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

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am pleased to read all the harmonics of “The Word” in other literary pieces, and can contribute that as far as I know, other beliefs than the christianist maintain that the world was spoken or sung into existance. My own Mentor used to sign his letters “Man is a Song,” that stemming from his own experiential understanding and use of vibratory frequencies.

But (back to the thread in some form) after hearing all the stuff on here about evolution related arguments, can somone explain to me why Darwinism is such an anathema to some when the man himself was a trained cleric and acknowledged God as the Creator even unto the last line of Origin of Species? It seems that there is a lot on here, as far as I can see, that insists that the Universe is God’s “train set” and I just don’t see the need for Divine intervention in that way. I also don’t see that everything working as a continuum makes God any less. In fact, no intervention would seem to me to be evidence of the profundity of an original creation as distinct from something that needs constant adjustment. It would also seem more consitent with the Etrnality of God, as Eternality has no component of duration. So can someone clearly and concisely p(name removed by moderator)oint for me what the fuss is about? Or shall I go start another thread?

There is a number of issues:​

• Evolution is not well-founded scientifically
• Evolution is contrary to Catholic dogma
• Evolution is contrary to Sacred Scripture
• Jesus speaks of Adam & Eve in a way which validates their direct creation by God, thereby negating evolution of the body
• Evolution is atheistic & destructive of Christian morals
  Those are the objections that come to mind as having been made on CAF. There are sure to be others, but science is not my subject.

 

[Detales]

Anyone else?

 

[Orogeny]

The pope has not stated that common ancestry is a fact or anything near factual. I am certain of this. You are misunderstood.

From The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution:
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”
bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
This is an official Vatican document approved for publication by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004. According to this, you are wrong.

Also, I have read more than just Darwin’s work. In class we also studied some paleontolgists who built on his argument of common ancestry (for example, Johannsen and his work revolving around “Lucy” the Australopithecus Apherensis (sp?)). Their argument really was not convincing. And when I watch PBS I see a continuation of their same reasoning.

Why don’t you tell us what about the idea of common ancestry not to your liking.

I’m built to see things more broadly, I guess, than what the media and the scientific community presents to be true.

Perhaps you need to narrow down your vision and focus on the science.

I don’t mean to oppose you and the established scientific community but what am I supposed to do? Believe in something as scientific that doesn’t appear to be true to me based on what I already reasonably know? I am open to truth, for sure. But not false assumptions built on a profligate theory.

As part of your education, did you take any biology? Did you see the scientific evidence in a scientific setting? Do you understand the genetics, the paleontology, the phylogenetics? Why do you think that almost every biologist accepts evolution and common ancestry? Do you think, like others on this forum, that evolution is an atheistic trick?

Peace

Tim

 

[cerad]

Anyone else?

There is a number of issues:​

* Evolution is is one of science's most strongly supported theories
* Catholic dogma is irrelevant to science
* Sacred Scripture is irrelevant to science
* Creation myths are irrelevant to science
* Christian morals are irrelevant to science

There are more but that should do for now.

 

[rossum]

In class we also studied some paleontolgists who built on his argument of common ancestry (for example, Johannsen and his work revolving around “Lucy” the Australopithecus Apherensis (sp?)).

The spelling is: Australopithecus Afarensis.

Their argument really was not convincing. And when I watch PBS I see a continuation of their same reasoning.

Precisely what was it about their argument that you did not find convincing?

I don’t mean to oppose you and the established scientific community but what am I supposed to do? Believe in something as scientific that doesn’t appear to be true to me based on what I already reasonably know?

Apparent reasonableness is not always a good guide in science. Some very well established parts of quantum mechanics are downright unreasonable on the face of it, yet they are correct science.

rossum

 

[carmelaltarboy]

Bingo? I’m not sure you are understanding what is going on. Based on every article I’ve been able to find concerning Catholicism and Darwin Day, the story is that the Vatican is trying to distance itself from Intelligent Design and support Darwinian evolution.

