I
ibetrippin07
Guest
Also note my friends that these are die hard evolutionists…
- Status
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
“Among the most important relics are the structures we see in the sky; many stars are grouped into clusters, the clusters themselves along with loose stars like our sun are grouped into galaxies, and the galaxies themselves are grouped into clusters of galaxies. A second great disappointment of astrophysics has been that we still do not have a clear and detailed understanding of how these structures were formed. We do not even know whether the smaller structures formed first and then coalesced into the larger ones, or whether the larger structures formed first and then broke up into smaller ones…It is also a bit disturbing that all these estimates of the ages and compositions of the stars rest on elaborate calculations of what is going on inside them, but all that we observe is the light emitted from their surfaces.”
-Steven Wienberg another leading astrophysicist
“For the past century, scientists have discussed the question of cosmological order in the context of the laws of thermodynamics. According to the second law, the Universe is inexorably degenerating, sliding irreversibly towards a state of maximum entropy, or chaos. Yet the facts flatly contradict this image of a dying Universe. Far from sliding towards a featureless state, the Universe is progressing from featureless to states of greater organization and complexity. This cosmic progress defines a global arrow of time that points in the opposite way to the thermodynamic arrow.”
-Paul Davies and yet as far as observation of the universe is concerned the second law is still universal in its effects, not self organization.
Heres for those of you who think you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, pure ignorance here
“That people in our age can belive that they have had a personal encounter with God, that they could belive that they have experienced conversion through a ‘mystical experience of God,’ so that they are born again in the Holy Spirit, is something that attests to human irrationality and a lack of sense of reality.”
“I want you to entertain the hypothesis that Christian doctrine, the existential soother par excellence, is incompatible with the principles of sound mental health and contributes more to the genesis of human suffering than to its alleviation…In my view, all religions are inhuman anachronisms, but here I am only dealing with Christianity and, more specifically, with the noxious nature of Christian doctrine at the personal and interpersonal levels.”
Wendell W. Watters, Kai Nielsen.
OF course this is nothing new, for its simply men “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:22)
-Steven Wienberg another leading astrophysicist
“For the past century, scientists have discussed the question of cosmological order in the context of the laws of thermodynamics. According to the second law, the Universe is inexorably degenerating, sliding irreversibly towards a state of maximum entropy, or chaos. Yet the facts flatly contradict this image of a dying Universe. Far from sliding towards a featureless state, the Universe is progressing from featureless to states of greater organization and complexity. This cosmic progress defines a global arrow of time that points in the opposite way to the thermodynamic arrow.”
-Paul Davies and yet as far as observation of the universe is concerned the second law is still universal in its effects, not self organization.
Heres for those of you who think you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, pure ignorance here
“That people in our age can belive that they have had a personal encounter with God, that they could belive that they have experienced conversion through a ‘mystical experience of God,’ so that they are born again in the Holy Spirit, is something that attests to human irrationality and a lack of sense of reality.”
“I want you to entertain the hypothesis that Christian doctrine, the existential soother par excellence, is incompatible with the principles of sound mental health and contributes more to the genesis of human suffering than to its alleviation…In my view, all religions are inhuman anachronisms, but here I am only dealing with Christianity and, more specifically, with the noxious nature of Christian doctrine at the personal and interpersonal levels.”
Wendell W. Watters, Kai Nielsen.
OF course this is nothing new, for its simply men “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:22)
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
“One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.” – Eldredge & Tattersall,The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46
“For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding…Today the fossil record…is forcing us to revise this conventional view” – S.M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p 3
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D.Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3
“…the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” - David E.Schindel, Curator at Peabody Museum of Natural History
“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. … In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny” – P.L.Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p120-121
“I agree…that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record” – R.M. Schoch, ‘Evolution Debate’, Letterin Science, April 22, 1983, p360
“The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal” – R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p 45
“For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution” - PeterWard & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150
“One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups” - A. G. Fisher,Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section
Abrupt appearance??? sounds like creation to me.
