Creation or Evolution

[anthony022071]

[rossum]

No they are not. In biology “species” has a very specific meaning and each species has a particular name, in binomial form.

It does not have a specific meaning in practice,because biologists will call a “species” what is more properly called a sub-species. And so any observed case of speciation is used as evidence for macro-evolution,when in fact it is just a case of variation within a species.

Here is a biological definition of species,and it corresponds to the idea of a family.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
< The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species. >

So if you were to stick with that definition,then the only new species that come into being are infertile hybrids which quickly die out,and polyploids that have the same genetic information as their parents.

research.amnh.org/ornithology/crossbills/species.html
< For a long time, ornithologists almost universally used the biological species concept (BSC). This definition of “species” is based on species being reproductively isolated from each other. Under this definition, distinctive geographical forms of the same “kind” of bird are usually lumped as one species. This is because the geographic forms interbreed (or probably would, if they had the chance) where they intersect on the map. The problem with this definition is slightly different, geographically-isolated, forms rarely present us with “tests” of their willingness to interbreed. According to to adherents of the BSC, if the forms are only slightly different, they would probably interbreed if given the chance. Thus, they should be considered the same species. However, proponents of the BSC also say that because two things rarely interbreed (and produce viable hybrids) doesn’t mean they belong to the same species. For example, wolves and coyotes (there’s no educated disagreement that these are different species) can mate and have fertile and healthy pups.

The phylogenetic species concept (PSC) says that diagnosable geographic forms of the same basic “kind” of bird should be treated as distinct species. This is because these forms have evolved separately, and have unique evolutionary histories. The PSC is gaining favor because there is no worry about whether slightly-different geeographic forms might interbreed. If they don’t, for whatever reason (for example, migration to different breeding areas), they are full species. Obviously, the PSC is less restrictive than the the BSC. There would be many more species of birds under the PSC than under the BSC. >

Species Concepts and the Definition of “Species”
science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380species.html

 

[beeliner]

Textbook biology explicitly leaves no room for God. The theory is sufficient in and of itself. It’s all chance and necessity. All chance and necessity. That’s what gets drilled into every teenagers’ head.

To do so explicitly it would have to say so, which it does not.

You mean implicitly, but it doesn’t do that either.

edwest2:

Textbook biology regarding evolution is atheistic.

Actually, it is non-theistic, that is, religiously neutral.

edwest2:

Pope Benedict tells Catholics evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory. Do you think he is not serious?.. Why do you think The Barbarian is so excited about the Church’s comments about “common descent is virtually certain”? I thought the Church was only about faith and morals, but apparently not.

You are trying to have it both ways. Youse can’t do dat. If it is’only about faith and morals’ then the pope has no authority to teach Catholics anything about science - he is perfectly entitled, like all of us, to express a personal opinion, but with no obligation of Catholics to agree with him. It’s not a question of seriousness but of authority.

If it is NOT ‘only about faith and morals’, then you have no right to doubt his ‘teaching’ that ‘common descent is virtually certain’.

Which will it be?

 

[edwest2]

To beeliner -

So we agree, the biology textbook is atheistic. There is no evidence it is not. Further, the Pope is aware that many scientists are saying evolution negates a role for God.

Unlike some people who have come to believe the lie that every “opinion” has value, I believe that the Pope carefully chooses what he has to say and means what he says. The Church is more than faith and morals. In fact, it has its own Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It invites doctors, scientists and other specialists to assist in examining the evidence for miracles today.

So, the Church’s understanding of evolution is provisional. It is open to listening to what scientists have to say, but when many are saying evolution negates a role for God, that is not about opinion but about truths held in the deposit of faith. The current textbook theory of evolution excludes God which compels scientists to exclude God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

If you learn nothing else here, learn that species does not mean “kind.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
1 a: kind, sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c: the human race : human beings —often used with the d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species

trc.ucdavis.edu/biosci10v/bis10v/week7/speciesconcept.html
Biological Species Concept

In its simplest form, species means “kind.”

 

[anthony022071]

[rossum]

If you are going to discuss biology sensibly then you need to learn the terminology.

I’m not going along with categories which go beyond the bounds of reproductive relatedness.

Notice that Gulls include many different Genera.

So what? They are all recognizable as gulls,which is a matter of reproductive relatedness. The common characteristics between species don’t by themselves mean anything.

