Creation vs Evolution

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Okay based on what you said, please forgive me but here is the problem that I am still having understanding evolution as fact vs. theory.

Newton and gravity: He happpened to make some observations about falling objects, did some experiments, came up with some ideas based on those observations, described those ideas precisely with mathematics, those ideas + mathematical description = gravity. So gravity is a man-made framework or concept that is functional up to a point in this universe (the perhillion shift of mercury for example) Gravity is considered fact or law in so far it predicts the phenomena in its framework. Would you agree with this foundation so far? Please correct me if need be.

Hello Socali,

I am afraid that I disagree with you somewhat. The fact of gravity does not depend on observations of it, interpretations of phenomena based on it or ideas about its underlying mechanism. The fact of the phenomenon of gravity predated the existence of humans and their hypotheses. Gravity was needed to create the conditions for the condensing of galaxies, the formation of the sun and the earth, earth’s orbit and ultimately the emergence of humans. Without gravity none of this would have happened.

Now, Newton put forward a theory, Newton’s theory of gravity, that all objects in the universe attract all other objects, with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres of mass in a Euclidean space. This happens to decribe what we observe very closely but not perfectly. Several subtle phenomena, such as the precession of Mercury’s perihelion, time dilation and the deflection of the path of light by a massive object measured in Euclidean space are described more accurately by GR, based on a non-Euclidean, for example, Riemann metric. Today, very sensitive measurements are being made to see if gravity departs ever so little from the inverse square law as such departures can give us information about hidden dimensions.

** Darwin and evolution:** Someone interested in plants and animals, takes a boat ride along the H.M.S. Beagle and comes up with a way to explain the variation in the different phenomena he observes such as lizards and finches. He has a great idea based on observations that other biologists would agree with. He calls this way to describe variation, evolution, but does not use mathematics to describe its mechanism.

Darwin developed a scientific hypothesis to explain the diversity of species. Interestingly, in ‘The Origin of Species’ the word ‘evolution’ does not appear once. Not once, so far as I can see. Not many people know that!

Alec

To be continued…

 

[hecd2]

Continuation…

** Question: **

Ideas originating from Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Astronomy, all use mathematics to frame the theories that they come up with, as bizzare as the theory at the time may seem.

To what extent is mathematics included or discluded in evolutionary theory, and how does it impact the theory of evolution’s provability?

I’m not quite sure where you are going with this question of mathematics. Scientific hypotheses do not have to be framed mathematically. Mathematics is a tool, not a master. Much of chemistry does not use mathematics; until formal evolutionary theory arose from the fusion of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics in the 1930s, biology hardly used maths at all. That doesn’t make it any less of a science. What about, say ecology or molecular biology or genetics or plate tectonics or ocean science?

But formal evolutionary biology does make use of mathematics (although, as I say, that’s not necessary for it to be considered perfectly respectable science). It is heavily used in population genetics, formal theories of natural selection and random drift, gene flow, mutualism and other species interactions, quantitative genetics, the understanding of pre- and postzygotic isolation, classical phylogenetics, more recent applications of bayesian principles to phylogenetics, evolutionary rate and so on. A paper on evolutionary biology today is as likely to contain difficult maths as is likely to be contained in any other scientific paper - well perhaps not as difficult as cutting edge theoretical physics.

Alec

homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Continuation…

I’m not quite sure where you are going with this question of mathematics. Scientific hypotheses do not have to be framed mathematically. Mathematics is a tool, not a master. Much of chemistry does not use mathematics; until formal evolutionary theory arose from the fusion of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics in the 1930s, biology hardly used maths at all. That doesn’t make it any less of a science. What about, say ecology or molecular biology or genetics or plate tectonics or ocean science?

But formal evolutionary biology does make use of mathematics (although, as I say, that’s not necessary for it to be considered perfectly respectable science). It is heavily used in population genetics, formal theories of natural selection and random drift, gene flow, mutualism and other species interactions, quantitative genetics, the understanding of pre- and postzygotic isolation, classical phylogenetics, more recent applications of bayesian principles to phylogenetics, evolutionary rate and so on. A paper on evolutionary biology today is as likely to contain difficult maths as is likely to be contained in any other scientific paper - well perhaps not as difficult as cutting edge theoretical physics.

