The earth is only 6000 years old.

[StAnastasia]

So where was he lying? [/INDENT]Please provide me a citation where he admits the above is incorrect.

I’ll email Ken tonight and get it from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Leaving for a basketball game now.

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

I find references to “modern” knowledge in most attempts to deny the ability of God to create anything. At best, He becomes the great kick starter.

This would be true of Charles Darwin and extreme Darwinists. Darwin actually disproved the hypothesis or theory of special creation of each species. However, when Darwin stepped off the H.M.S. Beagle he was an atheist, and he had an agenda. Not only did he intend to amass evidence against “special creations”, he was now opposed to the idea of Creation itself. This is one area where Darwin transgressed the proper boundries of natural science, boundaries of which he exhibited little awareness.

Noentheless, one can be an evolutionist without being a strict Darwinian. Whether or not an evolutionist accepts natural selction as the mechanism of evolution, NS in theory for Darwinians is a matter of both chance or randomness and law. That is not a problem on its surface. Chance and randomness are recognized as factors in reality even by classical metaphysics. I won’t give here what I think is an acceptable definition of “chance”, something that is sorely lacking in the scientific literature.

The problem is when an evolutionist acribes the existence of natural laws as ultimately the product of blind chance and randomness - a sort of ancient Lucretian view of the cosmos.

Such an evolutionist is no longer speaking along the lines of methodological naturalism, but has embraced philosophical naturalism, i.e. metaphysical materialism.

The Christian and the classical philosopher recognize these as philosophical errors, but Creation Science and ID theory have no acceptable grounds for an effective opposition since they are based on theological and philosophical errors themselves.

The tactical error of Creationists and ID theorists is to attack Darwinism on scientific grounds. Neither has good science in its backpack to pull out and use against Darwinism or Darwinian ideology.

Creationism, which asserts special creation of each species or types, makes God out to be more of a pagan-like god, like Zeus who always meddles with things down here below so they go according to his ideas. And I consider YEC to be little more than superstitious belief; it does not exhibit sound reasoning or sound biblical exegesis.

 

[buffalo]

I’ll email Ken tonight and get it from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Leaving for a basketball game now.

StAnastasia

When you email him ask him an additional question.

Did God know what Adam would look like?

And - Did Adam look like God planned?

 

[edwest2]

This would be true of Charles Darwin and extreme Darwinists. Darwin actually disproved the hypothesis or theory of special creation of each species. However, when Darwin stepped off the H.M.S. Beagle he was an atheist, and he had an agenda. Not only did he intend to amass evidence against “special creations”, he was now opposed to the idea of Creation itself. This is one area where Darwin transgressed the proper boundries of natural science, boundaries of which he exhibited little awareness.

Noentheless, one can be an evolutionist without being a strict Darwinian. Whether or not an evolutionist accepts natural selction as the mechanism of evolution, NS in theory for Darwinians is a matter of both chance or randomness and law. That is not a problem on its surface. Chance and randomness are recognized as factors in reality even by classical metaphysics. I won’t give here what I think is an acceptable definition of “chance”, something that is sorely lacking in the scientific literature.

The problem is when an evolutionist acribes the existence of natural laws as ultimately the product of blind chance and randomness - a sort of ancient Lucretian view of the cosmos.

Such an evolutionist is no longer speaking along the lines of methodological naturalism, but has embraced philosophical naturalism, i.e. metaphysical materialism.

The Christian and the classical philosopher recognize these as philosophical errors, but Creation Science and ID theory have no acceptable grounds for an effective opposition since they are based on theological and philosophical errors themselves.

The tactical error of Creationists and ID theorists is to attack Darwinism on scientific grounds. Neither has good science in its backpack to pull out and use against Darwinism or Darwinian ideology.

Creationism, which asserts special creation of each species or types, makes God out to be more of a pagan-like god, like Zeus who always meddles with things down here below so they go according to his ideas. And I consider YEC to be little more than superstitious belief; it does not exhibit sound reasoning or sound biblical exegesis.