“…the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
What about the early state?? where are these…NOWHERE
“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” - Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution,1979, p. 266.
abruptly again eh? evolution does not support this yet out of ignorance they continue to believe!
“The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors’ new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way” - Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p 45-46
“The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record” - S.J. Gould, ‘Cordelia’s Dilemma’, Natural History, Feb1993, p 15
Yea it is pretty darn embarrassing!
Anyone wanna discuss the pathetic fossil follies of the past in evolution? Now that all my quotes are out there I think we see what the real authorities on evolution have to say
“For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding…Today the fossil record…is forcing us to revise this conventional view” – S.M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p 3
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D.Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3
“…the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” - David E.Schindel, Curator at Peabody Museum of Natural History
“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. … In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny” – P.L.Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p120-121
“I agree…that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record” – R.M. Schoch, ‘Evolution Debate’, Letterin Science, April 22, 1983, p360
“The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal” – R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p 45
“For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution” - PeterWard & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150
“One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups” - A. G. Fisher,Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section
Abrupt appearance??? sounds like creation to me.
“…the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
What about the early state?? where are these…NOWHERE
“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” - Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution,1979, p. 266.
abruptly again eh? evolution does not support this yet out of ignorance they continue to believe!
“The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors’ new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way” - Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p 45-46
“The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record” - S.J. Gould, ‘Cordelia’s Dilemma’, Natural History, Feb1993, p 15
Yea it is pretty darn embarrassing!
Anyone wanna discuss the pathetic fossil follies of the past in evolution? Now that all my quotes are out there I think we see what the real authorities on evolution have to say
P
PhilVaz
Guest
ibe << Yea it is pretty darn embarrassing! Anyone wanna discuss the pathetic fossil follies of the past in evolution? Now that all my quotes are out there I think we see what the real authorities on evolution have to say >>
You forgot a few quotes:
From a booklet "Evolution and the Fossil Record" (PDF) published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society:
“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record, 2001, pages 1, 10, 13)
From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:
“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" American Biology Teacher, March 1973)
From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:
“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)
From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:
“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)
From Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, called the “Darwin of the 20th century”:
“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)
From the International Theological Commission of Cardinal Ratzinger, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God”:
“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. 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. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, document published July 2004)
Two can play that game. The Catholic Church (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Schonborn) has no problem with the science of biological evolution properly understood. See the "Quote Mine" Project page of TalkOrigins.
Phil P
You forgot a few quotes:
From a booklet "Evolution and the Fossil Record" (PDF) published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society:
“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record, 2001, pages 1, 10, 13)
From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:
“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" American Biology Teacher, March 1973)
From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:
“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)
From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:
“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)
From Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, called the “Darwin of the 20th century”:
“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)
From the International Theological Commission of Cardinal Ratzinger, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God”:
“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. 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. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, document published July 2004)
Two can play that game. The Catholic Church (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Schonborn) has no problem with the science of biological evolution properly understood. See the "Quote Mine" Project page of TalkOrigins.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
ibe << Heres for those of you who think you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, pure ignorance here…Wendell W. Watters, Kai Nielsen >>
Uh, Kai Nielsen is a well-known atheist philosopher. Of course he doesn’t believe evolution and Christianity are compatible. He doesn’t believe in God to begin with. However, there are certainly many atheists or non-believing skeptics who think evolution (i.e. science) and Christianity are compatible (Michael Ruse for one, his many books you can find at your local Barnes/Noble or Borders).
You need to read the four books I’ve recommended in here for a number of years now. They are (drum roll)…
Miller, Kenneth R. (1999), Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
Miller, Keith B. (2003), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.
Falk, Darrel (2004), Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.
Collins, Francis (2006), The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
All Christian believers, all strong evolutionists, all present the scientific evidence for evolution in a detailed manner with much discussion of the theological objections, how to interpret Genesis, etc. These four books will set you straight. Here are two quotes from two of them.