How evolution can possibly be reconciled with Catholicism is a different story. Like you, I doubt that it is at all compatible. But the fact is that the Vatican is supporting evolution, and the new pope won’t be lending any support to design as was hoped by IDers.

Yikes! I hope that you looked at something more vaticanish than catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

Here is one to counter that one…post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/11/catholic-teaching-on-origin-of.html

Please tell me you did not rely on this article to substantiate a “vatican position”
nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html

I think tea leaves might divine you a better “vatican position” or possibly you might actually consult the catechism or even one of several papal documents…or possibly a couple of books written by John Paul the Great or even Benedict XVI. Do not rely on sociopathic zeitgheist teachings…all that german…yuck!

Let’s get reasonable.

I think you should re-examine just exactly what it is that “Darwinism” IS saying…especially those who are championing the cause now. They are using “Darwinism” to put forth the idea that it explains EVERYTHING! Hardly. The fact is that Darwinism actually asks more questions than it answers.

What came before that?

How did the first cell begin?

How about the missing link?

Why do not fossil records collaborate all fascets of Darwinism?
If true, why do not apes, our ancestors, die out as we are here to out compete them?

What are we evolving into? This one I find particularly prickly as we are supposedly made in the image and likeness of God. Was that the old us or the new us? or possibly the us that is to come…you know the couch potato with a huge cranium.

However it is the perfect Monday morning quarterbacking tool…“see that…the beak got longer because that bird needed a longer beak in order to pierce a fish. The ones with short beaks could not compete…”

Are you aware that current Darwinists have become raving lunatics that deny the possible existence of God? They espouse the idea that either electricity created the first cell (an unreplicatable theory, hardly scientific) or my favorite, aliens flew to the earth and “deposited” genetic material…are you kidding me? This is science? I am sorry but I just cannot buy it. I am one of those genetic throwbacks that is obedient to Rome, I guess I kinda think that Genisis isn’t a cute story…I actually believe that God created the earth in his time (Kairos) I just cannot believe that out of chaos comes order, or my kids’ rooms would be much cleaner.

 

[Leela]

Yikes! I hope that you looked at something more vaticanish than catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

Here is one to counter that one…post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/11/catholic-teaching-on-origin-of.html

Please tell me you did not rely on this article to substantiate a “vatican position”
nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html

Can you quote a “Vatican-ish” source so that I can know wher ethe Church stands on evolution?

 

[Orogeny]

The fact is that Darwinism actually asks more questions than it answers.

What is your basis for this claim?

What came before that?

Before what?

How did the first cell begin?

Not part of evolution.

How about the missing link?

I would guess that it is still missing or it would be “the found link” or maybe just “the link”.

The scientific term is transitional fossil and they are abundant in the fossil record.
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
That list was last updated in 1997 so it doesn’t even include things like Tiktaalik.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Why do not fossil records collaborate all fascets of Darwinism?

Which part is lacking?

If true, why do not apes, our ancestors, die out as we are here to out compete them?

Some of my ancestors came from France and some from Spain. Why are there still Frenchmen and Spaniards? Especially considering that they were my ancestors. Apes, of course, were not our ancestors.

What are we evolving into? This one I find particularly prickly as we are supposedly made in the image and likeness of God. Was that the old us or the new us? or possibly the us that is to come…you know the couch potato with a huge cranium.

Who knows? Does it matter? Does God look like us? Which one of us? Pygmies? NBA players?

However it is the perfect Monday morning quarterbacking tool…“see that…the beak got longer because that bird needed a longer beak in order to pierce a fish. The ones with short beaks could not compete…”

Especially for someone who knows little or no science but reads creationist propaganda and believes it.

Are you aware that current Darwinists have become raving lunatics that deny the possible existence of God?

Really? What about the raving lunatics that are not Darwinists? How do you explain them?

They espouse the idea that either electricity created the first cell (an unreplicatable theory, hardly scientific) or my favorite, aliens flew to the earth and “deposited” genetic material…are you kidding me? This is science? I am sorry but I just cannot buy it. I am one of those genetic throwbacks that is obedient to Rome, I guess I kinda think that Genisis isn’t a cute story…I actually believe that God created the earth in his time (Kairos) I just cannot believe that out of chaos comes order, or my kids’ rooms would be much cleaner.