What do Catholics affirm at Mass? “He has spoken through the prophets.” How do we know that? Where are His words written down?

I have just spent a little time reading the heart-rending story of a teacher trying to teach kids science who have a strict Biblical upbringing. To paraphrase: “I knew that if I didn’t present it a certain way, I’d lose him.” This in reference to one particularly fundamentalist student. He’d lose him? What? The kid was going to die? Or his soul was in peril?

I suggest you read Communion and Stewardship, available online.

All I see here is a constant repetition of the same old, same old. As long as someone says, I accept, they turn to the next person. I’ve seen the same talking points over and over. No, this is just a power struggle.

You should see the words of praise and anti-religion comments for the PZ Myers interview on youtube. Plenty of evidence that another Biology Professor is linking science to his preferred belief system.

I’ll stick with God being able to create, and to appear on Earth as Jesus Christ. The most important intervention in the history of the world by God after the Creation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[eucharisteo]

They are not even in the same category. Creation is a theological claim, while evolution is a scientific explanation.

And your point is…what?
Science would not exist without philosophy. The scientic method requires the ability to think logically, which is Philosophy 101. Fr. David - a brilliant man and scientist now.

And I happened to have studied creation from a scientific perspective during my fundamentalist days. Yeap, one of those. I tossed all but a few of the books. And yes you are correct. However, when I trust men I’ll trust all the evidence in science. If holy men can cross a line, what makes you think that secular men won’t?

However, my salvation does NOT depend on whether a family decides to teach their children the simplified creation story contained in scripture, as long as they respect the RIGHTS of those that choose to believe in evolution, with the understanding that GOD did it, then I’m emotionally secure enough to be okay with it. It’s the cruel demanding demeanor of those that just can’t handle someone that has a different opinion, even if it isn’t true and doesn’t matter, then you have a person that has failed to form their conscience in the light of the Lord… Charity must ALWAYS be at the heart of the methods you choose to teach, share or whatever. You do NOT have the license to sin by saying those that chose creation as their belief over evolution. To do so in such a way to call them names is sinful. You teach, but do it with love of neighbor.

 

[itinerant1]

What do Catholics affirm at Mass? “He has spoken through the prophets.” How do we know that? Where are His words written down?

This is true, but what is your point? I fail to see what relevance your comment has to the recent posts or to the thread topic which is “The earth is only 6000 years old.”

I have just spent a little time reading the heart-rending story of a teacher trying to teach kids science who have a strict Biblical upbringing. To paraphrase: “I knew that if I didn’t present it a certain way, I’d lose him.” This in reference to one particularly fundamentalist student. He’d lose him? What? The kid was going to die? Or his soul was in peril?

I take “strict Biblical upbringing” to mean an upbringing in a sectarian fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Correct?

Creationism has its history of causing spiritual problems. The stories are countless of individuals who eventually see that Genesis 1 cannot be factual when it is read in a fundamentalist and literalist manner. If that is the only way they know how to read the text, then Christianity is not a reasonable option for them.

A case in point is Charles Darwin, who was a professed Protestant for a time, and only knew of a literalist reading of Genesis 1. That reading did not square with scientific facts. Hence, Darwin cites this issue as contributing to his giving up belief in the Bible. Had he known of a better way to red Genesis 1, perhaps he would have remained a Christian.

I suggest you read Communion and Stewardship, available online.

You mean the document that says, “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.”

Communion and Stewardship affirms common descent of all organism and accepts scientific estimates for the age of the universe and the earth. You know, all those things fundamentalists and creationists disagree with.

All I see here is a constant repetition of the same old, same old. As long as someone says, I accept, they turn to the next person. I’ve seen the same talking points over and over. No, this is just a power struggle.

You should see the words of praise and anti-religion comments for the PZ Myers interview on youtube. Plenty of evidence that another Biology Professor is linking science to his preferred belief system.

Why complain about PZ Meyers when creationists promote their own ideological views; that is, they determine their psuedo-scientific beliefs on their preferred mis-reading of Genesis 1. Furthermore, despite Youtube videos, Communion and Stewardship still affirms the common descent of all organisms from a first organism.