First, Keith Miller, evangelical geologist of Kansas State, on why creation cannot be a scientific theory:
“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)
Second, from Darrel Falk, evangelical biologist from a Nazarene Univ, on why miracles cannot be tested, and why evolution is correct:
“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)
Phil P
Uh, Kai Nielsen is a well-known atheist philosopher. Of course he doesn’t believe evolution and Christianity are compatible. He doesn’t believe in God to begin with. However, there are certainly many atheists or non-believing skeptics who think evolution (i.e. science) and Christianity are compatible (Michael Ruse for one, his many books you can find at your local Barnes/Noble or Borders).
You need to read the four books I’ve recommended in here for a number of years now. They are (drum roll)…
Miller, Kenneth R. (1999), Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
Miller, Keith B. (2003), Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.
Falk, Darrel (2004), Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.
Collins, Francis (2006), The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
All Christian believers, all strong evolutionists, all present the scientific evidence for evolution in a detailed manner with much discussion of the theological objections, how to interpret Genesis, etc. These four books will set you straight. Here are two quotes from two of them.
First, Keith Miller, evangelical geologist of Kansas State, on why creation cannot be a scientific theory:
“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)
Second, from Darrel Falk, evangelical biologist from a Nazarene Univ, on why miracles cannot be tested, and why evolution is correct:
“The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method…The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods…For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually…We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God.” (Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)
Phil P
E
edwest2
Guest
No. The Church only promotes the God did it model. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
E
Ender
Guest
Interesting quotes. Here are some from Ernst Mayr (once referred to by Gould as the world’s foremost living evolutionary biologist):
"From Darwin’s day to the present, there has been a heated controversy over whether macroevolution is nothing but an unbroken continuation of microevolution, as Darwin and his followers had claimed, or rather is disconnected from microevolution, as asserted by his opponents, and that it must be explained by a different set of theories. According to this view, there is a definite discontinuity between the species level and that of the higher taxa.
The reason why this controversy has not been fully settled is there seems to be an astonishing conflict between theory and observation."
The reason I like Mayr is that he honestly recognizes problems that Darwinism (the evolutionary systhesis) has not resolved.
“In the rise of the metazoans (animals), one would expect that soon after their appearance in the fossil record they would consist of a series of rather similar orders that would become increasingly more dissimilar to each other in the course of time. Yet the facts are astonishingly different from this assumption!”
“Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On the one hand, there is a pervasive continuity in the gradual change in the populations of a species through time and space, and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.”
Ender
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Ed << No. The Church only promotes the God did it model. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. >>
As pointed out a hundred times already, science is neither theistic nor atheistic, it is neutral. It doesn’t concern God. The Pope will tell you that, Cardinal Schonborn will tell you that. It is only atheistic scientists (such as Richard Dawkins) or atheistic philosophers (such as Kei Nielsen) who argue that science or evolution is atheism. That is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
Science is methodologically natural, as explained by Keith Miller, evangelical geologist from Kansas State:
“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? the debate book co-authored by Johnson/Lamoureux, with many contributers)
Phil P
As pointed out a hundred times already, science is neither theistic nor atheistic, it is neutral. It doesn’t concern God. The Pope will tell you that, Cardinal Schonborn will tell you that. It is only atheistic scientists (such as Richard Dawkins) or atheistic philosophers (such as Kei Nielsen) who argue that science or evolution is atheism. That is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
Science is methodologically natural, as explained by Keith Miller, evangelical geologist from Kansas State:
“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? the debate book co-authored by Johnson/Lamoureux, with many contributers)
Phil P
E
edwest2
Guest
Hi Phil,
As previously pointed out to you, or maybe you missed it, Pope Benedict included the following statement in the Homily of his first mass as Pope:
“We are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution.”
Next, Human Persons Created in the Image of God makes the following statement about science:
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Part 69.
Get it right Phil. The Catholic Church does combine science and divine revelation, especially in regard to this subject.
Peace,
Ed
As previously pointed out to you, or maybe you missed it, Pope Benedict included the following statement in the Homily of his first mass as Pope:
“We are not some casual, meaningless product of evolution.”
Next, Human Persons Created in the Image of God makes the following statement about science:
“An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist…” Part 69.
Get it right Phil. The Catholic Church does combine science and divine revelation, especially in regard to this subject.
