E
edwest2
Guest
cells > ----- > multiple cells > ----- > fish > ---- > amphibians > ---- > man
Supposedly after billions of generations. Bacteria do not exhibit this level of transformation nor do viruses.
Peace,
Ed
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Supposedly after billions of generations. Bacteria do not exhibit this level of transformation nor do viruses.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
The Biology textbook explicity excludes God as a direct causal agent. That’s the type of evolution kids get taught in schools and it is acceptable in schools precisely because it is 100% religion free. This suits atheists who then take it to the next level. See. No God required. And here, most posts are pushing the no God required form of evolution currently taught in public schools. As a Catholic, I hope you can understand that kids in public schools are not getting the whole story. Jesus died for them and created the World. Like a friend of mine once told me, “I don’t believe in God. I believe in evolution.” That’s what happens if you only get part of the answer to why you are hereI can’t understand why otherwise rational people are so opposed to the theory of evolution. Any other theory with the evidential support that evolution enjoys is, generally, widely accepted. While certain aspects of the theory may have to change due to dcientific advances that produce new evidence, the basic theiry is incredibly sound.
Even the Church accepts the possibility that God may have chosen evolution as part of His plan for creation. Faith in God as the Creator is not at odds with evolution which is simply a methodology for positive mutations that improve life’s chances to survive. As long as God is the Prime Mover in the process, I don’t understand the issue with evolution’s disbelievers.
And some Biology textbooks are more explicit in denying any outside supernatural interference in the process.
Peace,I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all. Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution – this contradicts the claim that “everything is designed” and that there is design to be found in nature.
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Bacteria that is pretty much completely different to it’s prior generations, are you expecting the thing to turn into a goose?Simple. Bacteria have built-in abilities. They are pre-existing. Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. Too bad macro-creatures can’t do that. But at the end of the day, they remain bacteria.
Peace,
Ed
Bacteria can exchange, and with its rapid reproduction rate and mutation rates, bacteria can be become genetically immune to antibiotics it has been exposed to.
Macro-creatures can.
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
It wasn’t a fact ever?It wasn’t a fact, ever. It was the reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. You may be interested in trying to find the word “fact” used as you suggest on this – that is not scientific language to apply to the conclusions. Science is provisional, and constantly open to new evidence as that the basis for revising, updating and overturning its conclusions. The discovery of Anchiornis huxleyi and the subsequent rethinking of the current best conclusions in light of it is precisely the evidence that sicence is not what you claim it is – dogmatic, incorrigible, driven toward *a priori *conclusions.
On the thread topic, this is an informative section on the Cal-Berkeley evolution site about evolution and its relevance and value to medicine:
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/medicine_01
The bullet points on this page under “Applying our knowledge of evolution” seem particularly apropos in response to your first post.
-TS
ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
I’m reminded of the letter from the Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian warning the editors of National Geographic about making such factual statements.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
I come from a public school that mentions no God in the biological text books, I believe in God.The Biology textbook explicity excludes God as a direct causal agent. That’s the type of evolution kids get taught in schools and it is acceptable in schools precisely because it is 100% religion free. This suits atheists who then take it to the next level. See. No God required. And here, most posts are pushing the no God required form of evolution currently taught in public schools. As a Catholic, I hope you can understand that kids in public schools are not getting the whole story. Jesus died for them and created the World. Like a friend of mine once told me, “I don’t believe in God. I believe in evolution.” That’s what happens if you only get part of the answer to why you are here
And some Biology textbooks are more explicit in denying any outside supernatural interference in the process.
Peace,
Ed
Isn’t the latter the role of the Church? Isn’t it the job of the Church and of the parents if they believe to instruct their children in belief? Why exactly is religion singled out? Notorious atheists like Antony Flew found God, although most likely Deistic through thought.
The teaching of evolution is in a Scientific classrom, the religious, in a Church or Religious Education classroom.
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
bacteria > ------- billions of generations > no gross physiological changesIt’s the same process. Saying you affirm one, but doubt the other is to say you believe in millimeters but reject the concept of the kilometer.
Change happens, and the amount and rate of change that becomes fixed in populations is dependent on the environment. Where the environment supports a stable form, like bacteria, we may see offshoots from that, but the niche bacteria inhabit remains a viable, profitable one, and thus there is selective pressure toward that form, and that may (and has) stay that way for a very, very long time. It’s useful to think of these changes as optimizations for a particular environment, and when a search path finds a local optimum, change away from that is discouraged by the evironment by the same pressures that pushed it toward the optimum in the first place.
-TS
cells to fish to amphibians to man
light sensitive spot to simple to compound to mammalian eye
Bacteria and viruses do not develop novel organs and transformations.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Start from Bacteria:cells > ----- > multiple cells > ----- > fish > ---- > amphibians > ---- > man
Supposedly after billions of generations. Bacteria do not exhibit this level of transformation nor do viruses.