I’ll stick with God being able to create, and to appear on Earth as Jesus Christ. The most important intervention in the history of the world by God after the Creation.

Peace,
Ed

That’s one point you have right, but it is not a response to the thread topic. In other words, you are being irrelevant again to the thread topic.

 

[edwest2]

Unless someone accepts science… “Christianity is not a reasonable option.”

Why do you feel the need to defend an old earth as opposed to one that is 6000 years old?

And why does the Churh teach that it is acceptable for a Catholic to accept thousands of years? I think your quarrel is with the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I’m a teacher, and I worry greatly about the denial of the growing mountain of evidence of evolution and common descent and the way this denial could have an impact on our country’s future. The only other countries in the world that have as great a percent of the population that deny evolution are third-world theocracies, most notably Iran. Now, don’t get me wrong, the US is far beyond Iran in nearly every regard, but to have a fundamental distrust of scientific findings that controvert literal readings of Genesis simply because the findings impact one’s faith is to allow a cultural suspicion of the scientific method (which DOES question and doubt and check itself all the time) and which allows competitor countries to move past us in terms of teaching its youth both math and science. The US is continually bested by other far less wealthy countries in terms of math and science performance, and this only will continue to mean that cutting edge research will continue to go to foreign competitors or foreign scholars on our soil.

And I teach English, so this has not much to do with my classroom.

I belonged to a liberal Protestant church that fully accepted evolution. If my church had denied it, I would have left it even sooner.

To suggest that God made the earth to look old and fool all our instruments the more and more sophisticated they became (and arrange it so that they more and more point to the same approximate age of 4.5 by old) and the more and more we trust those same theories and methods of science to produce drugs and fight disease and, say, crop production is one of the silliest intellectual ideas I have ever read. Honestly, I find it embarrassing that an adult would suggest such a thing.

Greetings fellow educator! :tiphat:
Great post!

 

[itinerant1]

Unless someone accepts science… “Christianity is not a reasonable option.”

Why do you feel the need to defend an old earth as opposed to one that is 6000 years old?

And why does the Churh teach that it is acceptable for a Catholic to accept thousands of years? I think your quarrel is with the Church.

Peace,
Ed

You are not at all correct. You seem to have difficulty with interpretation in general. My quarrel is with errors of any type, especially errors that are an embarrassment to the Catholic Church and Christianity generally.

St. Paul says were are to have a “reasoned faith.” Creationism is not reasonable.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

One should not fight error with error. “The God Delusion” reveals just how little that is accurate which Dawkins knows about religion and history in general. He is completely out of his element when he criticizes religion. I will recommend to you The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister McGrath and Joanna McGrath. I read the book just last week and I am in agreement with almost everything the authors have to say.

I agree that Dawkins is no religious expert, but The God Delusion aside, Dawkins is a science writer and I read him for his science, not his atheism. However, he does make a few valid points in that book, most notably the dangers of religious fanaticism. Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism have proven themselves to be dangerous.

The book you recommend employs the erroneous phrase ‘Atheist Fundamentalism.’ For that reason it is inherently flawed. Whenever people claim that atheism is a religion or science is a religion they are misusing language for propagnada purposes. Atheism is not a religion; it is by definition the opposite of religion.

I agree with Dawkins that religious fundamentalism is dangerous. In all my life I have never seen an atheist or a scientist fly a plane into a building to make an atheistic or scientific point. I have, however, stood at the river and watched religious fundamentalists fly a plane into the second tower. I also heard the Our Fathers and Hail Marys uttered by some of the other people standing there, amidst the screaming and crying. I bring this up because the atheists are right that religion is dangerous, but I hope they’re not right that the only way to protect ourselves from the dangers of religion is to eliminate religion.