Not in biology. “Species” has a precise meaning, and “kind” is not precise.

“Kind” is the literal meaning of “species”. And “species” is no more precise than “kind”. They both refer to an interbreeding population which cannot breed with another population. The same is true of a common family of creatures. They all have to do with reproductive relatedness.

“Ant” may be a kind, but it is not a species.

It is a species. Remember the biological concept of species?
A species cannot breed outside the group.

Birds are a Class, the Aves, not a species.

I didn’t say they were a species.

If you want to talk sensibly and honestly you must recognize the difference between the Family of Gulls, the different Genera of Gulls and the different species of Gulls.

There’s no difference between gulls as a family and gulls as a species. Genera are irrelevant to me,because common characteristics between species are not proof of actual relatedness between species. As for the “different species of gulls”,it just goes to show that there are sub-species,and that the word species is used to refer to them.

I am not equivocating on the mening of “species”. I am sticking to the correct biological definition, and using it consistently.

You just used “species” to refer to the sub-species of gulls. You used a different idea of species than the common biological definition,like all apologists for macro-evolution do. How could you not notice?

I have been at pains to point out the correct terminology throughout this discussion.

The least you could do is stick with the common biological definition of species. But that would be difficult,since biologists use the word both for a general population and its variant populations.

 

[beeliner]

Compare:
"beeliner:

Actually, [the biology textbook] is non-theistic, that is, religiously neutral.

To beeliner - So we agree, the biology textbook is atheistic.

When the best you can do is misquote, you simply destroy your own credibility.

Science is non-theistic by definition. If it is theistic it is religion and not science. Science deals with the physical and leaves religion to deal with the spiritual. That is not hard for most people to understand - you are a special case.

edwest2:

Further, the Pope is aware that many scientists are saying evolution negates a role for God.

Perhaps, but if so, that would be a statement of belief, not science, and would not appear in a textbook, but rather in a philosophical treatise of some kind. Since the pope is an intelligent person, he is also aware that many other scientists are devoutly religious.

It is certainly possible for a textbook to mix science and religion, but it would be just that - a mixture. The science is not religion nor the religion science. Nor could such a textbook be constitutionally used in American public schools. Private schools may use such texts by invoking freedom of religion. I have no objection to such texts in parochial schools if the science is stated accurately.

Teaching little children that Genesis is fact is something else entirely, that is the abuse of both science and religion.

 

[rossum]

It does not have a specific meaning in practice,because biologists will call a “species” what is more properly called a sub-species. And so any observed case of speciation is used as evidence for macro-evolution,when in fact it is just a case of variation within a species.

Here is the dictionary definition of macroevolution:noun Biology. major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

[Origin: 1935-40; macro- + evolution]
Random House Unabridged Dictionary

Here is a biological definition of species,and it corresponds to the idea of a family.

You are using a confusing terminology, a taxonomic Family is a specific level of taxonomic classification.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
< The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species. >

Correct.

So if you were to stick with that definition,then the only new species that come into being are infertile hybrids which quickly die out,and polyploids that have the same genetic information as their parents.

You have misunderstood speciation. I have already posted an example of speciation from Answers in Genesis, here is another one: Fast Mouse Evolution. A single population can split into two and after the separation mutations can render the two incipient species infertile with each other, though still fertile within their own population.

rossum

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**
Hi friends and relatives :tiphat:

We talked further up on a side theme (off topic) about the question that quite a few philosophers are convinced, that there is no ultimate truth. I explained here why the contrary is right, as Cath. Theologists know (and even the Rabbi next door )

As we in our (compared to this one extremely little) German forum had the very same topic, I opened a new thread about the question, and invite all interested to here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3924016#post3924016 **

 

[rossum]

I’m not going along with categories which go beyond the bounds of reproductive relatedness.

Gulls are animals, chimpanzees are animals. Gulls cannot reproduce with chimpanzees, so by your definition “animal” is a category which “goes beyond the bounds of reproductive relatedness”. Ditto ant, primate, fish, shark, mollusc, octopus and a great many other useful scientific and vernacular classifications of organisms. I find your point here overly restrictive.

So what? They are all recognizable as gulls,which is a matter of reproductive relatedness. The common characteristics between species don’t by themselves mean anything.

But when the appearance is backed up by DNA and other scientific data it does mean something. Scientists have been refining their classifications since Linnaeus in the 18th century. Those classifications represent an immense amount of work by many people.

