware of the influence of process theology on their pastor's Sunday sermons, as well as of the conflict that trained clergy have dealing with modern concepts of the historical Jesus and the expectations placed on them by congregations that don't want to deal with those modern theological constructions.

Cat, have you heard of the Bengali tradeswomen of the 17th century who could weave silk so fine a bolt of it could be easily drawn through a finger ring? The British, jealous of the competition in the garment industry, cut off the fingers of the tradeswomen and the art passed into history in one generation. Now if that ability were evolutionary, it would have been inherited by the crafts-daughters. It was training and not evolution that brought about the ability.

Same with the sharpness of the mind. Is reasoning an evolutionary trait? Can we really reason better today than Plato could? We have more facts at our disposal, that is true, but is the abiliy more developed because of evolution? I think it is training, not evolution that brings the sharpness to the tool of the mind. According to at least one constitutional scholar, the founding fathers of the US were decidedly more intelligent than (himself and) the professors of polisci of today. They were diligently trained and strove to understand their world as it affected them.

The development of science progresses on the basis of observation and experimentation. It deals with a concrete world of manipulable stuff. Our ability to manipulate it expands as our tools become more refined, not through evolution, but through practice.

Religion also progresses, but through revelation. It is not as progressive, it advances in fits and starts. Still, the revelatory process is not unlike evolution itself - take MD's example of the moth.

There are quantum leaps of revealed truth - e.g. Jesus' gospel vis-a-vis the old testament or Mohamed's hadith vis-a-vis the dominant culture of the time. This is like the appearance of a new species. Then there is the minor adjustment within the species - e.g. Luther's reformation to rebuild the church. This is like the moth changing colors.

To take any of the texts from the past as exclusive of developments that may come in the future is somewhat arrogant IMHO. Take a simple quote from the mouth of the man, Jesus. He said clearly that Moses had told the people something (that divorce was acceptable under such and such conditions) because the people were too hard headed to accept the real bit, that there was no reason other than infidelity for divorce. (Please, this is an example, not a statement of social doctrine. The point is that "revealed truth" is always contextualized.)

More directly "I have many things to tell you, but you can not bear them now." So more info is to come, stay tuned.

In fact, I welcome doubt of the scripture, because then we can find out what it really means, what it really meant. I don't think anything is true because it is in the Bible, I think it's in the Bible because it's true, but must be understood within the context. Faith (knowledge) is the found at the end of a process of doubt, not the denial of it.

Open your eyes and follow the advice of St. Augustine: "Nole foras ire, rede in te ipsum." The truth is not out there. Est deus in nobis.

While the truth is not "out there", that does not mean there is no truth. In my experience, God is a reality - just as He was for St Augustine, who spoke with Him and even argued with Him. He advised us to seek for Him through our own soul and consciousness, but to find the real Him, the Father of you and of me.

Since He is real, science, which is the study of that which he has made has to be in harmony with that existence. The point is, who should be the one to bend his understanding? Science is always sharpening it's tools, that is the task of methodical doubt. So religion has to keep up and be flexible in those things that are not its domain.

While we are waiting to see "face to face", should we not be open to think that this scientific age we are in is perhaps propelled by the God of goodness. After all, is it not the work of the devil to keep people in ignorance and the work of God to dispel ignorance?

But if we are honest, we have to admit that science has not always brought us to a more healthful or harmonious environment. In its rush to find out "how" it has rejected the caution of "why" and developed things that are noxious to the human condition.

This antagonistic stance between science and religion is harmful to both sides of aisle. Religion suffers as young people, appropriately trained in the scientific method, want to see the same rigorous methodology applied to articles of faith. Dogmatic rejection of scientific discovery leads the young scientist to choose between one or the other and the physical senses win out, the youth reject religion. Yet we human beings live in two worlds at once. A material world and a metaphysical, moral world. Science guides us through the one, but religion guides us through the other. At the same time. In each decision we make, there are scientific considerations and moral ones.

Society becomes the big looser as we look more and more at what separates us rather than what unites us. (Admittedly, this is a problem that is mirrored within the religious community, bringing no end of grief and hardship. Dogmatism is the problem, not religion.)

 

[MDLarson]

Okay, you caught me, I didn't read the passages very closely.

