A Christian Progressive Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin

PART3

KERT1: “Well, I don't think I would go on ‘killing, raping’ spree without religion, but my behaviour would be different. Right now I'm thinking of all these elite CEO's and bankers that have been swindling people for years. When you look at their behaviour it is clear they don't have a fear of God or a sense of morality. They simply did as they felt. If they hurt people along the way, they didn't care. They understood the principle of the strongest surviving and practiced it. I'm not sure I have the personality to be like them but I would sure envy them if I didn't know what they did was wrong.”

Hmmm. I’ll bet those CEOs and bankers are all good conservative Republicans (God’s Own Party) who just thought they were following the Free Market principles that have been touted for so long as the best way to run an economy. They weren’t doing it to swindle others (well, maybe Bernie Madoff was) – but to line their own pockets (remember Gordon Gekko – “greed is good”?). I think they were as shocked as anyone that their actions didn’t just keep the US economy humming right along. And it takes a leg up to get where they are (were?), so you might not have had that option.

I’ll bet your behavior wouldn’t change at all – except you wouldn’t waste time at church, or arguing with me, and you’d get to spend your tithe money.

Have a good life, Kert – and do some reading about the natural world.

PART2

KERT1: “I think you actually did a pretty good job of defining animal behavior that is immoral in humans. Killing others, stealing, sex with whoever you want, and just a general lack of compassion to others, would be on my short list.”

You betray your lack of knowledge of animals. I’ve spent my whole life around them, and studying them. As I said before, they kill to eat. That’s all. Battles over females and territory almost never end in death or serious injury. Sometimes they’re so ritualized that there’s not any actual physical contact at all. They don’t normally kill their own species. Humans and chimps are the main exceptions to this (unless you want to include praying mantises and black widow spiders – where the males contribute rather materially to the nourishment of their offspring-to-be). And humans kill their own species on a scale unimaginable to any other creature.

Stealing? Food stealing does happen, but not without consequences if the thief is caught – and his body language tells you that he knows it’s not a good idea to get caught. Humans steal, too. Animals will also share food, and bring food to each other. They will care for the sick and wounded (elephants are a particularly good example of this), and show great tenderness with one another. Did you see the recent video of a dog risking his life by going out in heavy traffic to pull another dog, who had been hit by a car, to safety?

http://www.truveo.com/hero%EF%BC%81/id/3123620525

KERT1: “Again these are just instincts for animals but are moral decisions for humans.”

Oh, horse puckey, Kert. I’d venture to guess that I’m as “moral” as you are, but I don’t live that way because of some magic man in the sky holding out sticks (Hell) or carrots (Heaven). And how do you think the bible provides a moral guide? Have you ever read the Old Testament? This being that you think invented morality is about as cruel, murderous, sadistic, and small-minded as it’s possible to imagine. He kills the pious Job’s children and destroys everything he has, just to settle a bet with the Devil that Job still won’t curse him. A bet! What a sweetheart!

PART1

KERT1: “When we simply let our instincts create our behaviours then I see a moral problem. We have become like the animals.”

Our instincts *do* create our behaviors. Morals were derived from our inherited social instincts – what we call “conscience.” Yes, by applying intelligence to that inherited instinct, we can take it to a higher level by formulating laws, but it all starts at the same place.

KERT1: “Well as a human I do consider my self favored, but I think there are actual reasons for this. I've never had a try to be more favored than myself. Human simply have a capacity I don't see in the animal kingdom.”

Again you’re taking our *one* area of superiority – our brains – and making it the end all and be all of attributes. Imagine two cheetahs talking about our running ability, or two eagles discussing our inability to fly, to see very far, or to see 5 colors.

Best of all, imagine two bacteria: “Can you imagine the hubris of those humans, Chuck? Thinking they’re *superior*?? We’ve been around for 3.5 billion years, and they’ve only been here for 30 thousand! Maybe 2 million, if you count those early hominids. And numerically? Fuhgeddaboudit! There are more of us in the colon of one of them right now than all the humans who have ever existed! And without us there, they can’t even digest their food – they die! And how about adaptability? We live in every possible place on Earth – in the air, on terra firma, underwater, underground, with oxygen, without oxygen; in the deepest sea trenches and on the highest mountaintops; at 199 degrees F and at 1.4 degrees F. And they keep inventing drugs to kill the ones of us that cause their diseases, but we evolve immunity to them in just a few short years! Penicillin? Ha! We’ve seen 99% of Earth’s species come and go, and here we still are. And they think they’re superior!” (Sound of uproarious laughter.)

KERT1: “ This is one of the main flaws I find in practicing atheism. Who makes the rules?”

We do. Based on our inborn sense of empathy and group cooperation. There are plenty of societies on Earth that don’t believe in the monotheistic God of the bible, but every society has laws against murder and theft and lying to authorities. This is just what it takes to keep stability in a social order, and we’re born knowing that.

I don't have moral problems with animals. Actually I would define them as amoral. They simply do what instinct tells them or what they have learned. While humans do have instincts we have the capacity to recognize a moral choice and overcome our instincts when necessary. When we simply let our instincts create our behaviours then I see a moral problem. We have become like the animals.

Well as a human I do consider my self favored, but I think there are actual reasons for this. I've never had a try to be more favored than myself. Human simply have a capacity I don't see in the animal kingdom.

I'm sorry you found my statement about atheists doing as feel offensive. That wasn't really my intention. It's just an observation. But how else do you make a decision without a predefined set of "laws". If no one has defined right and wrong, isn't the decision just left up to us. Morality sort of becomes a fad drifting with the times. Something reasonable to one person may be absurd to another. This is one of the main flaws I find in practicing atheism. Who makes the rules?

I think you actually did a pretty good job of defining animal behavior that is immoral in humans. Killing others, stealing, sex with whoever you want, and just a general lack of compassion to others, would be on my short list.
Again these are just instincts for animals but are moral decisions for humans.