Alec

homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Alec,

Ok I quite respect your education in these matters so I am going to try a different approach in this discussion of Creation vs. Evolution since our 6 thread, multi-page discussion has been dragging on forever.

What would YOU, a biologist/scientist/evolutionist reccomend to a pro-creation/anti-evolutionist who is trying to disprove evolution? (please no witty responses)

What would be satisfactory evidence or what would be needed to show evolution is false from your perspective if **YOU ** were trying to disprove it to the evolutionary biology community? Where are the major holes, shaky ground, or unexplained phenomena?

Please help me out and don’t say its a lost cause if possible.

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Alec,

Ok I quite respect your education in these matters so I am going to try a different approach in this discussion of Creation vs. Evolution since our 6 thread, multi-page discussion has been dragging on forever.

What would YOU, a biologist/scientist/evolutionist reccomend to a pro-creation/anti-evolutionist who is trying to disprove evolution? (please no witty responses)

What would be satisfactory evidence or what would be needed to show evolution is false from your perspective if **YOU **were trying to disprove it to the evolutionary biology community? Where are the major holes, shaky ground, or unexplained phenomena?

Please help me out and don’t say its a lost cause if possible.

Socali,

Now that is an interesting question. Bear with me while we go through a couple of principles - I’'ll get to specifics in a minute.

The principles are these. First of all, many arguments continue to rage about the mechanisms of evolution. The way that evolution actually works is the subject of considerable controversy and revision of ideas all the time. Several putative mechanisms for evolution have been proposed and discarded over the last 100 years.

But we are not talking about that are we? What you want to know is how to disprove the idea that evolution ever occurred at all. Well, if something were to come to light that showed that evolution had, in fact, not occurred, then from a strict scientific viewpoint the alternative would not be creation. Creation is a supernatural act and falls outside the competence of science to unravel. Science assumes that all observed phenomena have natural causes, ie causes that can, in principle, be explained by application of scientific methods. So scientists would be bound to take the new finding which disproved evolution and all the immense mountain of evidence which today can only be explained BY evolution, and hypothesise a new natural theory that is consistent with the new finding AND with all the vast interlocked network of evidence that today points to evolution. And I have no idea what such an explanation could be - there is simply no other scientific idea on the table that explains what we observe in multiple interlocking domains - some genius would have to fomulate a new hypothesis that is way beyond my ability to even imagine. This difficulty is the reason why no creationist or IDer has ever put forward an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the diversity of species, but they instead rely on the rather lame and unilluminating explanation ‘God did it miraculously’ which is not a scientific hypothesis.

Having said all this, you asked me what specific evidence would satisfactorily disprove evolution for me. It turns out that that is a suprisingly difficult question to answer. The reason is that most of the evidence that would disprove evolution would represent bizarre anomalies in what we already find. The only effective way I could think of replying to you was to list things that would disprove or at least call evolution into question, with the understanding that most or all of them are not what we actually observe.

• If each species or family of living things were entirely unique and showed no sign of nested hierarchy
• If the genomes of different lineages contained entirely unconnected characteristics with no sign of shared ancestral events
• If complex multicellular organisms could be shown to pre-date or appear simultaneously with simple bacteria and archaea
• If different branches of life used many different and unrelated genetic codes
• If genetic adaptation as a consequence of environmental pressures should be shown not to occur
• If the likelihood of reproduction and transmission of genes was shown to be unconnected with the phenotype determined by the genotype
• If a natural barrier were found to the degree of change that could occur in a population over many generations
• If the universe could be shown to be 6000 years old
• If the rate of genetic drift in a population were shown to be totally inadequate to explain the genetic divergence of species in the time available.
• If we found evidence that the earth was seeded deliberately with each extant species by a race of aliens

I am sure there are others, but they are fine to be going on with. How do you think that evolution as a process can be disproved?