It was actually the other way around, the trees were lightly covered, favoring light-colored moths. The factories put out lots of dark stuff, turning the trees dark. But the point remains.

Thanks for the correction arden, I couldn't remember.

Cat, I think we both believe science has value, but you must realize that I am not definitively opposed to science as a religious person. With the exception of genuine miracles / supernatural events, I believe the Bible is completely inline with science and nature. The real difference between my point-of-view and yours is the worldview we start out in.

My worldview starts with God, a supernatural being who created natural laws and established these rules and laws as "the norm." We all live according to the norm, but we shouldn't be surprised if God acts in supernatural fashion for specific purposes.

Your worldview starts without God. Therefore, a completely scientific explanation must be reached, all without the help of a designer and/or supernatural events. This is where evolution attempts to explain the workings of everything.

In a way, I think evolutionists have the harder job because they can't cop-out with a mystic miracle explanation for something. But my point is simple; we both have the same sample set of data to work with. We both have necessary assumptions that go along with our interpretation (I have God, you have mathematical chance.) The real reason we disagree is the interpretation of the evidence. My belief is that science actually points to creation, NOT evolution.

More later, of course, but I gotta get back to work.

 

[chevy]

... Dogmatism is the problem, not religion.

Hi pds,

Your whole post if of great value and I don't want to reduce it to one sentence but this sentence is so true that I want to emphasis it by acknowledging it here.

 

[chevy]

How can anybody explain AIDS without the evolution theory ?

Did God decide to create it to kill the humans ?

 

[Darkshadow]

You could ask the same about influenza - the flu. It's only been around for a little over 100 years.

 

[MDLarson]

How can anybody explain AIDS without the evolution theory ?

Did God decide to create it to kill the humans ?

How does one explain AIDS with the evolution theory?

Actually chevy, the question you ask is the hardest question to answer for Christians; Why would a good and all-powerful God allow bad things to happen in the universe?

"Why is my baby deformed?" "Why did God allow my son to die to a horrible disease?" "Why does AIDS affect innocent children, whose parents had AIDS?" "Why is Microsoft Windows so prevalent?"

First of all, I won't be able to give you a satisfactory answer. But here's how I understand the problem; (if you can bear the Sunday School lesson)

Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden. This garden was the perfect environment, and there was no sin. There was no disease, no jealosy, no shame, nothing was wrong. Animals were probably all herbivores. God was able to proclaim His creation as "very good."

Later however, Satan, for reasons of his own, deceived Eve who in turn persuaded Adam to disobey the only rule there was, and eat of the forbidden tree. As punishment, God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden, and cursed humankind for good measure. Among these curses are:
• Hard work (there was already some "easy" work for Adam in the garden)
• Death (we were originally designed to live forever)
• Pain in childbirth
• The fear of man was put into animals

I guess Genesis doesn't list AIDS or even "disease" as a curse, but I would consider it to be included in the "death" category. The long and short of it is that humans, as sinning creatures, deserve death. If Adam didn't eat, any one of us surely would have, as we have all indeed failed to make the grade of perfection.

Oh, and to directly answer your second question, AIDS is not specifically cited as a means for human destruction. The two biggest apocalypses would be Noah's global flood (which is very important to creation-scientists), and Armageddon, which involves fire and brimstone (nuclear war, maybe?) Don't know for sure.

My answer isn't necessarily perfect or thought out enough, and I'm sure it's spawning more questions than answers. I'll do my best to answer the critics, and pds sounds like a good resource, but we're getting a little off topic... What does everybody think?

 

[Cat]