Atheists admit that many people do good in the world because of their relgion. They do not think every religious person is a homicidal maniac. They say that religious moderates are not themselves a threat, but that religious moderates make it possible for the religious fanatics to operate. It is the fanatics, the atheists claim, who are the strongest believers in their faith. And I believe the atheists are on to something here. I have even seen it here on these boards. There are fanatics who would have no compromise, but adhere to doctrine to the letter regardless of the consequences. Everyone else is denounced as a cafeteria Catholic.

And just as the fanatics benefit from the moderates (whose civil behavior makes the religion palatable to the rest of society) so too do the moderates benefit from the fanatics (by taking comfort that somebody out there believes in all of it). The problem is that the fanatics are ruining it for the rest of us. To stop the fanatics, the atheists must try to put an end to religion. And can we blame them? If we won’t do the job of restraining the fanatics within our religion, then outsiders will have to do the job for us. Maybe if the “cafeteria Muslims” out there had restrained the fanatics, thousands of my fellow citizens would still be alive and going to work at the WTC on Monday.

 

[larkin31]

This is true, but what is your point? I fail to see what relevance your comment has to the recent posts or to the thread topic which is “The earth is only 6000 years old.”

I take “strict Biblical upbringing” to mean an upbringing in a sectarian fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Correct?

Creationism has its history of causing spiritual problems. The stories are countless of individuals who eventually see that Genesis 1 cannot be factual when it is read in a fundamentalist and literalist manner. If that is the only way they know how to read the text, then Christianity is not a reasonable option for them.

A case in point is Charles Darwin, who was a professed Protestant for a time, and only knew of a literalist reading of Genesis 1. That reading did not square with scientific facts. Hence, Darwin cites this issue as contributing to his giving up belief in the Bible. Had he known of a better way to red Genesis 1, perhaps he would have remained a Christian.

You mean the document that says, “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.”

Communion and Stewardship affirms common descent of all organism and accepts scientific estimates for the age of the universe and the earth. You know, all those things fundamentalists and creationists disagree with.

Why complain about PZ Meyers when creationists promote their own ideological views; that is, they determine their psuedo-scientific beliefs on their preferred mis-reading of Genesis 1. Furthermore, despite Youtube videos, Communion and Stewardship still affirms the common descent of all organisms from a first organism.

That’s one point you have right, but it is not a response to the thread topic. In other words, you are being irrelevant again to the thread topic.

This is a quality set of responses. Thanks for taking the time to do it. I have had plenty of Catholics point out to me that the Vatican accepts scientific evidence of an old earth. YEC estimates from Biblical literalism are being left further and further behind intellectually.

 

[larkin31]

I agree that Dawkins is no religious expert, but The God Delusion aside, Dawkins is a science writer and I read him for his science, not his atheism. However, he does make a few valid points in that book, most notably the dangers of religious fanaticism. Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism have proven themselves to be dangerous.

The book you recommend employs the erroneous phrase ‘Atheist Fundamentalism.’ For that reason it is inherently flawed. Whenever people claim that atheism is a religion or science is a religion they are misusing language for propagnada purposes. Atheism is not a religion; it is by definition the opposite of religion.

I agree with Dawkins that religious fundamentalism is dangerous. In all my life I have never seen an atheist or a scientist fly a plane into a building to make an atheistic or scientific point. I have, however, stood at the river and watched religious fundamentalists fly a plane into the second tower. I also heard the Our Fathers and Hail Marys uttered by some of the other people standing there, amidst the screaming and crying. I bring this up because the atheists are right that religion is dangerous, but I hope they’re not right that the only way to protect ourselves from the dangers of religion is to eliminate religion.

Atheists admit that many people do good in the world because of their relgion. They do not think every religious person is a homicidal maniac. They say that religious moderates are not themselves a threat, but that religious moderates make it possible for the religious fanatics to operate. It is the fanatics, the atheists claim, who are the strongest believers in their faith. And I believe the atheists are on to something here. I have even seen it here on these boards. There are fanatics who would have no compromise, but adhere to doctrine to the letter regardless of the consequences. Everyone else is denounced as a cafeteria Catholic.

