Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[Orogeny]

Thank you, Orogeny, for your compliment. But I don’t want you to think that I think stupidly freely against what appears to be both sound and incontrovertably true. I naturally doubt a theory that has been scrutinised and observed by experts when it is not necessarily true and when that theory doesn’t jibe with what I see to be possible. Otherwise, I’d have to take that scientific theory on faith, as though it were something I needed to believe in in order to save my soul.

I guess my question is why don’t you see it to be possible? What scientific evidence do you feel is lacking?

We’d have to agree that knowledge of true science doesn’t contradict Church teaching either and that it is encompassed by Church teaching. Is not theology the heighest science, though only meta-physical in nature? I hope you don’t have a hard time with my last statement.

I don’t have a hard time with it. I disagree with it (I think geology is!), but each person is certainly allowed to have their own opinion.

Peace

Tim

 

[Leela]

I think the last part of your opening remarks is insufficiently stated. Rather, I think that you should say that, " ‘intelligent beings capable of apprehending and worshipping their creator was an inevitable outcome’ of searching for and finding the residues, or traces, of God left for us to find by science and reason."

jd

Ok, but the point is that for a Christian to believe in evolution and oppose ID, it seems to me that she must see the evolution of intelligence as inevitable, so that a designer is unneccessary–all that is needed is to start to process of evolution with the creation of the very first self-replicating entities.

It seems to me that there are two Christian answers to Darwin’s theory. One is to say that the evolution of humanity is so unlikely as to require a designer. The other is to say that the evolution of something humanoid was not only likely but even inevitable. Two very different estimates of the relevant proabilities are behind these positions.

 

[Sideline]

I’m sorry I’m not being very specific with you. Though I am not a biologist, I have a backgroung in the Arts and Sciences and loved statistics and experimental methods (earned A’s in both these classes) and got an A in the class that was specifically on the Darwinian Revolution. I have a high I.Q. according to the Mensa Test I took a while back and like to be open about things. Though that doesn’t make me an authority in the field of science, it still lets me feel comfortable being a free thinker within the parameters of reason.

Okay, so you aren’t dumb like the rest of us university graduates that did include biology in our course work. Apparently, I got my degree through being a narrow minded sheep that just accepted everything he was taught without critical thought. All that being said…

Do you have an actual argument?

Your intellectual superiority, and broad mindedness, isn’t an argument. Disbelieving something you saw on PBS isn’t an argument. If you want us to be in awe of your mighty intellect, why not make a real argument. If you think that evolution is fanciful, then what do you think is more realistic? And why do you think it is more realistic? How does it account for the evidence better than evolution? Give us a better explanation.

Failing a good counter argument, why not show us the error of our methods? Why not show us how our conclusions are unsupportable from the evidence?

You really should put that impressive mind to work and show us how foolish we have all been. I mean, if your argument is actually better, I’ll believe it. I’m kind of a sheep that way. I tend to follow the best evidence without thinking for myself after all.

Oh, and by the way, you would never have earned an A on a paper with any of my profs if your argument had simply been that you think evolution is far fetched… especially in a intermediate level course. (What does that even mean? 200 level? 300 level?) You could have argued against evolution, but you would had to have had… an argument.

And if you think getting an A means your position is correct, you are sadly mistaken. I got an A’s on papers for arguing that phrenology was legitimate science and arguing for the existence of vampires. I didn’t convince either of my instructors that I was right on these issues. I got the A because they were original and well-researched, but most importantly, because they contained very few spelling mistakes.

 

[ready]

My argument for believing against a theory of mans common ancestry with apes is not so much that *it is *impossible, but rather that I believe it to be most improbable. Experts serve us, yes, but in a limited capacity when we are dealing with things far too beautiful and unique as the origin of man. Truth can escape us in many a court case, just as it can in a theory glorified by the majority (rule).

 

[Sideline]

My argument for believing against a theory of mans common ancestry with apes is not so much that *it is *impossible, but rather that I believe it to be most improbable. Experts serve us, yes, but in a limited capacity when we are dealing with things far too beautiful and unique as the origin of man. Truth can escape us in many a court case, just as it can in a theory glorified by the majority (rule).

So, it’s not beautiful? That’s your argument?

Just trying to be clear.

 

[ready]

Sideline,

In my paper I accepted evolution (to involve natural selection) but not common ancestry with apes. I said the second claim(common ancestry with apes) was profligate and must have argued my point well enough in my paper.

 

[Sideline]

Sideline,

In my paper I accepted evolution (to involve natural selection) but not common ancestry with apes. I said the second claim(common ancestry with apes) was profligate and must have argued my point well enough in my paper.

Is your argument a secret?