Well, I don't think I would go on "killing, raping" spree without religion, but my behaviour would be different. Right now I'm thinking of all these elite CEO's and bankers that have been swindling people for years. When you look at their behaviour it is clear they don't have a fear of God or a sense of morality. They simply did as they felt. If they hurt people along the way, they didn't care. They understood the principle of the strongest surviving and practiced it. I'm not sure I have the personality to be like them but I would sure envy them if I didn't know what they did was wrong.

KERT1: "My main point of this was to point out the moralistic problems of equating animals and man. Obviously you have no problems with this, although you do seem to see some of the problems that pop up."

What moralistic problems? How are other animals immoral?

KERT1: "I am just convinced by looking at humans we are more than advanced animals. I don't think saving a chimp is the same as saving a human."

Of course not. You're a human. It's natural to consider yourself a member of the "most favored."

I would, in most cases, also save a human before a chimp - but not in all cases. There are some humans that I don't consider to be worth the hair on a chimp's knuckles.

I once had a conversation with an Englishman shortly after the IRA bombing on Rotten Row in London that killed a number of English soldiers and their horses. He was angry because so many of his countrymen seemed to be more upset about the horses than the soldiers.

I told him that I was sure that no one thought the deaths of the soldiers weren't tragic, but that there is always an extra element of pathos for the animals, because they're innocent. They didn't choose to be there, and they don't know anything about the IRA. They're just out there being good horses, obeying their riders, and then they're blown to bits - perhaps dying slowly and in pain. The soldiers, OTOH, know that they're in harm's way - they made that choice.

KERT1: Part of this is my belief in God and his purpose for us but there are other factors as well. I suppose if you have no belief in God then being an animal sounds fine and allows for whatever behavior looks best to you.

I find your last sentence offensive.

You still haven't told me just what animal behavior you find so objectionable. Do tell.

I think that if you would examine the lives of most atheists, you would find that they live pretty much the same way as believers, with equal morality. The only difference is that they have more free time on Sundays.

Usually when believers talk about "behaving like animals" they cite killing and rape. Other animals kill to eat (as do we) and they *do not* rape. Anyone who thinks they do, hasn't spent much time observing or learning about them.

If religion is all that keeps you from "behaving like an animal," are you saying that if I could prove that there wasn't a god, that you would go on a killing and raping spree?

PAMSM,
Sorry, there was an icon in front of your name but it moved.

Well obviously you believe what you believe and I'm not going to change your mind. Not that was really my goal anyway.

Obviously you wrote a lot and you have explanations for stuff, but I don't have the time to rebutt everything, nor is it my purpose. You probably understand your theory of evolution much better than I, although it seems to be inline with what I know.

My main point of this was to point out the moralistic problems of equating animals and man. Obviously you have no problems with this, although you do seem to see some of the problems that pop up. I am just convinced by looking at humans we are more than advanced animals. I don't think saving a chimp is the same as saving a human. Part of this is my belief in God and his purpose for us but there are other factors as well. I suppose if you have no belief in God then being an animal sounds fine and allows for whatever behavior looks best to you.

Just keep in mind all world views have their consequences and always remember there is an alternative.

KERT1,
The link in Part 1, below picked up the period at the end of the sentence, so it won't work as intended. Here's the proper one:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

PART 3

KERT1: “ I do understand that scientifically humans are a species of animals. But this is a case where the whole does not equal the sum of the parts. Even though we are made up of similar stuff as other animals, we truly have many capacities that animals couldn't even understand. Our reasoning, our compassion, and inventiveness are no where to be seen in the animal kingdom.”

I’ve already shown you that monkeys and apes are capable of empathy. And before you make us out to be walking around with halos, remember that not all humans are compassionate, and that we have also the capacity to kill each other, both individually and en masse.

Yes, we’re brainy. It’s our way of making it in this world. We can’t run very fast; we can’t fly; we have limited vision (both in acuity and color perception) compared to many other animals; we don’t have sharp teeth, claws, hooves, or horns; we don’t have protective armor or even hair coats; our senses of smell and hearing are pathetic compared to most other animals; we swim poorly. Without a big brain, we’d be toast. It’s a jungle out there. Every animal has some trait that has enabled it to survive. That’s ours. Don’t read too much into it.

KERT1: “ In a social sense we are not animals, we are human. Being called an animal is an insult.”

Not to me.

And we’re no different “in a social sense” than many other animals.

KERT1: “I think that you feel that humans are animals is somewhat revealing. This is a part of Social Darwinism. Now, it seems clear that you don't take it much further, if any, and that is a good thing. But you should understand that logically, if we are animals, that we should behave as animals. Even hightly evolved animals will always behave as animals.”

What, precisely, does this mean to you, Kert? “Behave as animals?” I think we behave exactly as animals. I’ve shown you that animals are altruistic. You see it yourself in your dog – ready to lay down his life for you. So exactly what traits do you think we have that no animals have? Or what traits do you see in animals that don’t exist in humans? I eagerly await your list.

Part 2

KERT1: “I think you are blurring the lines between empathy, compassion, and instinct. I assure you my compassion is not instinct. I've been up with my son and daughter in the middle of the night and it aint instinct. There are many times I would end it if I could. Animals on the other hand will often allow the weakest of their litters to starve while they care painstaikingly for the rest. A clear distinction between Compassion and an instinct to care for something.”

It’s precisely instinct that keeps you from being able to “end it.” Love and care for one’s offspring is completely instinctive/hormonal. The fact that you are able to think about it and rationalize it doesn’t change that fact. Anything that you do because of “feelings” or “cravings” is instinctual/hormonal.

Empathy and compassion are essentially the same thing. Empathy is the ability to understand that others have the same feelings, desires, and needs as oneself. The golden rule comes from this instinct – and yes, it *is* instinctive. We don’t have to be taught empathy – it’s inherited from our pre-human ancestors because it promotes cohesion in group living situations. We’ve all seen babies offering their cookies to other babies. Humans, hominids, apes, all are social animals.