Maybe you should point us to the official Church teaching that says that we cannot accept evolution.

By the way, out of chaos comes order. Check out a snowflake some time.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

What is your basis for this claim?Before what?Not part of evolution.I would guess that it is still missing or it would be “the found link” or maybe just “the link”.

The scientific term is transitional fossil and they are abundant in the fossil record.
toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
That list was last updated in 1997 so it doesn’t even include things like Tiktaalik.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Which part is lacking?Some of my ancestors came from France and some from Spain. Why are there still Frenchmen and Spaniards? Especially considering that they were my ancestors. Apes, of course, were not our ancestors.Who knows? Does it matter? Does God look like us? Which one of us? Pygmies? NBA players?Especially for someone who knows little or no science but reads creationist propaganda and believes it.Really? What about the raving lunatics that are not Darwinists? How do you explain them? Maybe you should point us to the official Church teaching that says that we cannot accept evolution.

By the way, out of chaos comes order. Check out a snowflake some time.

Peace

Tim

The snowflake is static and comes from nature.

It is far different from the self-assembly that EES is referring to.

 

[Orogeny]

The snowflake is static and comes from nature.

Then why is there more than one shape?

It is far different from the self-assembly that EES is referring to.

My, my. You are becoming quite the EES disciple, aren’t you?

Peace

Tim

 

[ready]

Like the Pope, I am open to the possibility of some form of evolution…I have said in my earlier posts that I agreed that some form of natural selection appears to be operant in populations over periods of time. I have no difficulty in acceptiong some theory of natural selection, however, one that doesn’t make the added claim of common ancestry with apes – as the evidence I took in in class and take in on PBS on common ancestry with apes is not convincing to me.

New findings in the fields of paleontology, anthropology, etc. may serve to support a theory of common ancestry with apes, but there is still debate on this issue and I just fall in with the minority of those who do not see the connections being made by certain mainstream paleontologists as anything necessarily true.

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.

 

[Orogeny]

I have no difficulty in acceptiong some theory of natural selection, however, one that doesn’t make the added claim of common ancestry with apes – as the evidence I took in in class and take in on PBS on common ancestry with apes is not convincing to me.

What evidence is needed for you to be convinced? The genetic evidence alone is extremely powerful.

New findings in the fields of paleontology, anthropology, etc. may serve to support a theory of common ancestry with apes, but there is still debate on this issue and I just fall in with the minority of those who do not see the connections being made by certain mainstream paleontologists as anything necessarily true.

What mainstream scientists oppose the idea of common ancestry based on science and not on their religious beliefs?

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.

Impressive. You should use some of that intelligence to study the subject that you are dismissing. I don’t mean a class on the Darwinian Revolution. I mean biology and geology (specifically paleontology) classes. Study genetics and genomics. If, after taking classes in those subjects, you still have scientific (not religious) reasons for doubting common ancestry, you will at least be in the position to have specific reasons for doubting rather than just being a free-thinker.

Peace

Tim

 

[JDaniel]

You are the one who brought up “final causes.”

You are reading more into what I said than I intended. I don’t think it is possible to refute the existence of any gods.

I know what I wrote, and I still don’t find anything philosophically interesting in the free will/determinism dualism.

Overtly flippant, yet covertly deceiving.

Since you find the idea of final causes inane as I do, I can’t see how we could disagree that the idea of gene survival as a final cause rather than an eficient cause (people don’t generally ever talk about any other sort) is inane.

Not like you, I do not “find the idea of final causes inane”. What I do find inane is that with one broad swish of a broom, one can sweep to the curb everything that is inherently higher in being than the gene. The entire conversation we are now having is senseless and unnecessary. A complete waste of time. . . . unless . . . unless, it can somehow elaborate, or embellish, the survival of the gene. You know what, you may have something here!