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

• If each species or family of living things were entirely unique and showed no sign of nested hierarchy
• If the genomes of different lineages contained entirely unconnected characteristics with no sign of shared ancestral events
• If complex multicellular organisms could be shown to pre-date or appear simultaneously with simple bacteria and archaea
• If different branches of life used many different and unrelated genetic codes
• If genetic adaptation as a consequence of environmental pressures should be shown not to occur
• If the likelihood of reproduction and transmission of genes was shown to be unconnected with the phenotype determined by the genotype
• If a natural barrier were found to the degree of change that could occur in a population over many generations
• If the universe could be shown to be 6000 years old
• If the rate of genetic drift in a population were shown to be totally inadequate to explain the genetic divergence of species in the time available.
• If we found evidence that the earth was seeded deliberately with each extant species by a race of aliens

I am sure there are others, but they are fine to be going on with. How do you think that evolution as a process can be disproved?

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Okay first let me be intellectually honest with you and expose my limitations that I know very very little about biology other than taking (don’t laugh) physical anthropology and chemistry in college. So it would be impossible for me to reach your level of competency in evolutionary knowledge short of going back to school and reading countless hours of books on the subject. It would be great to have that education, but for purposes of this discussion, the best I can do is discuss the popular science version.

My goal is not to turn a blind eye towards the evidence that has been unhearthed by scientists over many decades, but instead attempt to understand the limitations of what we *can * and *can’t * know through science. This is not becuase I am running from science, on the contrary I am *intrigued * by the body of knowledge in science, but mainly the type of thinking that goes into it.

In light of the fact that you said something extremely interesting I’ve never heard before, that even if we were to “disprove” evolution, it would mean that science would not assume creation.

That is profound, really. It begs the question that the discussion of Creation vs. Evolution at hand is not really like a game of tennis with evolutionists on one side and creationists on the other hitting facts back and forth. No, it seems like this could be more properly titled a discussion of Scientific Conclusion vs. Christian Conclusion. In actuallity we are giving different weights to evidence, that evidence being what can be observed in the natural universe.

I would try to disprove evolution through logic.

At first glance evidence from the natural universe should be fundamentally compelling, but I propose is that indeed science itself actually condems its own thinking, to a point.

It is our wondering and limited understanding of the universe around us like the sun, the sky, and the stars, that begs for science. A want of understanding. But it is the evidence that sciences produces from its tree of knowledge and rational thinking that puts us back right where we began every time, still wondering.

For example, it is not apparent that light bends with strong enough gravitational pull like from a black hole. We could not know this from just looking around us. We need scientific reasoning to demonstrate this fact, but advanced observational tools to confirm it. But then new questions about light arise, even learning that it bends. So it appears that our frame of reference that determines the quality of our results it dependent on these things, the tools for observation, and the genius to interpret it.

So for a person like me, who puts his faith more in the Word of God and God’s frame of reference for man through communicated lovingly through the Bible than in science (not discounting knowledge gained from science though), that would be my bias against assuming evolution.

My conclusion: science is entirely dependent on man’s external frame of reference in the natural universe. That external frame of reference directly infulences the quality of the conclusions that science produces. Whew. What do you think?

 

[Dismas2004]

This is an old thread, but I find it to be one of the more intereting topics of today. To be brief:

Evolution = FACT
Darwinism = “Theory” in quotes becuase it doesn’t stand the criticism to actually be called a Theory and has been disproven by Mathematicians and “the pig in Nebraska!”

What I find interesting, and I may have missed it because I didn’t read through all the posts, just skimmed, is that the book of Genesis and the author where NOT trying to tell is HOW the Earth was created, but WHY it was!!! In a lot of respects, this book is foundation, especially when it comes to Moral Theology! What do we learn in this book? Well, just a few little details i.e. Where Evil comes from, Why we were created, What is our purpose in Life, Natural Law, Moral Law, etc… etc… etc… Just a few small things.