Peace,
Ed
S
steveandersen
Guest
Who are you to say what a person believes?
And what makes you think that evolution has anything to do with belief?
“Stunning” lol
You do know that Goldschimdt has been dead for 50 years don’t you?
There is a little more unanimity now than then
But of course there is work to do on the details
That is why that is why there are scientists and labs
If everyone knew everything already they could all just go home.
Lack of unanimity on the details does not imply that there is no unanimity on the big picture.
After all, the church still has theologians 2000 years after the end of revelation. These theologians can and do have heated debates on the details. That is not a refutation of Catholicism.
Yeah?
Same can be said of gravity although for gravity it is much worse.
See above with regard to the difference between hashing out the details and accepting the broad picture.
BTW is this the Keith S. Thomson who is a museum director and not a research biologist?
Once again, so what?
Evolution theory is predicated on variance in populations.
A population that (for whatever reason) evolved very slowly would leave a very bland historical record.
I don’t know much about the dating of strata… you have to ask one of our resident geologist on this forum
BUT
Since species can change faster than some strata it seem reasonable to use the presence or absence of various fossils as a way to differentiate or date the strata
It is sort of like looking at a series of yearly photos of the same street corner. The buildings may have stayed the same for decades but the cars change and help you date the photos.
Obviously when you date things you must use several metrics.
Maybe… maybe not
Doesn’t preclude non-philatelic evolution.
That is pretty much what evolution says it happens in isolated populations. Your point?
Continued
S
steveandersen
Guest
Continued
While SOME portions of Lyell’s uniformitarianism have been rejected e.g. Uniformity of result. Others such as Uniformity of law are generally accepted.
Again I’m not sure why you think that refinement of ideas over time would “demoralize” anyone? This isn’t a religion after all with some sort of unchanging Truth.
it just science
like Goldschimdt and Lyell, Hoyle is dead so he might not reflect the most up-to-date views on the subject.
I thought you were going to provide quotes to show that “evolutionists” (whatever that is) don’t “believe” in evolution. Hoyle was a well-known evolution skeptic. No news there
BUT
(A) What do astronomers have to do with biology?
(B) abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Evolution really doesn’t care what the starting point is. It just describes what happens afterward.
(C) It seems like you and Dr Hoyle need to think about large numbers and deep time
ubetrippin all right
the fossil record is part of the many evidences for evolution
Lyell? A 19th century geologist?
While SOME portions of Lyell’s uniformitarianism have been rejected e.g. Uniformity of result. Others such as Uniformity of law are generally accepted.
Again I’m not sure why you think that refinement of ideas over time would “demoralize” anyone? This isn’t a religion after all with some sort of unchanging Truth.
it just science
You mean former astrophysists?
like Goldschimdt and Lyell, Hoyle is dead so he might not reflect the most up-to-date views on the subject.
I thought you were going to provide quotes to show that “evolutionists” (whatever that is) don’t “believe” in evolution. Hoyle was a well-known evolution skeptic. No news there
BUT
(A) What do astronomers have to do with biology?
(B) abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Evolution really doesn’t care what the starting point is. It just describes what happens afterward.
(C) It seems like you and Dr Hoyle need to think about large numbers and deep time
Is that the best you got?
ubetrippin all right
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Mayr is talking about the mechanism that is debated. Common descent is not debated. That is considered a fact by Mayr. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Another Mayr quote:
“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)
What are these books recommended by Mayr? They are:
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma (Sinauer Assoc, 1998, updated again in 2005) – 763 pages
Evolution by Mark Ridley (Wiley-Blackwell, 2003) – 792 pages
Evolution by Monroe W. Strickberger (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2000) – 722 pages
You’d think that in books of 763, 792, and 722 pages respectively, they would have a little evidence for evolution to show you. Anyone can check them out at a university library.