Animals that have litters have to have a different set of rules (instinctive) than those that have only a single offspring. They have to know when to cut their losses, as it were. Again, the animal that gets the largest number of her genes to the next generation is the one that influences the future behavior and characteristics of the species. So a mother of a litter that contains a weak or sickly infant that is not going to thrive, does better to invest her limited resources in raising the healthy ones and letting the weak one go. This keeps the species healthy.

As a dog breeder for 30+ years, I can tell you that the mothers try until it becomes obvious that there is no hope. Usually this is when the weak puppy stops trying to nurse, and its body temperature drops. At this point, it usually crawls away from its dam and littermates and lies quietly in a corner of the box. I think the low temperature is the mother’s clue. Death comes quickly. In no case does a mother “starve” any of her offspring. She simply knows when fretting over it is unproductive.

KERT1: “I think your statement about humans being animals is revealing.”

Revealing of what? That I’m an atheist? Gee, Kert, all you had to do was ask. I don’t keep it a secret. I don’t believe in anything supernatural and I don’t take anything on faith.

PART 1

KERT1: “PAGMS,”

Where did you get this? My handle is PAMSM – my name is Pam.

KERT1: “Your baboon example is interesting but a little shortsited. You kind of pull the rug out from under yourself. If all survive, pretty much all will breed, and the strongest genes will not be passed on. If the strongest survives they will generally find another for breeding and pass on the strongest genes.”

I think your grasp of evolution is minuscule, at best. I don’t mean this as a put-down – the American education system has been so cowed by the religious right, that evolution is barely touched on in our public schools, and not taught at all in many parochial schools. Unfortunately, few go on to study it in college or on their own, so this smattering is all that most ever get. Sad, really, because it’s totally fascinating when you bother to get into it.

Many authors, including Frans de Waal, who wrote the article I referred you to before, and Darwin himself, have written about the evolution of altruism. Here’s a brief summation of the idea: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.

As I explained in my example, more of the unselfish baboon’s genes are passed on if he gives the warning than if he doesn’t – even if he does manage to find a mate (this is unlikely as he would have to invade and take over another troupe to do so, and a lone baboon is very vulnerable). So your assessment of which is the “strongest” is not correct. Remember that most of the troupe is closely related to the one that gave warning, so they are passing on his genes.

PAGMS,
Your baboon example is interesting but a little shortsited. You kind of pull the rug out from under yourself. If all survive, pretty much all will breed, and the strongest genes will not be passed on. If the strongest survives they will generally find another for breeding and pass on the strongest genes.

I think you are blurring the lines between empathy, compassion, and instinct. I assure you my compassion is not instinct. I've been up with my son and daughter in the middle of the night and it aint instinct. There are many times I would end it if I could. Animals on the other hand will often allow the weakest of their litters to starve while they care painstaikingly for the rest. A clear distinction between Compassion and an instinct to care for something.

I think your statement about humans being animals is revealing. I do understand that scientifically humans are a species of animals. But this is a case where the whole does not equal the sum of the parts. Even though we are made up of similar stuff as other animals, we truly have many capacities that animals couldn't even understand. Our reasoning, our compassion, and inventiveness are no where to be seen in the animal kingdom. In a social sense we are not animals, we are human. Being called an animal is an insult.

I think that you feel that humans are animals is somewhat revealing. This is a part of Social Darwinism. Now, it seems clear that you don't take it much further, if any, and that is a good thing. But you should understand that logically, if we are animals, that we should behave as animals. Even hightly evolved animals will always behave as animals.

I forgot an important element in my previous post and now capitalize:

The Bible was not compiled and written to estimate the age of the Earth. It was written to glipse the fire within, to tame the wild beast, to bring on the contemplation of existance, to tell the ancient stories, TO BIND GROUPS OF PEOPLE TOGETHER, and to suggest a way to live life.

Kert1 says:
"You are right this is called Social Darwinism. It is Darwinism applied to society. It is the logical conclusion of the scientific studies and theories that have been established."

No, it's not. As I said before, we are a social species - we work together for the common good. This is what our evolution has coded us for - just as it has for other social animals - lions, wolves, chimpanzees, bees, ants... Social Darwinism assumed that we were all competing directly against each other. It is a totally discredited ideology - mainly the creation of Herbert Spencer. No evolutionary biologist would agree with his philosophy.

KERT1: "I don't see how you can pass on empathy and cause it to evolve. It weakens the species, at least as far as evolving is concerned."

Not at all. If a pride of lions are approaching a troupe of baboons that are feeding in a clearing below a rise, and one baboon happens to be on the top of the rise, where he can see the lions, he has two choices: He can scream bloody murder, warning the troupe, allowing them to make the safety of the trees, but drawing the lions' attention to himself - and he's too far from the trees to make it. OR, he can lie flat, keep quiet, and save himself, but most, or all of his troupe will die.

Which is better for his genes? If he lives, but no longer has a troupe, he will probably never mate - in fact, he probably won't live very long.

OTOH, if he dies, his parents, siblings, and perhaps his progeny will survive. They all possess many of his same genes – including the ones that made him give the warning. In this way, more of his genes get into the next generation than if he had saved himself at his family’s expense.

KERT1: “I also don't think animal empathy is the same as Human compassion. I don't know much about apes but I think we've all had a dog. They are as loyal as you can get. My dog would fight to the death to save me but he would also growl at the neighbors. I would call this more of an instinct than empathy.”

Empathy is an instinct in dogs *and* humans.

KERT1: “I just don't see animals with the capacity to care for someone other side of the world, or spend their life working to help others. They will certainly help others they know directly but will still try to dominate others. They are still animals and ultimately, we are not.”

Of course we’re animals. Look up the definition and tell me how we don’t fit it.