“Kind” is the literal meaning of “species”. And “species” is no more precise than “kind”. They both refer to an interbreeding population which cannot breed with another population. The same is true of a common family of creatures. They all have to do with reproductive relatedness.

You sometimes use “kind” to mean a single species, you sometimes use “kind” to refer to a larger grouping of different species that cannot all interbreed.

It is a species. Remember the biological concept of species? A species cannot breed outside the group.

You are laughably wrong. There are many different spcies of ants which cannot breed with each other. Mammals can only breed with mammals but that does not mean that any mammal can breed with any other mammal. Lions cannot breed with Kangaroos, elephants cannot breed with armadillos. “Ant” is no more of a species than “mammal”. You are very, very wrong here.

There’s no difference between gulls as a family and gulls as a species.

There is a very real difference. All gulls within a single species can breed with each other. All gulls within a single Family cannot breed with eath other. Kittiwakes cannot breed with Herring Gulls. Kittiwakes can breed with Kittiwakes; Herring Gulls can breed with Herring Gulls. Species is a group all of whose members can interbreed. The higher taxons include members who cannot interbreed. Your failure to recognise this is weakening your arguments.

The least you could do is stick with the common biological definition of species. But that would be difficult,since biologists use the word both for a general population and its variant populations.

It is you who are misusing the word. Above you referred to ants as a kind/species yet there are many different species of ants that cannot breed with each other.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Compare:When the best you can do is misquote, you simply destroy your own credibility.

Science is non-theistic by definition. If it is theistic it is religion and not science. Science deals with the physical and leaves religion to deal with the spiritual. That is not hard for most people to understand - you are a special case.Perhaps, but if so, that would be a statement of belief, not science, and would not appear in a textbook, but rather in a philosophical treatise of some kind. Since the pope is an intelligent person, he is also aware that many other scientists are devoutly religious.

It is certainly possible for a textbook to mix science and religion, but it would be just that - a mixture. The science is not religion nor the religion science. Nor could such a textbook be constitutionally used in American public schools. Private schools may use such texts by invoking freedom of religion. I have no objection to such texts in parochial schools if the science is stated accurately.

Teaching little children that Genesis is fact is something else entirely, that is the abuse of both science and religion.

You misrepresent Church teaching or you don’t understand it or both. According to Human Persons Created in the Image of God evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist. Period. End of story. No divine providence, no evolution.

Genesis records real history, that also according to the Catholic Church. If you still consider those facts a problem, I recommend you contact the Vatican. Those facts have been established long before I was around.

The biology textbook is an atheist account of Creation. It is complete in and of itself, or so it claims. That is against Church teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

The biology textbook is an atheist account of Creation. It is complete in and of itself, or so it claims. That is against Church teaching.

Ed, I asked this before and got no answer from you so I’ll try again. Please provide a high school biology textbook that denies the role of God in ANYTHING. If you can’t, you need to retract your claim and stop repeating it ad nauseum. You know what intentionally and knowingly making false statements is, don’t you?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Tim,

You are just trying to avoid the issue. Who is making false claims? The Pope? The Church? When the Pope and Cardinal Schoenborn speak out against atheist ideology being promoted by scientists regarding the theory of evolution, that should be a concern to all Catholics.

What you don’t understand is that the biology textbook contains a theory that tells students that this is how it is. For Catholics, God has to be involved. The misleading and false information in the biology textbook needs to be exposed for what it is. Atheistic.

Those many scientists are not promoting atheism out of thin air but because of the biology textbook. The connection is right there.

Go to any atheist web site for confirmation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[anthony022071]

[rossum]

Here is the dictionary definition of macroevolution:noun Biology. major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

[Origin: 1935-40; macro- + evolution]
Random House Unabridged Dictionary

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)

biology-online.org/dictionary/Macroevolution
refers to evolution on a large scale (e.g. at or above the level of species)occurring over geologic era, and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html
< It’s difficult to define macroevolution because it’s a field of study and not a process. Mark Ridley has one of the best definitions I’ve seen …

Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods., such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population … Macroevolutionary events are more likely to take millions, probably tens of millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution described by Simpson, and occurring over tens of millions of years, or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion described by Conway Morris. Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution. >

You are using a confusing terminology, a taxonomic Family is a specific level of taxonomic classification.