And just as the fanatics benefit from the moderates (whose civil behavior makes the religion palatable to the rest of society) so too do the moderates benefit from the fanatics (by taking comfort that somebody out there believes in all of it). The problem is that the fanatics are ruining it for the rest of us. To stop the fanatics, the atheists must try to put an end to religion. And can we blame them? If we won’t do the job of restraining the fanatics within our religion, then outsiders will have to do the job for us. Maybe if the “cafeteria Muslims” out there had restrained the fanatics, thousands of my fellow citizens would still be alive and going to work at the WTC on Monday.

wow

that’s powerful writing

 

[buffalo]

I agree that Dawkins is no religious expert, but The God Delusion aside, Dawkins is a science writer and I read him for his science, not his atheism. However, he does make a few valid points in that book, most notably the dangers of religious fanaticism. Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism have proven themselves to be dangerous.

The book you recommend employs the erroneous phrase ‘Atheist Fundamentalism.’ For that reason it is inherently flawed. Whenever people claim that atheism is a religion or science is a religion they are misusing language for propagnada purposes. Atheism is not a religion; it is by definition the opposite of religion.

I agree with Dawkins that religious fundamentalism is dangerous. In all my life I have never seen an atheist or a scientist fly a plane into a building to make an atheistic or scientific point. I have, however, stood at the river and watched religious fundamentalists fly a plane into the second tower. I also heard the Our Fathers and Hail Marys uttered by some of the other people standing there, amidst the screaming and crying. I bring this up because the atheists are right that religion is dangerous, but I hope they’re not right that the only way to protect ourselves from the dangers of religion is to eliminate religion.

Atheists admit that many people do good in the world because of their relgion. They do not think every religious person is a homicidal maniac. They say that religious moderates are not themselves a threat, but that religious moderates make it possible for the religious fanatics to operate. It is the fanatics, the atheists claim, who are the strongest believers in their faith. And I believe the atheists are on to something here. I have even seen it here on these boards. There are fanatics who would have no compromise, but adhere to doctrine to the letter regardless of the consequences. Everyone else is denounced as a cafeteria Catholic.

And just as the fanatics benefit from the moderates (whose civil behavior makes the religion palatable to the rest of society) so too do the moderates benefit from the fanatics (by taking comfort that somebody out there believes in all of it). The problem is that the fanatics are ruining it for the rest of us. To stop the fanatics, the atheists must try to put an end to religion. And can we blame them? If we won’t do the job of restraining the fanatics within our religion, then outsiders will have to do the job for us. Maybe if the “cafeteria Muslims” out there had restrained the fanatics, thousands of my fellow citizens would still be alive and going to work at the WTC on Monday.

Here is a good read:

The Irrational Atheist

 

[aspirant]

Noentheless, one can be an evolutionist without being a strict Darwinian.

In fact, most contemporary evolutionary biologists eschew the term “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” because evolutionary theory has changed substantially since Darwin’s time (e.g. through developments in genetic understanding & the discovery of DNA, through theories like punctuated equilibrium, etc). Here’s an excerpt from an article by Olivia Judson, for example:

Then there are the words: Darwinism (sometimes used with the prefix “neo”), Darwinist (ditto), Darwinian.

Why is this a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

He wasn’t, and it has. Although several of his ideas — natural and sexual selection among them — remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed. If we were to go back in a time machine and fetch him to the present day, he’d find much of evolutionary biology unintelligible…

To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed…
Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today. It does not…

Darwin was an amazing man, and the principal founder of evolutionary biology. But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last. Calling evolutionary biology “Darwinism,” and evolution by natural selection “Darwinian” evolution, is like calling aeronautical engineering “Wrightism,” and fixed-wing aircraft “Wrightian” planes, after those pioneers of fixed-wing flight, the Wright brothers. The best tribute we could give Darwin is to call him the founder — and leave it at that.

Hardly any evolutionary theorist living today could be accurately labeled a “Darwinist.”

My quarrel is with errors of any type, especially errors that are an embarrassment to the Catholic Church and Christianity generally.