Yes, dogs show empathy for those they know. How would they know anything about anyone on the other side of the world? But if you sent one to a new owner in Japan, the dog would be just as loyal to that person.

Dominance behavior is part and parcel of the social network – for dogs (which are genetically wolves, transferring pack leader status to their humans) or humans. Dominance doesn’t preclude empathy or altruism. Many pack leaders die protecting their packs.

PAMSM,

You are right this is called Social Darwinism. It is Darwinism applied to society. It is the logical conclusion of the scientific studies and theories that have been established.

You see, we study science so we can apply it to our lives. That is simply what is happening here. You fail to clearly illustrate how you can have an clear idea that should apply to humans and then justify how it doesn't apply to humans. Darwinists should at least own up to the fact their ideas have been used this way.

That was an intresting article on Primative Empathy but it creates a problem. How do Empathy and Survival of the fitest coexist. Basically, once you get Empathy where essentially everyone passes on traits, evolution goes into reverse. I don't see how you can pass on empathy and cause it to evolve. It weakens the species, at least as far as evolving is concerned.

I also don't think animal empathy is the same as Human compassion. I don't know much about apes but I think we've all had a dog. They are as loyal as you can get. My dog would fight to the death to save me but he would also growl at the neighbors. I would call this more of an instinct than empathy. I just don't see animals with the capacity to care for someone other side of the world, or spend their life working to help others. They will certainly help others they know directly but will still try to dominate others. They are still animals and ultimately, we are not.

Kert1 says:

"This is not a freeing ideology. In fact it's been used to support slavery, genocide, and racism. These are just extensions of the ideas seen in evolution. We either cull out the week and exterminate them or use them for our own gain..."

This is "social Darwinism" - a bankrupt idea and a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

In fact, with humans, as with all other animals that evolved to live in social groups, it is not "every man for himself."

You also wrote:

"There is no real 'democracy' in the animal kingdom, at least not that I have heard of. There is no real compassion or helping."

Read this - and then you'll no longer be able to make that statement:

For those who have opined that Darwin is no longer relevant, or that his theory has been discredited - read this Time magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879213,00.html

Kert1 says:

"This is not a freeing ideology. In fact it's been used to support slavery, genocide, and racism. These are just extensions of the ideas seen in evolution. We either cull out the week and exterminate them or use them for our own gain..."

This is "social Darwinism" - a bankrupt idea and a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

In fact, with humans, as with all other animals that evolved to live in social groups, it is not "every man for himself."

You also wrote:

"There is no real 'democracy' in the animal kingdom, at least not that I have heard of. There is no real compassion or helping."

Read this - and then you'll no longer be able to make that statement:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

GKELL1,
You are completely misreading the Darwin quotes that you keep posting. Darwin was a Victorian. Victorians used the word "race" profligately. They spoke of the "English race," the "French race," the "Irish race of Thoroughbred horses." They used "race" where we would now use words like "strain," "variety," or "breed."

He read Malthus, who wrote about population and the competition for food and resources. He knew that animals changed - evolved - but he hadn't figured out what caused it, and how it worked. Malthus helped to bring on his Eureka moment.

In thinking about the relative success of hunter/gatherer ("savage" - comes from the French "sauvage", meaning "wild") societies versus the "civilized" (farm-based) ones, he got the idea that competition for resources (food, mates, water) could also affect animals.

The Origin of Species was a book about animal evolution. He carefully avoided mentioning human evolution because he knew the firestorm that would follow. Indeed, he knew that even this book would ignite those fires by implication and extrapolation. He waited 20 years to publish, and did so only because he was in danger of being scooped by Alfred Russell Wallace, who had reached the same conclusion independently.

It is so sad that people still cling to religion like an emotional tampon. The amount of people who believe the fairy tale of religion with absolutely no proof is quite disturbing. It a good thing they pound that crap in their head as children, because no one in their right mind would buy it as an adult. It’s truly amazing the way religious people refuse to believe in science and facts. To weasel out of looking at the overwhelming evidence that science presents (and facts that keep growing) and to try making their beliefs of the big boogie man in the sky is going to send you to hell if you don’t believe. What’s even worse, the people who cherry pick religion, use it when it’s convenient. The stifling effects of religion on science & progress are inexcusable. When will the big lie end? If you think you’re going to a better place when you die, then go, please don’t waste any time.

The Bible was not compiled and written to estimate the age of the Earth. It was written to glipse the fire within, to tame the wild beast, to bring on the contemplation of existance, to tell the ancient stories, and to suggest a way to live life.

HI,

earlier I posted a comment. Why is it not showing?

Regards,
Giulio

BIBLIOPHILE1

You wrote, "Please. Where the Bible can be tested empirically, it is generally either provably wrong (age of the earth),"

There is nothing in the bible that states the "age of the earth".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rev. Thistlethwaite,
I was delighted to read that you are a Progressive Christian because we need more of you to stem the dangerous preachers that use fundamentalism to control people. Fundamentalism discourage freethinking and questioning. Progressive Christianity love people, with no intentions of controlling their minds.

Darwin's discoveries regarding natural selection and biological adaptation e.g. evolutionary theory, is completely neutral, but does have profound implications - which may indeed have distressed the religious fellow that Darwin was prior to his irrefutable discoveries. We know he later fell into agnosticism, poor fellow.....

How folks have chosen to spin evolutionary theory in the meantime, based on their own agenda, has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy and application of Darwin's disoveries to the processes of life - and considerably enhanced today via genetics and other advances in the biological sciences.

Attributing evil to a neutral commodity such as knowledge is really quite absurd. Taking a look at the other side of the coin will yield a vision of great good based on that same knowledge.

Averring that nuclear weaponry is the logical outcome of the discoveries of atomic physics makes about as much sense.

The sword of knowledge is neutral, but is often double-edged - it's all in how it's used, that engenders both good and evil.