Phil P
“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)
What are these books recommended by Mayr? They are:
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma (Sinauer Assoc, 1998, updated again in 2005) – 763 pages
Evolution by Mark Ridley (Wiley-Blackwell, 2003) – 792 pages
Evolution by Monroe W. Strickberger (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2000) – 722 pages
You’d think that in books of 763, 792, and 722 pages respectively, they would have a little evidence for evolution to show you. Anyone can check them out at a university library.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Ed << Get it right Phil. The Catholic Church does combine science and divine revelation, especially in regard to this subject. >>
The Church does not want to change the definition of science. That is what the Discovery Institute wants to do. The Church is merely responding to the Richard Dawkins’, Kai Nielsen’s, Steven Weinberg’s, Victor Stenger’s, and Neil deGasse Tyson’s of the world.
For an example of what I am talking about, see the book Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? published by Prometheus Books (2003). The majority of contributors in this book answer No, they are not compatible.
That is what the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn) is responding to in (1) the ITC statement on “unguided” and “divine providence”, (2) Benedict’s quote on “causal” and “meaningless” evolution, and (3) Schonborn’s original piece in the NY Times, and his subsequent book clarifying his position. Science and Religion are compatible, but we don’t want to change how the scientific method works nor re-define science.
Phil P
The Church does not want to change the definition of science. That is what the Discovery Institute wants to do. The Church is merely responding to the Richard Dawkins’, Kai Nielsen’s, Steven Weinberg’s, Victor Stenger’s, and Neil deGasse Tyson’s of the world.
For an example of what I am talking about, see the book Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? published by Prometheus Books (2003). The majority of contributors in this book answer No, they are not compatible.
That is what the Catholic Church (Pope Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn) is responding to in (1) the ITC statement on “unguided” and “divine providence”, (2) Benedict’s quote on “causal” and “meaningless” evolution, and (3) Schonborn’s original piece in the NY Times, and his subsequent book clarifying his position. Science and Religion are compatible, but we don’t want to change how the scientific method works nor re-define science.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
stevea << Is that the best you got? ubetrippin all right >>
Good job, Steve. IBe needs to read the previous 4.5 billion posts and threads we’ve had on this topic for many years in here. 
Here’s a sample IBe can check out
And don’t forget the "Quote Mine" Project at TalkOrigins.
Phil P
Good job, Steve. IBe needs to read the previous 4.5 billion posts and threads we’ve had on this topic for many years in here. Here’s a sample IBe can check out
And don’t forget the "Quote Mine" Project at TalkOrigins.
Phil P
S
steveandersen
Guest
If we spent all that time reading we would evolve into a huge pair of eyes with a single hand for moving the mouse.stevea << Is that the best you got? ubetrippin all right >>
Here’s a sample IBe can check out
And don’t forget the "Quote Mine" Project at TalkOrigins.
Phil P
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
O phil I could honestly care less what the pope has to say about evolution, simply what the scientific evidence and the bible itself have to say.
sure you can play the game, why dont we play the evidence game?
sure you can play the game, why dont we play the evidence game?
E
Ender
Guest
What I said about Mayr was that he was honest enough to point out problems with the theory, not that he didn’t believe the theory. (My quotes were all from What Evolution Is).
I will point out yet again that proof of evolution is not necessarily proof of Darwinism. The problems Mayr points out are with the mechanism by which it is supposed to have happened (Darwinism), not with the fact of evolution itself.
Ender
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
Clearly we have all gone “quote happy” as to really solve nothing.
Honestly my quotes are better, they are forefront leaders of evolution.
For example if you pulled a quote from Hank Hanegraaff, or an early apostle saying evolution is the way! then maybe your argument would be convincing where as i have quotes from lyel, Darwin, early evolutionary fathers who saw the problems with their own theory.
Yet you only find people I have never heard of, that are hardly known in the Christian community, and you fail to find creationists finding a problem with their own theory, where as i have shown evolutionists have problems with theirs and the open minded acknowledge it, but let us continue to discuss the fossil follies?
Honestly my quotes are better, they are forefront leaders of evolution.
For example if you pulled a quote from Hank Hanegraaff, or an early apostle saying evolution is the way! then maybe your argument would be convincing where as i have quotes from lyel, Darwin, early evolutionary fathers who saw the problems with their own theory.