St. Augustine: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are… With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.”

 

[larkin31]

In reference to your first paragraph, I was referring to the Francis Collins quote you provided that referred to one of the “great tragedies of our time.” (It sound Skakespeareian to me.) Why is this a tragedy? Generally, calling something a great tragedy already implies a great deal of damage has been done. There is no evidence of that. The emotional impact of that phrase does nothing to make it valid.

He meant an intellectual tragedy. A form of denial of reality simply for a few figurative (fable-like) sentences of the Bible. The damage is in the denial and mistrust ( a form of intellectual doublethink) of hard science. I explained this above…

 

[buffalo]

In fact, most contemporary evolutionary biologists eschew the term “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” because evolutionary theory has changed substantially since Darwin’s time (e.g. through developments in genetic understanding & the discovery of DNA, through theories like punctuated equilibrium, etc). Here’s an excerpt from an article by Olivia Judson, for example:

Hardly any evolutionary theorist living today could be accurately labeled a “Darwinist.”

St. Augustine: “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are… With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.”

In fact now the Modern Synthesis is gone replaced by the EES featuring self organization. The odds get longer with every revision.

 

[eucharisteo]

You are not at all correct. You seem to have difficulty with interpretation in general. My quarrel is with errors of any type, especially errors that are an embarrassment to the Catholic Church and Christianity generally.

St. Paul says were are to have a “reasoned faith.” Creationism is not reasonable.

Pride is one of the 7 Deadly sins you know. Is “embarrassment”, a form of pride, what motivates you instead of love?

 

[StAnastasia]

And your point is…what?.

In post # 234 you seemed to imply that creation and evolution are opposing theories. If this is not what you meant, my mistake. If it is what you meant, I rest my case: creation and evolution cannot conflict because they are not even in the same explanatory category. Creation is a theological concept; evolution is a scientific explanatory framework.

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

In fact, most contemporary evolutionary biologists eschew the term “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” because evolutionary theory has changed substantially since Darwin’s time (e.g. through developments in genetic understanding & the discovery of DNA, through theories like punctuated equilibrium, etc). Here’s an excerpt from an article by Olivia Judson, for example:

Hardly any evolutionary theorist living today could be accurately labeled a “Darwinist.”

To refer to an evolutionist as Darwinian or neo-Darwinian is in no sense to impute to them the theory of evolution in exactly the same form as Charles Darwin advocated it. In fact, Darwin had five theories of evolution, and scientists have always varied considerably regarding which of the five theories they accepted as valid. For instance, for many decades after Darwin, most evolutionists did not think favorably of natural selection.

In the 20th century there was the “Modern Synthesis”. Subsequently, with the rise of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen J. Gould announced that the Modern Synthesis is dead. Curiously, I think the general idea of punctuated equilibrium is a regression to a 19th century idea espoused by a Catholic scientist who spoke of long periods of stasis followed by periods of biological creativity. I don’t recall his name right now.

However, I think there is still validity in the use of the terms Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, since the terms identify a certain group of evolution theories that differ in specific “fundamental” points from other theories.

The leading evolutionist of our day, Ernst Mayr, specifically refers to himself as a Darwinist. Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher and historian of science who has written much about evolution theory refers to himself as a Darwinist. I have much respect for Ruse since he engages the issues fairly and without contempt for the opposition. I got a kick out of it when Ruse referred to “punctuated equilibrium” as “neo-saltation”. PE seems to me to be more of a mere description than an actual explanation.

The notable scientist, Lynn Margulis, refers to herself as a Darwinist, even though she seems to think modern Darwinian theory is too simplified. The list goes on of modern scientists who identify themselves as Darwinists, and so I think use of the term is still warranted.

 

[itinerant1]

Pride is one of the 7 Deadly sins you know. Is “embarrassment”, a form of pride, what motivates you instead of love?

I am motivated by a love for the truth, and creationism denies much truth. Since you are referring to sin, I suppose I should impute the errors of creationism to the effects of Original Sin.