I don't understand how anyone can attribute Human Rights to Darwin. Clearly his ideas have not fostered Human Rights. In Darwins world we are all just highly evolved animals and are all subject to "Survival of the Fitest". This is about the least democratic idea around.

Unlike Jefferson who gives attributes humans rights from our "Creator", the logical conclusion is we have the same rights as the animals. That is dominate, or be dominated. There is no real "democracy" in the animal kingdom, at least not that I have heard of. There is no real compassion or helping. Just the desire to survive and reproduce. The weak and sick are left behind and essentially have no rights. And the strongest will survive and pass on traits.

This is not a freeing ideology. In fact it's been used to support slavery, genocide, and racism. These are just extensions of the ideas seen in evolution. We either cull out the week and exterminate them or use them for our own gain with concern for their dignity. Sound familiar.

It is a well known fact that Nazism was simply an extension of Darwinism. They just tried to help it along quicker (why not animals will often kill the weak for their own good). They simply exterminated those that they didn't want to be a part of their society to produce their perfect society. It's shocking just to think about.

Of course not everyone believe this way or takes it to this extent. I would never put this on anyone who doesn't believe this way. But we must understand they were just taking an idea (Darwinism) to it's conclusion. They simply followed an idea an put it into practice. If you want to see a great explanation you can see Ben Steins "Expelled". This shows how Darwinsism brought about Eugenics and Extermination.

As for being like a mouse, I think I'll pass on that idea. I think my explanation above explains where that leads above. While we may contain similar genetic information, it ignores are significant differences. Yes, we both are mammals, have eyes, ears, brains, bones, hearts, etc. But can a mouse think logically? Can it invent? Can it show compassion? Can it communicate great ideas? Truely we are more than the sum of our parts as humans. The are similarities but much bigger differences.

I don't think the author understands that Darwinism is inherently a Atheistic belief. She should understand since Darwinists are overwhelmingly atheists. She obviously takes a different approach to God, but I don't understand why she relates with these people so much. Clearly Darwinism and her propronents aren't where she is getting her religios beliefs from. I wish she should at least try to find common ground with Conservative Christians. I think I have shown that most of her beliefs are not build on what Darwin proposed.

Those that take the literal meaning of Holy Books, believers and non-believers, are the ones distorting science and religion. Both science and religion are necessary for an understanding of what it is to be a human on Earth.

We are not as complicated as you/Darwin might think:

As noted by Bob Berman in the December issue of Astronomy Magazine, the current human race would fit into a volume of a sugar cube weighing 500 million tons if you removed the space amongst the neutrons, electrons, protons and all the other sub-atomic particles of the human body. As also noted by Dr. Berman, life in all its forms is simply and basically then about energy/gravity and the perception of this energy/gravity. Would the stochastic process of throwing sub-atomic particles in a mix of motion and energy result in life as we know it? Statistically, yes it would!!!! Would such a mix occur on another planet of one of the 6 x 10E22 stars out there? Probably, but planets rotating about other stars were hard to detect until recently and the visual restrictions and the "slow" speed of light limits our knowledge of these potential other worlds.

So do we need a creating god or is it simply all about the Big Bang evolving to the "Gib Gnab" and then recycling for infinity??

garyhurd,
Biological evolution was already an established geological principle before Darwin's work insofar as geologists recognized that fossils imprinted in rocks were of animals that no longer existed.This biological/geological connection has been more or less airbrushed out of history to allow Darwin's twist on evolution seem like a bolt out of the blue when his agenda has a darker ring to it.

Even today,assigning a cause for evolution would be an enormous step let alone Darwin's attempt to borrow from a quasi-political study of human population and supremacy and apply it as a principle to biological evolution.When readers hear words like 'favored race' and 'struggle' share the same sentence in a title of a work that is considered a 'human achievement',then alarm bells are supposed to go off given the history of the Europe in the 1940's.Just in case you missed it -

' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' Charles Darwin

The package deal presented to Christians or other religious people is unjust and downright silly where Darwin/evolution is presented as an option to creationism/religion.Evolution stands on its own regardless of Darwin's version as to the cause for evolution and as far as I am concerned ,his work distracts from the valuable link between biological and geological evolution and interpretation of geological and climatic history of the planet contained in rocks via the fossils of dead animals.In short,people are no better or worse from knowing how and why species evolve and it does little to add to a more detailed history of the biological and geological evolution of the planet other than introduce undisciplined speculation that reduces life to a branch of chemistry.

The real issue is found somewhere else,what Darwin did to evolution,Isaac Newton did to astronomy and the root cause of Darwin's version of evolution becoming dominant can be found in the vandalism wrought on the astronomy of Copernicus,Galileo and Kepler by a real master of opportunism -Newton.Different story,different day.

Posted on February 12, 2009 13:16

kluth_vs :
to chagasman: No, conservative Christians aren't trying to take over. I understand your point of view, as it may appear that way. We are alarmed at the moral degradation of the nation, where such nations have historically ended incatastrophe. We are alarmed at the insistence that anti-Christian ideas be the only ones taught to our children in schools. For instance, why can't intelligent design (which was started by a lawyer at UC Berkeley, and is adamantly not a religious group) be taught alongside evolution, since both are theories? Both have something to offer, why not let the student decide?
----------
Answer: Because intelligent design is not science. It is an attempt by a religion to discredit science in favor of a story in an old book. You do not teach religion in a science class, anymore than you teach science in a religion class. Don't you understand that your belief is founded on nothing more than faith, while evolution is founded on everything from observation to scientific fact? Do you and the people who believe as you have any brains at all? Can't you read? Can't you think? Or, as I suspect, would you rather be living in the Dark Ages?

persiflage said:

"This idea of Darwin's is arguably as great an idea about the fundamental processes of life as has ever been discovered, thought up or otherwise conjured into being by an individual."

Wonderfully put.