Since the primary dynamic of man is survival, and the gene is that piece that is critical to man’s survival, then it might well be you are right. We are, therefore, nothing more than “machines for survival”. More than that, we are machines for “living”. Perhaps all else is merely the chance meanderings of “machines of/for life” while in the unconditional stasis of life. All natural things, then, are sort of bumper cars, if you will. I like that. As absurd as life can be, at times, that would make some sense.

Plus, it would most unconditionally support the next, most important dynamic which is chance. This would seem to shore up the entire concept of evolution. Hmmm. I’m impressed! Again, you have proven to be more than irrelevant.

Thanks! I have to ponder this for a while.

jd

 

[Leela]

Not like you, I do not “find the idea of final causes inane”. What I do find inane is that with one broad swish of a broom, one can sweep to the curb everything that is inherently higher in being than the gene. The entire conversation we are now having is senseless and unnecessary. A complete waste of time. . . . unless . . . unless, it can somehow elaborate, or embellish, the survival of the gene.

I’ve never said that there is no higher being than the gene. It’s just that what is of issue in biological evolution is gene survival, and the statement “organisms are nothing more than survival macines for genes” is true in a biological evolution context only. Though biological evolution is not driven by any other higher purpose than gene survival, higher purposes have still evolved including our purposes for having this conversation. It’s just that such purposes as our purposes for having this conversation are irrelevant to biological evolution.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve never said that there is no higher being than the gene. It’s just that what is of issue in biological evolution is gene survival, and the statement “organisms are nothing more than survival macines for genes” is true in a biological evolution context only. Though biological evolution is not driven by any other higher purpose than gene survival, higher purposes have still evolved including our purposes for having this conversation. It’s just that such purposes as our purposes for having this conversation are irrelevant to biological evolution.

Best,
Leela

OK. I’m OK with this. But, what if they’re right? What if we’re just “bumper cars”? It’s a powerful magnet for the evolving thing, isn’t it?

Think of it like this: the more we are the more likely will be our survival. If we can create all cars to be bumper cars, there would be far fewer deaths on the world’s highways. So, intelligence would then be the next stage up from unintelligence towards our survival, thus, obeying the laws of survival.

What do you think?

jd

 

[Leela]

So, intelligence would then be the next stage up from unintelligence towards our survival, thus, obeying the laws of survival.

Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson (outspoken opponents of ID) argue for belief in evolution and belief in Christianity being compatible based on the proposition that the evolution of intelligent beings capable of apprehending and worshipping their creator was an inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process. Is this the position you are taking? It seems to me that some sort of argument of this kind is necessary for Christians to believe in evolution since Christianity holds a priveledged place for humanity as an important tenet.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson (outspoken opponents of ID) argue for belief in evolution and belief in Christianity being compatible based on the proposition that the evolution of intelligent beings capable of apprehending and worshipping their creator was an inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process. Is this the position you are taking? It seems to me that some sort of argument of this kind is necessary for Christians to believe in evolution since Christianity holds a priveledged place for humanity as an important tenet.

Best,
Leela

No, not at all. I think that God could easily have created the universe and living things WITH evolution as the furrow down which path life takes. So, for all intents and purposes, the gene might be His crowning achievement. I emphasize “might” because, of course, I don’t absolutely know for certain.

However, the dynamic of survival is surely the single most important dynamic of nature. If it is, then, how could life persist without a particularly reverent reverence to the gene?

(BTW, my background is, in fact, biology, botany and paleontology.)

I’m still pondering, as you can see.

jd

 

[Detales]

Carmelalterboy, excuse me, but did you read your post before submiting it? I don’t care what your stance is, it ought at least be internally coherent and include actual reasoning and facts as acknowledged even by the Church.

 

[ready]

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.

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.

 

[JDaniel]

Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson (outspoken opponents of ID) argue for belief in evolution and belief in Christianity being compatible based on the proposition that the evolution of intelligent beings capable of apprehending and worshipping their creator was an inevitable outcome of the evolutionary process.

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