I reject the scientific ranking of family,because it presumes that families are related to each other on account of similar physical characteristics. I reject the taxonomic ranking system as a whole,because it presumes that all creatures are part of a phylogenetic tree.

You have misunderstood speciation

.
Species is the process of biological species formation.

I have already posted an example of speciation from Answers in Genesis, here is another one: Fast Mouse Evolution.

Oh,come on. That example of speciation is just variation within the species.

A single population can split into two and after the separation mutations can render the two incipient species infertile with each other, though still fertile within their own population.

Give an example. Incipient species refers to groups that are not yet different species. But if two groups are infertile with each other,then both groups fit the biological concept of species. So which is it? Are they incipient species or different species?

According to Barbarian,mutations don’t do much of anything.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim,

You are just trying to avoid the issue. Who is making false claims? The Pope? The Church? When the Pope and Cardinal Schoenborn speak out against atheist ideology being promoted by scientists regarding the theory of evolution, that should be a concern to all Catholics.

What you don’t understand is that the biology textbook contains a theory that tells students that this is how it is. For Catholics, God has to be involved. The misleading and false information in the biology textbook needs to be exposed for what it is. Atheistic.

Those many scientists are not promoting atheism out of thin air but because of the biology textbook. The connection is right there.

Go to any atheist web site for confirmation.

Peace,
Ed

So, you don’t have a reference? You mean, you just made up the part about atheism? I won’t go to an atheist website because I don’t care what they claim. I do care when Catholics make unsupportable claims allegedly to show other Catholics that they are in error. Especially when I don’t believe that you have EVER seen a high school biology book that denies the role of God in ANYTHING.

You like to make claims like that and when called on it you either move on to another thread or try the “You are just trying to avoid the issue” card. You need to keep in mind that if you have to make up strawman arguments to bolster your position, your position is not worth fighting for. Your position is not for Catholicism, it is for Ed’s Catholicism and that is a dangerous position.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Tim,

When Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69, tells me that evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist, that’s a fact. That’s all there is to it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

According to Human Persons Created in the Image of God evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist. Period. End of story. No divine providence, no evolution.

According to Catholic doctrine, nothing at all can exist without God. Without God there would be no electricity. Do you criticise Electromagnetism textbooks for not including God? Should my computer textbook include mention of God before explaining how computers work? All science textbooks omit any mention of God, not just biology textbooks. Chemistry books, Physics books, Maths books - all leave out any mention of God.

Why do you focus specifically on evolution rather than on astronomy or solid state physics? How much of either could exist without God?

Genesis records real history, that also according to the Catholic Church. If you still consider those facts a problem, I recommend you contact the Vatican. Those facts have been established long before I was around.

I strongly suspect that the Catholic Church is more sensible than to insist that Noah’s flood was worldwide and less than 5,000 years ago. The Pope is far better advised on matters of science than Duane Gish or Ken Ham to name but two.

rossum

 

[beeliner]

1. You misrepresent Church teaching or you don’t understand it or both.
2. According to Human Persons Created in the Image of God evolution without divine providence simply cannot exist. Period. End of story. No divine providence, no evolution.
3. Genesis records real history, that also according to the Catholic Church. If you still consider those facts a problem, I recommend you contact the Vatican.
4. Those facts have been established long before I was around.
5. The biology textbook is an atheist account of Creation. It is complete in and of itself, or so it claims. That is against Church teaching.

Would anyone else like to try to explain it to him? Someone experienced in child care, perhaps?

1. No, Ed, YOU are misrepresenting Church teaching, and when you claimed, a few posts back, that the Catholic Church forbids Catholic college students from taking any science courses that do not mention God, you really went off the deep end. You need to retract that or provide documentation.
2. Fine. That is 100% religion, 0% science. No one is disputing the Catholic religion’s or any other religion’s right to be self-referential.
3. Nonsense. The Church is well aware of the true origins of Genesis and teaches nothing to the contrary, except as allegory
4. Those things were considered fact long ago. When such beliefs were proven untenable, the Catholic Church abandoned them, except as allegory.
5. Provide evidence of any such claim. Title, publisher, date, ISBN number, actual quotes if possible. We are talking about school textbooks here.