pds - truly a great post.
The possibility to train an individual in some craft, be it physical or mental, depends on the availability of knowledge and skill in the entire community. As individuals we are trained, as community (village, tribe, country, etc.) we evolve: as a whole we improve our chanches of survival, both concerning the quantity and the quality of our lives. One step further, as a species too the development of tools for the body and the mind counts as evolution. Man is the species that has found ways to adapt the enivironment to himself rather tha adapting (physically) to the environment. Our survival depended on the (relatively fast) development of tools: we have no huge pointy teeth, but a big axe. The possibility to produce these tools then is a step in evolution. This is expressed for the individual as training, but nevertheless as a whole for the community or species as evolution.
I think my post was probably too heavily biased towards the catholic church, but I want to remind you that the revolutionaries in religion have always been burned or excommunicated, while the reformists have achieved pretty little. It is true that there are schisms, but they establish a new order and then keep that one just as static as the old order. St. Augustine was a remarkable man, but he lived in a time where the church was still consolidating. MD Larson probably knows this better than me, but after Jesus death there wasn't unitary view of his teachings, nor was there an official bible to which everyone looked: there was a plethora of small factions and sects, each with their own view and interpretation. The holy books were chosen and rejected at whim by these groups and there were fierce and vicious battles over what was the one and true interpretation. The bible as we know it now, is the result of endless bickering of what to accept and what to reject, often with very little attention to philology, history etc. but only to petty political battles among factions within the church or among faiths. So it is pretty arbitrary to call the bible a unitary consistent whole. Nevertheless it is the cornerstone of each church and the particular choice of texts counts as the one revealed truth. Religion with in a church does not evolve in leaps and bounds, it doesn't evolve at all. Jesus is not considered as son of god, but merely as a wise man or prophet among muslims, the revelation of Gabriel (or was it Michael?) to Muhammed is not considered authentic among christians, Jews still wait for the first coming of god, while christians wait for the second: how is this evolution? They reject and oppose each other without improving their respective positions. And they are based on interpretaion of given data, science, besides interpretation is also essentially creative. New methods, new hypotheses, new theories sprout every day and they are not merely a re-arrangement of previously given data.

MD Larson: explaining evil while believing in an absolutely good god is hard indeed, but consider the argument of Leibniz: we live in the best possible world. You may imagine better worlds (without HIV or SCO) but they are not possible. Even god is bound by logic and by the physical laws he created, so this entails that if the universe is to be, there are limitations, not to god himself but to his creation. Plato would wholeheartedly agree. These limitations are the cause of evil.

pds: by the way, we may not think different wrt. Plato, but consider this truly on a evolutionary scale: we do think better than neanderthalers or chimps.

 

[MDLarson]

Well, there's a lot to think about and disagree about. I don't have too much to say, but I will say that I respectfully maintain that the Bible is a unified whole. True, we don't even know who wrote some of the books, but we rely on tradition and faith for true cannonical text.

Also, it is much easier to see the differences than the similarities, and Christianity is no different. Denominations need not combat each other, and often they do not. My church is officially Baptist, but we don't really draw lines in the sand within Christianity. The test for us is whether or not something is clearly endorsed or condemned in the Bible.

But enough said from me for today.

 

[Cat]

we rely on tradition and faith for true cannonical text.

This faith is not faith in god but in the church. The church is fallible because it is made of men. Only in the 1880's the pope in conclave was pronounced infallible, which met with many protests within the church and clergy at that time. If it is in men that you trust, why trust men of Religion and not men of Science?

 

[MDLarson]

This faith is not faith in god but in the church. The church is fallible because it is made of men. Only in the 1880's the pope in conclave was pronounced infallible, which met with many protests within the church and clergy at that time. If it is in men that you trust, why trust men of Religion and not men of Science?

I can see how you think that; good point. I'm not sure how to give an answer to that, but to be sure, God used men to write the books. The writing and selection of these texts was directed by God. If you want to press me on this point, feel free - I'll do the research and give a better answer.

However, I definately disagree with the belief that the pope has the final say in church doctrine - take for example, his recent endorsement of evolution. Christianity and evolution are definitively incompatible.

On another note, I'm really wondering why people aren't challenging me more. Like, giving me examples of alleged Bible vs. science incompatibilities and whatnot...

 

[chemistry_geek]

This thread is getting very interesting indeed. Much thought and consideration has gone into the responses I've read. But I have to ask a question. Has anyone here REALLY read Darwin's Theory of Evolution? I did read the entire text many years ago. I've read that many creationists argue that micro evolution does indeed occur, but macro evolution does NOT occur. I think that if humans lived long enough, we would observe macro eloution. Who knows, given that rate of carbon dioxide we're dumping into the atmosphere (it's expected to rise 50% by 2020), we may indeed see macro evolution take place. I will make several statements, but I cannot go into the detail I'd like due to time constraints. There are several examples in the fossil record where many species were destroyed and incredible growth spirts creating new species.