 

[ready]

Sideline,

About the beauty issue: Natural selection is beautiful to me, as it is quite awesome…but the claim that we share common ancestry with apes is not so beautiful to me - it’s almost like a gross mass self-fulfilling prophesy being made real by the media and the majority of scientists who are convinced of their reasoning and supporting evidence, exposing their students and society to their view and convincing them. I’m on the other team!

 

[Orogeny]

Sideline,

About the beauty issue: Natural selection is beautiful to me, as it is quite awesome…but the claim that we share common ancestry with apes is not so beautiful to me - it’s almost like a gross mass self-fulfilling prophesy being made real by the media and the majority of scientists who are convinced of their reasoning and supporting evidence, exposing their students and society to their view and convincing them. I’m on the other team!

What does beauty have to do with it? Natural selection isn’t beautiful, it is very ugly. Animals that don’t compete die. The young and old get eaten. Those without the needed genetic makeup die of the disease. How is that beautiful?

Again I ask, what scientific evidence is lacking?

Peace

Tim

 

[ready]

Sideline,

I believe we share genes with our first parents - that is as clear to me. But saying that our first parents evolved from apes is more complicated. Sure you can study bones and geology and other things and come up with conclusions that weave into a perfect picture of man sharing common ancestry with apes. But people can be led to believe things that seem to be supported by a web of beliefs without substantial truth to be found in the matter.

 

[Orogeny]

Sideline,

I believe we share genes with our first parents - that is as clear to me. But saying that our first parents evolved from apes is more complicated.

And wrong.

Sure you can study bones and geology and other things and come up with conclusions that weave into a perfect picture of man sharing common ancestry with apes. But people can be led to believe things that seem to be supported by a web of beliefs without substantial truth to be found in the matter.

What the heck does that mean? Are we being lied to by the evidence? What is truth? Come on, put some of that Mensa ability to use. Tell me, what in our genetic code shows substantial truth?

Peace

Tim

 

[Jennifer_J]

I’m sorry I’m not being very specific with you. Though I am not a biologist, I have a backgroung in the Arts and Sciences and loved statistics and experimental methods (earned A’s in both these classes) and got an A in the class that was specifically on the Darwinian Revolution. I have a high I.Q. according to the Mensa Test I took a while back and like to be open about things. Though that doesn’t make me an authority in the field of science, it still lets me feel comfortable being a free thinker within the parameters of reason.

wow, you’ve taken a WHOLE class on Darwinian Revolution? And ONE class in stats? I’ll let my husband (a Ph.D. in Biology, btw) know that the next time he needs a peer reviewed paper, he should contact you

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you are interested in the topic of evolution and Darwin. It would be greater still if you had a clue about either course of study. One class does NOT an expert make, my friend. These are complex issues in multiple fields. Believe it or not, even just being married to a biologist doesn’t make me qualified to explain much of anything–though I do understand when dh explains things to me, I can’t re-explain it to anyone. Of course, I’ve never taken a Mensa test, so I guess I could just be stupid, who knows.

 

[Sideline]

Sideline,

About the beauty issue: Natural selection is beautiful to me, as it is quite awesome…but the claim that we share common ancestry with apes is not so beautiful to me - it’s almost like a gross mass self-fulfilling prophesy being made real by the media and the majority of scientists who are convinced of their reasoning and supporting evidence, exposing their students and society to their view and convincing them. I’m on the other team!

Want to know something really ugly? Entropy.

No scientific discovery bothers me more than entropy. I can handle the fact that I am going to die. But according to entropy it doesn’t stop there. My family will die out… humanity… the planet… the galaxy… and eventually the entire universe will die of heat death. Next to entropy, the idea that my nearest relatives are chimps and bonobos doesn’t bother me at all.

I don’t care that you don’t like the idea of common ancestry. It’s an opinion. Some people aren’t bothered by entropy. I am. I hate the idea to its core.

However, it’s a bit different to claim that my dislike of it shows a more broad minded attitude or keen insight. I’m not more intelligent because I don’t like it. My dislike of it doesn’t make it any less true.

Go ahead and disbelieve common ancestry, but don’t tell me that I am wrong, or that you have somehow seen it more clearly without being prepared to argue the point.

 

[ready]

Orogeny,

I thought it was beautiful because it is awesome, not because I thought of the death involved. I wasn’t even thinking of its negative side.

How fish can turn pink because of their diet and produce a whole new species over time because of a shift in their diet or environment. I think that’s really awesome.

I don’t have an argument to present to you, Orogeny. Just my word that I personally, little old me, find the evidence to be believable to many, but not convincing to myself.

 

[JDaniel]

Ok, but the point is that for a Christian to believe in evolution and oppose ID, it seems to me that she must see the evolution of intelligence as inevitable, so that a designer is unneccessary–all that is needed is to start to process of evolution with the creation of the very first self-replicating entities.