The greatness of Darwin is evident in the way in which he grappled so long and hard with the social implications of his theory. He foresaw the debate unfolding here on this blog, understanding human nature well enough to fully comprehend that 'magical thinking' would not be swiftly set aside.

Further, as the true implications of evolutionary theory permeated his world view a distinct melancholia settled on his writing.

I feel that he secretly dreamed of letting the whole idea die quietly for a number of years as a few of his published notebooks contain almost whimsical musings that are well off point.

The depth of his intellectual honesty and critical self appraisal is the flip side of his character that made possible the publication of the theory. A lesser soul would have buckled or shot their load in an ill prepared manner and have become another Lamarkian fad and so quickly discredited.

Those same 'magical thinkers' are still sitting in the chambers of the Royal Society and debating the various ideologies they might be wearing (hi guys) and still they miss the subtle grandeur of chamber within which we all argue.

I think the transcendent complexity and unimaginable timeframes encapsulated within just the three words 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' is simply mindblowing.

Those missing out on an occasional afternoon in the garden of evolutionary delights are the ones whose souls are bereft.

And lets face it people - the whole God thing is so positively Medieval.

In as much as the Creationist/ID/Teach the Controversy idiocy has become quite tiring, I would rather posit a question to Prof. Thistlethwaite, to whit: Since you accept Darwinian evolution you obviously reject the Creation stories of Genesis, indicating you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. (Relax...neither do I.) An obvious question then is, what do you accept/believe and why?

It seems that once one determines that the Bible just ain't all it's cracked up to be, its entirety comes into question and any claim to Christianity becomes far more philosophical than theological.

Was Jesus born of a virgin. Was he resurrected? Did he walk on water? Was there really a historic Jesus? How do you choose? Or if you don't believe in any of those things, are you really a Christian?

To kluth_vs
ID is not a theory, u dont believe me, just listen to the discovery Institute themselves: "Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus" (quote taken from Kitzmiller v Dover from a DI speech).

It starts with a premise that is empirically impossible to prove: A creator (we all know they mean god). They tried irreducable complexity, that was laughable, they have little to nothing scientifically. Going out of your way to prove Genesis by making bogus unproven assertions is not something Americans should teach their kids as science. Religion suits that fine.

"Both have something to offer": If u start teaching your kids this drivel, u will watch your society degrade into a moronic pit of biblical literalism.

You are already the laughing stock of the western world in regards to this matter, dont make it worse.

A note for JIMMF:

On three separate occasions i have provided a detailed rebuttal of exactly the same nonsensical posting that, I assume, you simply cut and paste every time you see the word 'evolution'.

(sigh)

Right at the outset I should have realised that you are engaged in proselytising rather than discussion.

gkell1,

Interesting that you mention the potato famine. Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan, assistant secretary of HM Treasury 1840- ’59, was responsible for administering famine relief in both Ireland, and the later Highland Famine. In the earlier Irish Famine his views were paramount. He summarized the theological opposition to famine relief writing that the Famine was "the judgment of God on an indolent and unself-reliant people." It was "the cure...applied by the direct stroke of an all wise Providence in a manner as unexpected...as it is likely to be effectual!" As God had "sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated."

The Rev. Donal Kerr, Emeritus Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's University, Maynooth, Ireland, reports a strange exchange between Sir Randolph Routh, the commissary-general for relief, and one Father Monahan, the leader of a delegation from Achill, off the coast of Mayo, in autumn of 1846. The delegation had come to petition the Government to sell corn at a reduced rate as the people were starving. Roth replied that "it was essential to the success of commerce that the mercantile interest should not be interfered with." He added that the earlier price relief had been "… a mistake, for it gave bad habits to the people, and that the government was now determined not to interfere with the merchants but to act in accordance with the enlightened principles of political economy." This in a perfect capsulation of the economic argument. ("The Catholic Church and the Great Irish Famine" The Vincentian Center Lecture, March 7, 1997).

None of this was influenced by Darwin, evolution, nor any other version of biological science. I repeat, you conception of history is a bizarre as your misunderstanding of basic biology.

Please. Where the Bible can be tested empirically, it is generally either provably wrong (age of the earth), laughably implausible (e.g. Elijah swept up to heaven in a whirlwind), or simply unverifiable (Jesus's flight into Egypt). Overall, a fascinating but highly untrustworthy document. As for the existence of a Deity, one does not usually presume existence of a thing unless there is some evidence. In the case of evolutionary biology, there is quite a bit of evidence for, and little against.

The Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.' {Augustine here has refered to 1 Timothy 1.7}

I think that Aquinas said the same thing but, used fewer words.

Dr. Thistlewaite says:
“Religion and science are, in the end, different ways of knowing.”
I am as scientific minded as any professional physical scientist. I am well versed in the scientific method for attaining knowledge. When teams of scientists from well recognized colleges use the most sophisticated of scientific tools to record the sound, image , temperature and voltage of an entity , then that entity (which you may call a ghost) exists. This indicates the existence of a dimension beyond the physical. This is all I needed to shed the human arrogance that denies what it does not experience on a daily basis. This opens a new world of possibilities that only a dimwitted person could deny with a straight face.
Check out the link below:
http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

garyhurd,any person who does not find Darwin's 'eureka' moment an assault on the eyes is certainly not familiar with the excuse of supremacy of one group over another and Darwin's twist on evolution was written at a time when the Irish were escaping the 1845 famine and floating over to America in coffin ships by their millions.They would hardly have assented to the idea of being savages just to satisfy a perspective of natural selection.Do you wish to read Darwin's words again ? -

"Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also" Charles Darwin

Do you really think this is a pinnacle of human reasoning,I mean,setting aside the fact that evolution existed as a geological principle long before Darwin's twist on it ?.

Garyhurd,if you really wish to use a quote from a Church authority then I suggest Galileo's use of St Augustine.While many would find it incomprehensible, it sums up why an artificial science/religion exists in the first place -

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there." St Augustine

I wonder what Spidermean's thoughts are in regards to this topic.