Yet you only find people I have never heard of, that are hardly known in the Christian community, and you fail to find creationists finding a problem with their own theory, where as i have shown evolutionists have problems with theirs and the open minded acknowledge it, but let us continue to discuss the fossil follies?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Still looks like a troll, but let’s do a little batting practice with some of the old scams presented therein:
Let’s take a look…
So tell me which “evolutionist” doesn’t agree with evolution?
Old and edited quote you cut and pasted from some of the less honest creationist sites. You think we haven’t seen this before?
Let’s take a look…
Goldschmidt, as you might know, was on the fringes of biology. But he’s right, about this; while almost all biologists acknowledge the fact of evolution, there is disagreement on some of the details. But a lot less than when he wrote that in the 30s. There has been more discovery in biology since then, than existed before. Eighty-year-old quote-mining. Still looks kinda trollish.
Thompson is here speaking of the new science of evolutionary development (evo-devo) and the discovery that evolution is much more interesting and complicated than Darwin imagined. It is, as he says, exciting. From the examination of homobox genes we have opened some difficult questions, and confirmed many theories based on inferences from fossils and anatomy alone. Such stuff is exactly the opposite of “demoralizing;” it is what we do science for.
Indeed. Gould is pointing out that it is the odd incongruities of organisms (like our backward-arranged retina or our vestigial tails) that provide a look into evolution. If we were perfect in every respect, there wouldn’t be much clue as to how we became as were are.
Yep. The early geologists soon noted that the same fossils always turned up in the same place in the geologic column. Soon, they were able to show that the presence of certain fossils always correlated with certain rocks. At least in England, they did. Many are still useful, and some new ones have been found, although some were later found to have a wider distribution in time than initial evidence indicated. However, the geologists did not use the fossils to work out relative dating of rocks; that was by the law of superposition. Only later, did they realize that the fossils could also be used for that purpose, so no circularity was involved. They were, BTW, creationists. Surprise.
Thirty-five years ago, when Stanley was doing his work on phyletic evolution, that might have been true. But with the discovery of the transitionals between hoofed mammals and whales, and between dinosaurs and birds, and between reptiles and mammals, that is no longer the case. Paleontology has progressed a lot in the last half-century.
Actually, Stephen Gould, who first proposed punctuated equilibrium, points out horses, ammonites, and forams as examples of gradual evolution in non-isolated populations. Most speciation seems to be by geographical isolation (we have an event happening right now, as the Alberts and Kaibab squirrels are now either separate species or very nearly so)
Proof isn’t part of science, but yes, we can show very great but very gradual change in the fossil record. Would you like to see it?
Often, but not always. Want to learn about it?
Fred Hoyle was an astron0mer, and he didn’t know much at all about Gelogy. For example, “uniformitarianism” doesn’t mean “gradualism.” Lyell was quite aware of catastrophic change, and wrote about it. Hoyle was a barber trying to tell mechanics how to rebuild an engine.
This is about abiogenesis, not evolution. And he’s wrong. For example, we now know that amino acids and peptides form abiotically. And we also know that RNA can self-catalyze. But you can’t blame Hoyle for that; he wrote that about 30 years ago, before we discovered these things. Hoyle, BTW, also wrote that insects are likely smarter than we are.
Sounds like fun. Got any from this century?
I
ibetrippin07
Guest
again i will point out a greater weakness in your arguments for evolution, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, houses the world’s largest fossil collection about sixty million specimens said when asked why he did not provide fossil evidence In his book for proof to include in an article he responded “If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them”
David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says this
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much… We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
That should really hit home, in all honesty, these are major sources for fossil evidence and who have you mentioned in return? people who don’t own museums that house the greatest numbers? have you mentioned some who could equate to billy Gram, or Hank HaneGraaff?? NO
David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago says this
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much… We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”
That should really hit home, in all honesty, these are major sources for fossil evidence and who have you mentioned in return? people who don’t own museums that house the greatest numbers? have you mentioned some who could equate to billy Gram, or Hank HaneGraaff?? NO
- Status