Very good! The start-off designer doesn’t have to be present, at all times and places, constantly tweaking, so to speak, that evolutionary process. This does not, then, preclude the possibility of something that we call “God” from instigating it all then letting it unfurrow on its own. And, if this is so - which you seem to agree that it appears to be - then wouldn’t you and I perhaps want to thank that start-off designer for the “push-off”? It appears to me that you are not God-less, you are just wrestling with the notion that it has to be the Judeo-Christian God. Are you agnostic in that sense?

I think many Christians are unsophisticated Christians. By that, I mean, they have little or no affinity with science. Then, coupled with the fact that science most likely can co-exist with a start-off designer, and their belief system is shattered. Remember, these are - like us - children. It is far easier to adhere to that which is didactically said to us, in the absense of an expansive laboratory, than it is to use reason and trust in other peoples’ wisdoms to accept much of what’s out there.

It seems to me that there are two Christian answers to Darwin’s theory. One is to say that the evolution of humanity is so unlikely as to require a designer. The other is to say that the evolution of something humanoid was not only likely but even inevitable. Two very different estimates of the relevant proabilities are behind these positions.

Except for the one, omnipotent, and quite possibly, preclusive exigency of “chance”, aka, probability - even if there was a preponderant drive towards an evolved intelligent creature. The “unlikely-ness factor” does not just go away on that account.

Further, “intelligence” has several meanings. (1) It is capacity for reason; and, (2) it is knowledge-items AND reason used to apprehend truth. Dogs and cats have a species of a capacity to reason and we can call that “intelligence”. They have limited reason though. They cannot conceive of, for example, the future perfect tense.

Much of grammar, seems to be superficial to survival, and, therefore, to evolution, in my opinion. I believe we have such grammatical constructs for “altruistic” reasons. The question is left, then, “What altruistic reasons?”

jd

 

[StAnastasia]

Ok, but the point is that for a Christian to believe in evolution and oppose ID, it seems to me that she must see the evolution of intelligence as inevitable, so that a designer is unneccessary–all that is needed is to start to process of evolution with the creation of the very first self-replicating entities.

It seems to me that there are two Christian answers to Darwin’s theory. One is to say that the evolution of humanity is so unlikely as to require a designer. The other is to say that the evolution of something humanoid was not only likely but even inevitable. Two very different estimates of the relevant proabilities are behind these positions.

Leela, a designer is unnecessary, but a Creator is necessary for a Christian. And your two options are not exhaustive. A third would say that the creator has instantiated an open universe with mathematical properties conducive to increasingly complex physical, chemical, biochemical, biological, genetic, and neurological capacities. Such a universe would lead to the evolution of life wherever conditions were suitable, and particularly to morally responsible and spiritually sensitive life. I don’t think one needs to maintain it is “inevitable” to claim that such increasing complexity seems integral to the Creator’s plan.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Leela, a designer is unnecessary, but a Creator is necessary for a Christian. And your two options are not exhaustive. A third would say that the creator has instantiated an open universe with mathematical properties conducive to increasingly complex physical, chemical, biochemical, biological, genetic, and neurological capacities. Such a universe would lead to the evolution of life wherever conditions were suitable, and particularly to morally responsible and spiritually sensitive life. I don’t think one needs to maintain it is “inevitable” to claim that such increasing complexity seems integral to the Creator’s plan.

StAnastasia

Except Catholic teaching is that God acts in and sustains His creation.

 

[Leela]

Very good! The start-off designer doesn’t have to be present, at all times and places, constantly tweaking, so to speak, that evolutionary process. This does not, then, preclude the possibility of something that we call “God” from instigating it all then letting it unfurrow on its own. And, if this is so - which you seem to agree that it appears to be - then wouldn’t you and I perhaps want to thank that start-off designer for the “push-off”? It appears to me that you are not God-less, you are just wrestling with the notion that it has to be the Judeo-Christian God. Are you agnostic in that sense?

No, I really don’t believe in any gods. I was just characterizing the debate on evolution that occurs within the Christian community. The Christian Creationists/ID proponents pretty much reject science while the Christian evolutionists like Kenneth Miller try to reconcile the two. My point is that to reconcile the two, somehow they need to maintain a priveledged place for humanity while simultaneously holding that humanity evolved through a process of impersonal natural selection. To do so, they need to argue that the evolution of a human-like lifeform was inevitable. This is what Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson have attempted in their books. But I don’t agree that hukanity was inevitable. I think that in their arguments, they pretty much regress to the sorts of claims made by the creationists whom they oppose.

Best,
Leela

 

[StAnastasia]

Except Catholic teaching is that God acts in and sustains His creation.

Of course!

 

[StAnastasia]

This is what Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson have attempted in their books. But I don’t agree that hukanity was inevitable. I think that in their arguments, they pretty much regress to the sorts of claims made by the creationists whom they oppose.Best,Leela

Leela, you’re ignoring the third option.