If anyone is interested, check out some Moral theology texts, like Bernard Haring’s LAW OF CHRIST!!! or the New Jerome Biblical Commentary. I would reccomend both to buy for anyone wanting to know more about the faith, scriptures, and the WORD of God!

 

[davec]

wilhelmus7:

Just wondering how fundamentalist everyone is on this issue

 

[MikeB]

The way I understand the Church’s teaching is to accept science as long as it does not contradict what the Bible and the Church teaches. The Bible does not teach science. The Bible is about our relationship with God. The Bible is not history, as there are numerous example of history in the Bible being misstated. What we should really be looking at is the fact that science most always strengthens and supports the Bible. Recently there have been TV specials that trace humankind back to one set of parents - one man and one woman. By DNA we are desended from one woman in Africa. Science even nicknamed her “Eve”.
As to the “7” days and “God resting on the 7th day”, we must always look to what message God is trying to teach us. The number 7 has always been a sacred number for the Jews. And I feel like God was telling us, as He did to the Jews, that the 7th day was meant as a Holy Day and a day of rest. God didn’t need to rest any more than He didn’t know where Adam and Eve were hiding in the Garden. What the Garden message might mean is that if we take our problems to God and let Him handle them then maybe all of our “messes” could be avoided.

 

[hecd2]

Dear Socali, you wrote a long post here with many, thoughts, some of which I was unable to understand. Let me respond to one or twothat I think I undertsand in the hope of progressijng te discussion. If I miss things that you think are important, then can I ask you totry to explain them again?

SocaliCatholic:

In light of the fact that you said something extremely interesting I’ve never heard before, that even if we were to “disprove” evolution, it would mean that science would not assume creation.

That is profound, really. It begs the question that the discussion of Creation vs. Evolution at hand is not really like a game of tennis with evolutionists on one side and creationists on the other hitting facts back and forth. No, it seems like this could be more properly titled a discussion of Scientific Conclusion vs. Christian Conclusion. In actuallity we are giving different weights to evidence, that evidence being what can be observed in the natural universe.

Yes, what I said that you found profound was correct. In order to ‘do’ science, scientists make some assumptions about the way things are. Those assumptions are very difficult to demonstrate or prove - they are rather like the ‘axioms’ of maths. The basic assumptions are that phenomena we observe in the universe have natural causes and by natural causes we mean that the universe behaves universally according to a set of ules that we can in principle and with time, discover. Scientists, while doing science (even if they are devout believers) ALWAYS assume that what they observe has natural and not supernatural causes. They do that because science only works within that paradigm. All supernatural explantions lie outside science are not accetable hypotheses for cause. To do otherwise, is to condemn science, because once we allow miracle as cause then all our incentive to find natural and measurable caused is lost. There is no other validation for that paradigm than the immense self-consistency of science and its success in explaining the natural world.

At first glance evidence from the natural universe should be fundamentally compelling, but I propose is that indeed science itself actually condems its own thinking, to a point…But it is the evidence that sciences produces from its tree of knowledge and rational thinking that puts us back right where we began every time, *still wondering… *So for a person like me, who puts his faith more in the Word of God and God’s frame of reference for man through communicated lovingly through the Bible than in science (not discounting knowledge gained from science though), that would be my bias against assuming evolution

No one ‘assumes’ evolution. The reason that 99.9%+ of professional scientists agree with the fact of its existence is because the evidence overwhelming points that way.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Dismas2004:

Evolution = FACT
Darwinism = “Theory” in quotes becuase it doesn’t stand the criticism to actually be called a Theory and has been disproven by Mathematicians and “the pig in Nebraska!”!

Oh, really? It has? Do tell us more.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[Dismas2004]

hecd2:

Oh, really? It has? Do tell us more.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

I’m assuming you are talking about DARWINISM since seeing that Evolution of species is factual.