RabbiC wrote:
"There is no evidence at all of the truth of the theory of evolution as most leading evolutionists cannot explain the many missing links. Many leading evolutionist are quietly abandoning this belief system, as they cannot explain many fundamental questions. They do this quietly as the academic world holds them intellectually hostage to the theory of evolution."

Everything in this paragraph is incorrect. There is tons of evidence, and please name one "leading evolutionist" who has abandoned the theory.

"Darwin, although he meant well, is responsible for a causing a very dark period in scientific history. By assuming that humans are just a more developed form of animal, he set off the world of moral relativism which we are now mired in."

So now you're arguing that evolution is wrong because you think it led to bad things? By that argument, atomic theory must be wrong because we used it to destroy Hiroshima.

"Imagine the "accidental" formation of the human eyeball, the brain, or even an apple seed."

As soon as you use the word "accident", you demonstrate that you don't understand how evolution works.

kluth_vs wrote:
"For instance, why can't intelligent design (which was started by a lawyer at UC Berkeley, and is adamantly not a religious group) be taught alongside evolution, since both are theories?"

Because intelligent design ISN'T a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess".

"Both have something to offer, why not let the student decide?"

Why not teach the geocentric theory of the solar system?

gkell1, you have a very odd conception of history. The only place you might find that sort of silliness is on creationist websites. The notion that life was not organized into fixed, immutable and infinite species had been discovered to be false. But this fact had not penetrated the general public. What Malthus wrote was basic to economics, and it was publisehd and discussed as such and not as a physical science topic. What Darwin realized was that Malthus could be applied to the question of biology.

Since you assert that your comments are "as a Christian" you ought to be more careful. Thomas Aquinas, (c.a. 1225 - 1274) wrote, "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Summa Theological (1273).

As one of my favorite Bible verses puts it, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." (James 3:1)

Catastrophism as a concept was big in Darwin's day. Thomas Malthus proposed the idea that human populations grow exponentially and geometically, and eventually outstrip food sources - thus resulting in mass starvation and major human die-offs. In fact, micro-organisms have probably killed far more humans en masse, than starvation, war, and natural catastrophies combined.

Where would we be in our perpetual battle with these tiny invisible beings, if not for Charles Darwin and Francis Lister?

With a population of some 6 billion today, it seems pretty clear that 'survival of the fittest' is a more complicated idea than Social Darwinists would like us to believe - not that a good many of those billions aren't starving, because they are.

Given that the world's resources are very unevenly distributed & controlled (by a relative few), when will Egalitarian Man finally emerge, we might wonder? The economically fittest are certainly prospering, and no doubt of that.

Darwin himself was a practising Christian until much later in life, when he adopted a more agnostic stance (e.g. Thomas Huxley - Darwin's great proponent and supporter). Even though Lamark was outgunned by Darwin, his thinking has come full circle - acquired characteristics do seem to be inherited at the cultural level, if not through biology. And lastly, Cuvier's ideas on geological catastrophism have combined with gradualism to once again become viable.

After all, mammels thrived and excelled at survival due to the major biological niche created by the mass extinction of dinasaurs that very likely followed earth's colliding with a sizable meteor or asteroid some 65 million or so years ago.

And here we are, the evolutionary pinnacle resulting from that catastrophic accident of nature -and in a very real manner of speaking.

What comes around goes around, as the saying goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

Scientific inquiry is being harmed by Evolutionists that think the story of Evolution should be exempt from criticism because it is the "best possible explanation".

How can a so-called "theory" that uses an enormous amount of baseless speculation be the "best possible explanation"?

The amount of wild speculation and over-simplification to buttress the story of evolution is causing the DUMBING DOWN of science students. Evolutionists take evidence for microevolution and, without adequate justification, extrapolate that to macroevolution with the creation of organs in existing organisms.

The "Great Creator" relied upon by evolutionists for amazing biological innovation is RANDOM MUTATIONS. Evolutionists have tremendous faith in RANDOM MUTATIONS when there is no justification for such faith.

For example, the evolutionists speculate that the evolution of the eye started with a random mutation creating a photosensitive cell capable of sensing light.

In the religion of Evolution, it is blasphemy to question whether the "Great Creator", RANDOM MUTATIONS, is capable of such amazing innovations. The high priests will tell tall tales and never cast doubt in the "Great Creator".

The problem with the eye tale is that it is not based on science but pure speculation without scientific basis. Mutations have been observed through common and scientific activities for the history of mankind. There is no justification to support the belief by evolutionists that mutations can be so innovative as to spontaneously create something like a photosensitive cell.

Of course, we, the sinners, cannot stop there with our criticism of the eye tale. The photosensitive cell alone is useless. It's like me installing a security camera outside my house and not wiring it, not connecting the monitor, and not personally monitoring the images on the monitor to interpret danger.

The organism must have the "wiring" and the process center to interpret and convert those signals from the photosensitive cell into useful information.

For evolutionists, all that is needed is an over-simplified explanation that leaves out essential information. They can send off that student who is now an indoctrinated evolutionist that is passionate but ignorant.

THIS HARMFUL RELIGION HAS A MONOPOLY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

The eye evolution tale, along with countless other tales, is adequate for teachers to tell mind-numb students because any speculative answer, no matter how bad it is, is acceptable as long as it supports the evolutionary faith. HENCE, WE HAVE THE END OF CRITICAL THINKING AND THE DUMBING DOWN OF STUDENTS.

It is amazing that, with all the indoctrination going on, there are people intelligent and independent enough to conclude that the evolution explanation is completely inadequate to explain the complexity of life.

MyView49, It would help a great deal if you made an effort to learn about biology from a reputable source, like a college. And be sure it is not a Bible college like Bob Jones, or Biola. Life is not like a computer, DNA is not a computer program, there is no such thing as a “life force.”