I recall someone posting earlier a page or two back that s/he believed the human race was evolving today. This question was posed to the class by one of my biology professors many years ago when I was in college. The human race is NOT evolving, but our technology IS evolving. Granted, geographical barriers are pretty much no longer barriers, but we are NOT evolving, and the SIZE of people today does not significantly distinguish us from generations long ago; there were NO significant (if any) changes in our chromosomes that would prevent us from mating with someone of the past.

To get an understanding of evolution, read Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and take freshman college biology, cell biology, and microbiology. After understanding that simplier life forms are less complex than more complex organisms, it is easier to see and track changes in their genetic codes. Bacteria reproduce significantly faster than mammilian cells because their enzymes read and replicate the DNA faster than eucharyotic DNA enzymes. Bacterial DNA synthesis is VERY sloppy with the sole objective to get the job done as fast as possible with reduced accuracy of matching up base pairs. Many bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics because they carry two type of DNA: cellular DNA and plasmid DNA. The plasmid DNA is constantly being added to that contain the genes that were successful in producing proteins that rid the cell of the antibiotics. Bacteria are also very "leaky", exchanging plasmid DNA with themselves; this is how antibiotic resistance is transferred from one strain of bacteria to another.

Another point I'd like to make: Mitochondria and Chlorophyll, both organelles in animals and plants, respectively, CONTAIN THEIR OWN GENETIC CODE THAT IS CIRCULAR, just like bacterial DNA. These organelles replicate on their own inside our cells (and plants) based on their genetics. These organelles have a genetic code that is DIFFERENT from nuclear DNA; different codons code for different amino acids. These organelles also make their own ribosomes which resemble bacterial ribosome more than eucharyotic (mammalian/plant) ribosomes. Why is this? These organelles were very likely bacteria that lived in different environments than their hosts, but worked out a sybiotic relationship that benefitted both.

Time's up! More later on. My apologies for the abrupt end of my discussion.

 

[MDLarson]

And this is probably where I bow out. I might have chatted with you before, chemistry_geek, along with BigHairyDog I think it was... I just don't understand biology to the level that you do.

I guess if I was to debate the issue, it would have to remain in the logical realm or with more layperson examples.

I think I once heard a fellow Christian of mine say that the only place Creationists can really gain ground is when talking about the absolute beginning (Big Bang or Creation.) I know I sound like a weenie, but that's the best I can do.

Edit: no, I've never read "Origin of the Species". I guess I always thought- since even the evolutionists of today don't believe in Darwin's original theory, I won't bother.

 

[lurk]

I recall someone posting earlier a page or two back that s/he believed the human race was evolving today. This question was posed to the class by one of my biology professors many years ago when I was in college. The human race is NOT evolving, but our technology IS evolving.

Why do you say that he humans are no longer evolving? Doesn't the assertion that humans are somehow special and no longer under evolutionary pressure require a bit of hubris. Now it may well be that we are no longer feeling evolutionary pressures to run away from bears but all that says is that the selective pressures on humans have changed.

Granted, geographical barriers are pretty much no longer barriers, but we are NOT evolving, and the SIZE of people today does not significantly distinguish us from generations long ago; there were NO significant (if any) changes in our chromosomes that would prevent us from mating with someone of the past.

How many generations? 100? 1,000? After say 2,500 you would be back to Cro-Magnon man. 250,000 generations back and you would be dating whatever was banging rocks together in Oldavi gorge ;-)

We can even see the effects of evolution in just the past 1000 years. The black death only appeared during that that time and then ravaged Europe several times. As a result of that selective pressure people of European descent are more resistant to the plague than other ethnic groups. That does not make them a different species by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[pds]

However, I definately disagree with the belief that the pope has the final say in church doctrine - take for example, his recent endorsement of evolution. Christianity and evolution are definitively incompatible.

Perhaps a more careful definition of terms may make it less incompatible. Christianity - a faith based on the salvific, providential role of the man Jesus of Nazareth.
Evolution - a science that looks at the process and the mechanisms of speciation and the development of life on earth.

As a person with a deep faith in that salvific role and the development of providence even today, I don't see the incompatibility. I am no longer Catholic, but I have to respect the effort of this present pope to begin the undoing of many of the divisions caused by the overly dogmatic stance of the church through history.

On another note, I'm really wondering why people aren't challenging me more. Like, giving me examples of alleged Bible vs. science incompatibilities and what not...