Back in the 60’s or 70’s, a mathematician took the human DNA and chemistry and using some impressive math skills figured out how long it would take for a human to have evolved from a monkey, from which it had eveolved from a fish and so forth. In the end, he published his results in a book and made headlines. This brought about a lot of controversy because of the issue at hand. Scientist all over the world and mathematicians all tried to disprove his work, to see if he made a mistake. Funny thing happend :yup: , they came up with the same results! :crying: As far as it being called a theory, that is just mere cosmetics. You can talk to any scientist and they will tell you that it isn’t like other theories. “Why” do you ask, because it isn’t testable per se or observable.

In regards to the pig in Nebraska, This is my favorite. It may have been S. Dakota, but I believe it was Nebraska. The story goes, a farmer found a fossil site, however it was a poor one and the only thing that was certain was a “tooth” fossil. Fromt hat Scientist made a jaw, then a head, then a torso, then a body, and so forth. And all of a sudden, it was a man. From that, they made a woman compliment. Darwinists used this as a prize for them and proof of evolution(it fit one of Darwin’s stages of Human Evolution, pretty well too.) Later on, another tooth was found, just like the first. But this time the whole fossil was preserved and what do you think they found? You guessed it, a WILD PIG :nope: :ehh:
It was such a confusing time for those Darwinist. I acutally feel sorry for them, to be outwited by a pig. Moral of the story however, Don’t make a human out of a pig’s tooth!

Sorry I can’t give more detail about these, seeing that these are issues I wrestled with some 7 years ago. I’m sure though if you look at some of the latest literature on the debate, you’ll come across them.

Sorry for all the typos.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

Dear Socali, you wrote a long post here with many, thoughts, some of which I was unable to understand. Let me respond to one or twothat I think I undertsand in the hope of progressijng te discussion. If I miss things that you think are important, then can I ask you totry to explain them again?
Yes, what I said that you found profound was correct. In order to ‘do’ science, scientists make some assumptions about the way things are. Those assumptions are very difficult to demonstrate or prove - they are rather like the ‘axioms’ of maths. The basic assumptions are that phenomena we observe in the universe have natural causes and by natural causes we mean that the universe behaves universally according to a set of ules that we can in principle and with time, discover. Scientists, while doing science (even if they are devout believers) ALWAYS assume that what they observe has natural and not supernatural causes. They do that because science only works within that paradigm. All supernatural explantions lie outside science are not accetable hypotheses for cause. To do otherwise, is to condemn science, because once we allow miracle as cause then all our incentive to find natural and measurable caused is lost. There is no other validation for that paradigm than the immense self-consistency of science and its success in explaining the natural world.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Alec,

Based on what you said it gives me great hope in that you do not take for granted the source of science: people.

You appear to not have turned science into into a god, but rather an aid to your understanding of the natural universe.

It is perfectly fine and good for me to accept evolution as fact or theory within the confines of the discipline that has come to that conclusion.

The important part is that I only see it as a working model within that discipline, and where it contradicts the Bible’s account of creation, I will go with the Bible every time. (a matter of faith in God of course)

I would honestly question anyone who put all their faith into science as a mechanism to understand all aspects of life. Science did not create itself, people did; and with that comes imperfections.

At some point the understanding that comes from the discipline of scientific method must be interpreted by some source outside science.

Science gives some degree of sight, but not at the cost of ignoring other means of understanding.

 

[eddieh]

I will try to keep this as straight to the point as possible. We were created! It is not possible for us to evolve a working heart, digestive system, absorption sytem, immune system, renal system, kindeys, pancreas, and every other vital organ necessary for us to stay alive. If all of our “parts & pieces” do not operate, in unison, at one given point in time, we cease to function. There is a point of irreducible complexity at which all of our essential peices had to be present, and working in time, with one another, to sustain life within us. We could not have possibly evolved these necessary organs and still lived. Take a simple look around; our planet is a planet of extinction, not creation! My God said he *created *me in His image, and breathed the breath of life in to me…that’s good enough for me!

God Bless,

Eddie

 

[Podo2004]

RMP:

Why is this such a difficult debate?