 

[buffalo]

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins

…Product Description
Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation. That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism. The purpose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on origins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics. The traditional teaching of the Church on Creation, the Fall, and the Great Flood and its aftermath is clearly presented in the form of sixteen doctrines abstracted from the text of Genesis 1-11. The doctrines are defended on theological, philosophical and scientific grounds from assaults made on them from the sectors of biblical criticism and scientism. The author attempts to present a story of origins that evokes true and vivid images of the creation of the world and the primal history of the human species. Accurate, thorough and readable answers are given to many questions about origins that perplex the modern Catholic. The exposition is kept as non-technical as possible so that the book will be accessible to everyone. Not everyone will be able to understand everything that is presented, but every reader will find enough to set his thinking straight and to nourish his Catholic faith. Foreword by Most. Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker

 

[beeliner]

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins

…Product Description
Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation. That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism. The purpose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on origins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics. The traditional teaching of the Church on Creation, the Fall, and the Great Flood and its aftermath is clearly presented in the form of sixteen doctrines abstracted from the text of Genesis 1-11. The doctrines are defended on theological, philosophical and scientific grounds from assaults made on them from the sectors of biblical criticism and scientism. The author attempts to present a story of origins that evokes true and vivid images of the creation of the world and the primal history of the human species. Accurate, thorough and readable answers are given to many questions about origins that perplex the modern Catholic. The exposition is kept as non-technical as possible so that the book will be accessible to everyone. Not everyone will be able to understand everything that is presented, but every reader will find enough to set his thinking straight and to nourish his Catholic faith. Foreword by Most. Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker

100% religion, 0% science. So?

And as the publisher admits in the first sentence, even the religious aspect is internally disputed - ‘no well-developed theology of creation’ exists in Catholicism.

And if it did, it would still be just that - theology - not science.

Where’s the conflict?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

To Catholics here who are arguing for the historicity of Genesis:

I absolutely agree with you that the science and history of Genesis is on target. However, we all need to remember the fact that Adam was created on the 6th day, which means he did not live through any of the previous days of Creation. Therefore the only way he could have known about what happened before him is if God told it to him. What are key means by which God communicates? Sometimes direct and clear language, but dreams, visions and symbolic language are also very common when God speaks in the Bible. Genesis 1, we should note, is very visual: “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters . . . The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it . . . God made the two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night – and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness . . .”

The images are very visual. It is logical to see Genesis 1 as a vision, in view of this fact and the fact that God had to have told all of Genesis 1 to humans for humans to know any of it. If Genesis 1 was a vision, we don’t have to worry about the 7 days. They are very possibly non-literal. Just about all Christians acknowledge that visions from God frequently use symbolic language, and a cursory look at the Book of Revelation will find the number 7 used in this symbolic manner numerous times.

Therefore we don’t have to worry about science seeming to contradict the 7 days of Genesis 1.

But, while we should keep in mind the probable visionary and symbolic nature of Genesis 1, there are a LOT of ways in which it very precisely predicts many things that scientists only have discovered in the last two or three centuries.

Note the following ways in which scientific discovery has paralleled the creation account of Genesis 1:

Science teaches that sky and ocean were in history one great chemical expanse, one single body of liquid, but that volcanic eruptions and heating underground caused separation between the two. Genesis 1:6, 8 says, “And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters . . . God called the dome sky.’”

Genesis 1 also teaches that the continents were at one point united, and all the oceans were united. In fact, the man who originally came up with the theory of Pangea was roundly criticized among scientists because his idea sounded too Christian to them. Genesis 1:9 says, “And God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.”

Science teaches that life started in the oceans. Genesis 1:20 teaches the same: “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’ So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.” This was the first recorded creation of life in Genesis 1.

Science teaches that the environment creates the different species according to their kinds. Genesis 1:24 teaches the same, saying not “God made the species according to their kinds,” but rather, “And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.’” The land, or the natural environment, created the species according to Genesis 1, which is exactly what science teaches when it proposes that the environment fashioned the species.

Science also teaches that humanity is one of the last of the animals to come into existence, a very, very “new kid on the block.” Genesis 1 teaches the same, portraying God creating man last, after the sea creatures were created first, and after the land animals were created.

In its description of the order of early life and its evolutionary development process, Genesis 1 parallels current science very closely. It also describes Pangea as having once existed, by describing the oceans at one time having all been one, and it describes accurately the separation of sky and sea.

There are parts of the account that still don’t track perfectly with current science (which is always developing and changing), but there is enough there that does that we have reason to take its scientific and historical accuracy very seriously.