Good book on evolution?

[Dameedna]

You know another thing that has really frusturated me is a lack of charitability on both sides.

I think this will change over time. At the moment, there seems to be a general concensus that if 'evolution" is fact, then there goes God. People have their “book” as their proof of creation(the bible) and of God. If their interpretation of a book, is shown to be inaccurate, then so is to a degree their belief in God. This is scary stuff for some people.

It’s a shame, because both the mystery of god, and the absolutely Gobsmaking understanding(to date) of how we got here are both equally worthy of pursuit.

There is very little that is charitable between the two groups. I suspect you’ll have to read very secular views, and religious ones, and figure out what seems most realistic to you. I’m 100% on the side of evoluton myself, and am a tad horrified that people would call ID science, but I don’t think scientists need to get too worked up about it. It’s more an educational thing and will go away eventually. Dawkins types, don’t reach to believers, he is preaching to the choir.

One book, that I did enjoy, surprisingly(I’m agnostic) was The language of God, written by the head of the human genome project. A hard core biologist, and fairly middle of the road christian. I don’t agree with his religious views, but he does show how science and faith mix, and he does go into some of the rudimentaries of Evolution, with a more "gentle’ touch.

I think it’s worth ready ALL the points of views, not just the scientific ones, and it’s interesting to see how people can reconcile the two views.

I will say though, that when you start getting into the GUTS of evolution it is extremely complicated. Not maybe so much as quantum physicis but it comes close and there are many gaps in our knowlege.

Enjoy your explorations on this topic, it’s a fascinating area of study.

 

[Larry1700]

I was watching a TV show (Discovery Science Channel?) regarding string theory. I know next to nothing about the theory, but one of the scientists said something that affirmed what I’ve seen for years.

A little background (and forgive my inaccuracies regarding the science, but the point should still be clear)…
For years, most scientists who study string theory concluded there must be 10 dimensions. One lone scientist, Michael Duff, of the University of Michigan, believed an 11th dimension exists. He was dismissed for many years, but was recently vindicated.

During the show, Professor Duff said a couple of interesting things (I’m paraphrasing):

1. Scientists don’t always follow the facts. Often, they follow the popular/politically correct opinions.
2. His students were reluctant to learn his theory, because all the jobs were for those who studied the popular theory.

My point is that just because “most scientists say” this or that doesn’t hold much water. Those already working in the field may be either reluctant to go against the flow, or unwilling to think for themselves. Those who are studying in the field (students) may be trained in one school of thought only because it’s the popular one, either by the professor’s choice or by their own.

 

[Donald45]

Didn’t you say you believed in ID though… so are you saying its a god of the gaps argument that is true?

No, let me clarify. I accept the central thesis of ID, that is, that the expression of order in the natural world is an indication of the creative activity of God. However, I’m careful to note that this is an essentially theological or doctrinal conviction, and not a scientific conclusion. So, for me, this is not a god-of-the-gaps principle (filling in for a current lack of scientific knowledge), but is simply a part of my overall theological belief system, which I derive as a Catholic from Sacred Scripture and Solemn Tradition.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Dameedna]

No, let me clarify. I accept the central thesis of ID, that is, that the expression of order in the natural world is an indication of the creative activity of God. However, I’m careful to note that this is an essentially theological or doctrinal conviction, and not a scientific conclusion. So, for me, this is not a god-of-the-gaps principle (filling in for a current lack of scientific knowledge), but is simply a part of my overall theological belief system, which I derive as a Catholic from Sacred Scripture and Solemn Tradition.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

The central Thesis of ID, is that

1. There is a God.
2. Science cannot prove their isn’t.
3. Here’s evidence of what science cannot prove.

ID has, and alway’s has been a God of the Gaps. It’s actually a 150yr old concept, which was debunked many years ago, and has re-arisen, due to the manipulative nature of those that do not understand science but live in a world of science and proof.

Like all things that can,(and have been) proven wrong, ID will die a natural death. Don’t think that there is anything “spiritual” in ID. There isn’t. It is a manipulatin of science and truth, and is dishonesty and lies.

ID is NOT about a creative force. It tries to “prove” a concept different to evolution, because of the things evolution cannot explain…yet.

ID is based on nothing, but what science cannot yet prove. As soon as Science proves something, ID changes. There is no faith or integrity in something that continually changes in reaction to subsequent proofs.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No, let me clarify. I accept the central thesis of ID, that is, that the expression of order in the natural world is an indication of the creative activity of God. However, I’m careful to note that this is an essentially theological or doctrinal conviction, and not a scientific conclusion. So, for me, this is not a god-of-the-gaps principle (filling in for a current lack of scientific knowledge), but is simply a part of my overall theological belief system, which I derive as a Catholic from Sacred Scripture and Solemn Tradition.

My only objection to the notion of ID as a religious doctrine, is that it is somewhat disrespectful of God to consider Him a “designer” instead of The Creator.

I realize that most IDers don’t think of it as so, but I think it’s unwise to put God in the same category as His creatures.