Without CREATION, evolution would not be possible. Evolution is just a theory, a best GUESS. Where are the facts? The only evidence for evolution is the theory itself. Is that evidence? Show me an example of evolution, NOT a guess about what could have happened. Show the observation that it DID happen.
If there is any truth in the world that is clear, It is Science is our best guess, and man usually-continually guesses wrong. Dont we call it RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
That is exactly why the incarnation of GOD was so very much needed in the world. To get rid of the guess work.
Jesus makes the way so there is no more guessing. He shows us the truth. We see,touch,hear him. In the CATHOLIC church we even get to smell and EAT him.
Science TRIES to show the way through knowledge and observation, but like most of mans habits, it is imperfect. Most of the time man cant even agree about our observations we get or the knowledge we learn. (At one point during the renasaince period mans philosophy actually tried to argue the point that we dont exist at all!)
Science can never make the claim that what it professess will always be absolutely true. So how can we absolutely trust it. If anything, science itself is the one thing in the world that proves evolution (evolution of thought). The evolution of itself.

Show me how one species becomes another…oh, you cant. well keep trying then. Show me how mold developes a conscience, and when does this occur? HAsnt been done yet? go figure.

All I am saying is, to beleive in evolution, dont you HAVE to beleive in creation? To beleive in creation, u dont have to beleive in evolution…

i agree with you, but at mass we don’t EAT Jesus, we receive him
Podo The hobbit

 

[hecd2]

MikeB.:

Recently there have been TV specials that trace humankind back to one set of parents - one man and one woman. By DNA we are desended from one woman in Africa. Science even nicknamed her “Eve”.

Mike, you have misunderstood the science. Mitochondrial Eve is not a sole ancestor of humans. She is the Most Recent Common matrilineal Ancestor. Modern humanity had many other ancestors in her (and all other) generations. She lived about 175,000 years ago, before the emergence of modern humans. Go here for an explanation:
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

Alec

 

[bemmel]

I highly recommed the book, Darwin’s Black Box for any of these issues.

Read it!

 

[bones_IV]

Hi guys and gals,
Here’s my two cents. It’s impossible for man to ascend from ape. Evolution therefore is physically impossible. It dosen’t fully answer the question of where we come from. I don’t know about you guys but I think that the evolution thing sounds chancy. I believe that we were created out of nothing just like Genesis says. The church teaches we have only one set of parents Adam and Eve. We have no way of knowing if evolution really happened or not. My answer is that there is no way we could have ascended from a select species. Just my opinion.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

 

[hecd2]

Dismas2004:

Back in the 60’s or 70’s, a mathematician took the human DNA and chemistry and using some impressive math skills figured out how long it would take for a human to have evolved from a monkey, from which it had eveolved from a fish and so forth. In the end, he published his results in a book and made headlines. This brought about a lot of controversy because of the issue at hand. Scientist all over the world and mathematicians all tried to disprove his work, to see if he made a mistake. Funny thing happend :yup: , they came up with the same results! :crying:

I’m sure you’ll be able to favour us all with the name of that ‘mathematician’. You see, it really isn’t a very strong argument to come up with a vague story like this that as far as we can see is a total fabrication. Who, then, are you talking about?

As far as it being called a theory, that is just mere cosmetics. You can talk to any scientist and they will tell you that it isn’t like other theories. “Why” do you ask, because it isn’t testable per se or observable.

Well, you can talk to me - I’m a scientist. I can tell you that evolutionary biology is a science just like any other and it’s fully testable.

In regards to the pig in Nebraska, This is my favorite. It may have been S. Dakota, but I believe it was Nebraska.

Sure it wasn’t Kansas? Or Wyoming?