Perhaps because that is not the point. I think we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. We are in a jamb. We are in hot water when we try to untie the meaning of a text that was written in another time and another language and taking it to be literally true. The descrepancies are more likely a misunderstanding of terms than proof of the incompatibility.

Some say the Bible should not be interpreted, that what it says is what is says. Anyone who understands Spanish will only smile at that assertion, in Spanish, they speak of a great "interpretacion" when someone sings a song well. Every reading is an interpretation.

Without becoming too long, I would like to take what some may see as a small twist in the conversation. Dogmatism is the problem as I said. But it is not only the religionists who can be dogmatic. I read the Scientific American article from Chevy's first post. I felt there was a sort of dogmatism in that article. They painted those who bring their faith to the question with a rather broad brush. There are those who hold to the 6 thousand year exclusion of evolution theory, which I find laughable. But they are not the only people in the argument and to dismiss the "intelligent design" people as "anti-evolutionists" is disingenuous. It only fuels the needless scism, focusing on things that divide us rather than finding common ground. The "ID" folks that I know are by no means anti-evolutionists, and their point that there is not continuous fossil record of evolutionary speciation is not a demand for science to produce an unending string of examples, nor a request for the end of inquiry. It is only one of the logical tenets of their thesis. A talking point if you will rather than an accusation or a sword.

Again, it is the scism that concerns me, not the details which - as MDLarson has stated - are details that good people will come up with as they specialize in the training that the discipline requires. The antagonism between two noble pursuits of human intelligence is not helpful to the solution of the human condition, which is the commission to every human being.

 

[Cat]

Just to wave my ignorance in everybody's face: species are defined thourhg the possibility of having fertile offspring, right? So horses and donkey can have offspring, mules, but mules are not fertile, there is no mule-race/species, it's just a colelction of individuals, because they cannot have offspring. Hence horses and donkeys are considered different species.
So technically, according to this definition, if I got it right, everything beginning with "homo x" would be part of our species, the "homo sapiens": hence erectus, habilis etc. would all be part of our species. Differences between us and them would have to be considered as micro-evolution, within a species and theoretically we could have fertile offspring. However, if I remember correctly, somewhere this stops: the neanderthaler or the cro-magnon man or somethign like that, wasn't cosidered a "homo x". So the human race ("homo x") obviously doesn't evolve, but maybe merely split off other species, but also obviously does evolve, since there are marked micro-evolutionary differences between us and the erectus and the habilis: look at skull capacity, fingers, spine, legs (bones is all we have, except with Ötzi, the iceman).

So owing to the principle that nothing comes from nothing where did we come from? Creationists say: from god. Evolutionists say: our species evolved from (out of) another species. A good candidate would be more primtive primates: ape-like beings.

Spinoza argued that appealing to the "will of god" ultimately was simply an admission of ignorance: not to insult the believers among us, I will hasten to point out that also science knows the will of god in this sense, i.e. ignorance. While the creationists immediately points to god, the evolutionist takes a detour: homo sapiens -> monocellular organisms in the sea and then appeals to the will of god, i.e. ignorance, i.e. statistics. Given certain favorable conditions, self-replicating cells develop. Why? Chance.
There's a famous experiment by Miller (IIRC) who re-created the conditions on earth when life developed and indeed observed the arising of monocellular organisms (again IIRC).

So evolutionists ultimately appeal to chance, creationists to the will of god. Both cannot claim absolute truth, because who can fathom either the will of god or chaos? Personally I appreciate the heroic and tragic effort made by the scientist, rather than the unconditional surrender to ignorance sive "will of god" by the creationist.

EDIT: off-topic: Di you notice this thread is turning "Quick-Reply" into an oxymoron?

 

[RacerX]

On another note, I'm really wondering why people aren't challenging me more. Like, giving me examples of alleged Bible vs. science incompatibilities and whatnot...

There were examples in another thread (Repent for being a Mac user!!) that we could reopen as examples.

I never did get what I thought were complete answers from you (or your connections with ICR).

Are you rested? Should we start down this path again?

 

[pds]

Hey, I've been looking for that site for some time... I wanted to use it as an example of a hoax, which I think it is. It's a scream! But the link on the old thread doesn't work. Does anyone have an updated link?