Peace,
Ed
tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
Also to note, modern bacteria is not the same as the older, like the monkeys that man is stated to come from aren’t the same as modern monkeys.
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
Can you explain then, why biology textbooks give the student the clear and unambiguous understanding that life and the engine of evolution are both self-starting and self-generating? There is no repeatable proof for one and the other is highly doubtful.I come from a public school that mentions no God in the biological text books, I believe in God.
Isn’t the latter the role of the Church? Isn’t it the job of the Church and of the parents if they believe to instruct their children in belief? Why exactly is religion singled out? Notorious atheists like Antony Flew found God, although most likely Deistic through thought.
The teaching of evolution is in a Scientific classrom, the religious, in a Church or Religious Education classroom.
God Bless.
Chris.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I am talking about convincing people that a macro creature can go from gills to lungs, leave the water and turn into men.Bacteria that is pretty much completely different to it’s prior generations, are you expecting the thing to turn into a goose?
Bacteria can exchange, and with its rapid reproduction rate and mutation rates, bacteria can be become genetically immune to antibiotics it has been exposed to.
Macro-creatures can.
God Bless.
Chris.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Do you believe fish > amphibians > man? Yes or no?Start from Bacteria:
tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
Also to note, modern bacteria is not the same as the older, like the monkeys that man is stated to come from aren’t the same as modern monkeys.
God Bless.
Chris.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Self-starting and self-generating, this depends on the philosophy attributed, if we put any religion into the mix, which creation story is more truer to the public? To you obviously the Judaic texts.Can you explain then, why biology textbooks give the student the clear and unambiguous understanding that life and the engine of evolution are both self-starting and self-generating? There is no repeatable proof for one and the other is highly doubtful.
Peace,
Ed
In the Science classroom, it’s empiricism.
God Bless.
Chris.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I don’t even believe that. At the time, there were not “fish” or “amphibians”. Common ancestors don’t mean that one sprang from the other.Do you believe fish > amphibians > man? Yes or no?
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
The species does dependant on genetic mutation, and natural selection.I am talking about convincing people that a macro creature can go from gills to lungs, leave the water and turn into men.
Peace,
Ed
God Bless.
Chris.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
liquidpele put it rather perfectly.Do you believe fish > amphibians > man? Yes or no?
Peace,
Ed
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
Excuse me? From where did they spring? Look at any evolutionary tree diagram. My great grandfather was an amphibian and before him, a fish, and before that, a rock with some water on it.I don’t even believe that. At the time, there were not “fish” or “amphibians”. Common ancestors don’t mean that one sprang from the other.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Why do you continue to ignore the obvious, biased philosophical conclusions in biology textbooks? From what empiricism could they draw from? Data is fine. False conclusions have no place in the biology text. In the end, it is clear the bias serves atheism. Inappropriate for science to say the least.Self-starting and self-generating, this depends on the philosophy attributed, if we put any religion into the mix, which creation story is more truer to the public? To you obviously the Judaic texts.
In the Science classroom, it’s empiricism.
God Bless.
Chris.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
Please give a poor strawman a rest, he’s simply exhausted.Excuse me? From where did they spring? Look at any evolutionary tree diagram. My great grandfather was an amphibian and before him, a fish, and before that, a rock with some water on it.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Which is truer to the public? In the United States, the majority of the public prefers Creation.Self-starting and self-generating, this depends on the philosophy attributed, if we put any religion into the mix, which creation story is more truer to the public? To you obviously the Judaic texts.
In the Science classroom, it’s empiricism.
God Bless.
Chris.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
And at one point most of America thought asbestos was safe and that lead in gasoline was perfectly okay. This is why you see a doctor for your illness instead of diagnosing it yourself. Leave science to the scientists who have devoted their lives to their interest. Your notion that popularity equals truth is absurd.Which is truer to the public? In the United States, the majority of the public prefers Creation.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
I again ask you, which creation text should we study for the creation matter, without religious bias in the path?Why do you continue to ignore the obvious, biased philisophical conclusions in biology textbooks? From what empiricism could they draw from? Data is fine. False conclusions have no place in the biology text. In the end, it is clear the bias serves atheism. Inappropriate for science to say the least.
Peace,
Ed
Shinto? in which the god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean with a spear to make a small island of curdled salt?Two deities went down to the island, mixed there, and bore main islands, deities, and forefathers of Japan.
Science is observation, without utilising a higher power in work, it’s a focus upon how things work and function.
And even yet, with the method of empiricism, it does not contradict faith.
Even if I disagree with the formation in the Genesis account, I do believe the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul infused into the Human species. I’m still personally not sure on the rib.
God Bless.
Chris.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.