Well actually it was Nebraska

The story goes, a farmer found a fossil site, however it was a poor one and the only thing that was certain was a “tooth” fossil. Fromt hat Scientist made a jaw, then a head, then a torso, then a body, and so forth. And all of a sudden, it was a man. From that, they made a woman compliment. Darwinists used this as a prize for them and proof of evolution(it fit one of Darwin’s stages of Human Evolution, pretty well too.) Later on, another tooth was found, just like the first. But this time the whole fossil was preserved and what do you think they found? You guessed it, a WILD PIG :nope: :ehh:

This is a well attested story. Two fossil teeth was found. They were incorrectly attributed to a fossil hominid by a scientist called Osborn. Most other palaeontologists were extremely sceptical. An illustration of ‘Nebraska Man’ and his family appeared in a popular magazine (The Illustrated London News) not in a serious scientific journal. The fossil never received wide acceptance in the scientific community. By 1927, Osborn and his collegue Gregory had withdrwn their claim. The self-correcting nature of science had prevailed. ‘Nebraska Man’ had a very short reign and absolutely no influence on the general thrust of human palaeontology. How, in heaven’s name is this supposed to disprove evolution? If this is your favourite story about evolution and palaeontology I pity you. Read the whole story here:
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

Alec,

Based on what you said it gives me great hope in that you do not take for granted the source of science: people.

You appear to not have turned science into into a god, but rather an aid to your understanding of the natural universe.

It is perfectly fine and good for me to accept evolution as fact or theory within the confines of the discipline that has come to that conclusion.

The important part is that I only see it as a working model within that discipline, and where it contradicts the Bible’s account of creation, I will go with the Bible every time. (a matter of faith in God of course)

Dear Socali, well, I very much appreciate and respect your conclusions.

We differ in this respect. When I see that something is true in natural matters with the plain evidence of my senses (scientific experimental instruments are no more than extensions of our senses to which all data must ultimately be presented) I prefer to believe in a causal and uncapricious universe that operates according to laws that we can discover. If that leads to apparent conflicts with scripture, I always prefer to seek the figurative and far more powerful truth that lies beneath the apparent literal contradiction.

Take geocentrism - it is plain that it is literally wrong, but it arises from a profound notion that we have a complex and sophisticated sense of ourselves that leads us to put ourselves in the centre of our natural universe. In a similar vein, for me, the story of Adam and Eve, although it cannot be literally true, reveals deep truths about humanity coming into a sophisticated understanding of morality, developing an intelligence than can be perverted to vicious evil and enduring a fall from the innocence of other animals.

Of course anyone can believe that the cause of anything is miraculous - science can never disprove or even comment on such a claim. That is fine, just so long as people do not attempt to get these beliefs in miraculous causes taught in science classes.

I would honestly question anyone who put all their faith into science as a mechanism to understand all aspects of life. Science did not create itself, people did; and with that comes imperfections.

Of course, science is imperfect and our knowledge of the universe, is imperfect - every discovery leads to more questions. Newton as he drew near death said something that should be the motto of all scientists: ‘I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me’.

As for sources of understanding ourselves and our place in this baffling cosmos, science is a great instrument, but is one of many, and is no more important in revealing what matters than the care and tenderness in Lucien Freud’s paintings of Leigh Bowery, the stark terror of Thomas of Celaeno’s ‘Dies Irae’, the vast humanity of Shakespeare, the despair, anger and mourning of Wifred Owen in exposing the Old Lie, or the exquisite beauty of a Norfolk angel roof.

At some point the understanding that comes from the discipline of scientific method must be interpreted by some source outside science.

Science gives some degree of sight, but not at the cost of ignoring other means of understanding.

Quite so.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[J.W.B]

Hello all. Well evolution for me is no conflict, anymore that is. I believe like this: The NATURAL world is God’s creation. When we study nature we study simply God’s creation. Creation is created in a state of journeying and God promise’s it will be perfect in the new heavens and new earth. There are numerous spiritual meanings among physical things as well I believe. But non the less, was the Bible written by mindless roboticly controled men under God’s will? No! The holy authors knew what they were saying. They had their free will Yet at the same time God was speaking through them. It’s a controdition in terms but we cannot understand God’s ways. Likewise we can study creation and see how God did it for his own reasons. But in my opinon it’s foolish to say that life was merely an accident. Besides, there are many proofs or harmonous aspects that support the exsistence of God in life.