Let’s look at the later point first. The notion of a “life force” that set living systems apart from the “dead” or inorganic was historically called vitalism. The notion was that “vital” molecules were impossible to create without the contribution of “life force.” This notion was destroyed for ever in 1828 by the publication of F. Wöhler’s, “ON THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF UREA” (Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 88, Leipzig). He demonstrated that simple inorganic (dead) chemicals combined to make organic (live) molecules. Of course, urea is not a living organism- and that was the important point- it did not need a living organism to make it. For the next 125 years, chemists found more and more ways to produce “organic” molecules from “inorganic” molecules, and that was the end of vitalism.

Why isn’t DNA like a computer program? Unfortunately many popular books and article use this analogy. This seems to encourage computer programmers and engineers to think that they are suddenly biologists. First and most obvious, DNA is made of chemicals. These chemicals combine all on their own in a large number of ways. The key chemicals to making DNA are made of RNA. And in fact, we know that randomly assembled RNA has function. There are two features of these chemicals that were subject to the evolutionary forces proposed 150 years ago by Darwin- stability and change, or as he put it “variability” and “natural selection.” For more on this read,

Mulkidjanian, Armen Y., Dmitry A Cherepanov, Michael Y Galperin (2003) “Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: Selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light” BMC Evolutionary Biology 2003 3:12 (published 28 May 2003)

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP (1995), “Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences” Science, 269, 364-70.

Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004)

Both Charles Darwin & Abraham Lincoln were born on this date 200 years ago, while the NAACP was founded on this date one hundred years ago. All you have to do is to look around, evolution is everywhere. I'm evolving as I write this, we all are, everything is. My favorite saying is, "You don't see any short neck giraffes", is my way of saying, mutation which are counterproductive, cease to exist. Read my full post at www.whatteddsedd.com just search for "Darwin".

How many here are aware that the core of Darwin's approach to evolution is derived directly from a study of human population and race by Thomas Malthus.While it may be fine to promote Darwin's version of evolution to the wider population by using the voyage of the Beagle with finches and harmless lizards as the basis for overturning humanity's understanding of biological evolution,the frightening aspect is that the core of his beliefs were based on race colored by overtones of supremacy hence the full title of his work -

' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' Charles Darwin

As a Christian,I see that the damage is done by downplaying what drives Darwin's version of evolution and it ain't turtles and finches !-

One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each species, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year to year, as otherwise the world would long ago have been densely crowded with those that breed most quickly. Vaguely thinking over the enormous and constant destruction which this implied, it occurred to me to ask the question, Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted live.… Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily
improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species." Charles Darwin

Evolutionary biology was already a staple of geological investigations long before Darwin arrived on the scene,what Darwin introduced takes on a darker tone of human understanding when inspected fully and I say this as a Christian.

How many here are aware that the core of Darwin's approach to evolution is derived directly from a study of human population and race by Thomas Malthus.While it may be fine to promote Darwin's version of evolution to the wider population by using the voyage of the Beagle with finches and harmless lizards as the basis for overturning humanity's understanding of biological evolution,the frightening aspect is that the core of his beliefs were based on race colored by overtones of supremacy hence the full title of his work -

' On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' Charles Darwin

As a Christian,I see that the damage is done by downplaying what drives Darwin's version of evolution and it ain't turtles and finches !-

One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed much more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from these causes must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of each species, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year to year, as otherwise the world would long ago have been densely crowded with those that breed most quickly. Vaguely thinking over the enormous and constant destruction which this implied, it occurred to me to ask the question, Why do some die and some live? And the answer was clearly, that on the whole the best fitted live.… Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily
improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species." Charles Darwin

Evolutionary biology was already a staple of geological investigations long before Darwin arrived on the scene,what Darwin introduced takes on a darker tone of human understanding when inspected fully and I say this as a Christian.

I agree with Darwin’s theory of natural selection on a microevolution scale, but in my opinion I find that macroevolution would be impossible. I have reached this conclusion as a result of being a computer programmer. If you think of DNA as being the program within a fertilized egg cell that directs it to develop into a mature organism, then the complexity of that program would make it impossible to have been randomly written. This program must direct the creation of many different cell types, e.g. bone, skin, muscle, organs, blood, etc., in the proper sequence, and with the correct timing over the life time of the organism. The complexity of the brain alone within this program is overwhelming. To write this program without intelligence is unimaginable to me and I would think to anyone else who has ever done any computer programming. The program to create a human being through its life cycle would make the program for the most complex of games, or for the space shuttle, or anything else look like child’s play. And I have never seen any adequate explanation of the life force itself, which at once is so fragile yet so enduring. How people can believe that macroevolution created the life force and the complex programs for every living thing in the world without having any intelligence to do it is beyond me. For me it would take much more faith to believe in macroevolution than it would to believe in God.

Science and religion are not two sides of the same coin, and cannot be treated as equal in that regard. Nor should science teachers be teaching religion.

The two cannot and should not be offered together as alternate and opposing 'theories', because religion and religious belief never even remotely meet the established empirical criteria and standards demanded of scientific thinking and theorizing.

And finally, you can't teach just one religious tradition and/or one religious cosmology....there are many. All of this takes academic expertise, in the same way that teaching science requires special skills, talents, and learning.

For example, putting evolutionary theory and creationism together is a false dichotomy - they have little or nothing in common, other than the fact that both have emerged from the human imagination.

One is based on empirical facts based on observation, and the other on the metaphysics of religious metaphor and mythology. The perpetual possibility of change is built into one, and hardly at all in the other.

How then can they be compared as being kindred alternatives or points of view in any sense?

The greater issue with evolutionary biology is that it has become secular theology. Darwin's observations of nature (he was a naturalist, not a biologist) and his treatise on those observations are a wonderful example of the goals of science as a discipline -- trying to understand our world (and the universe) through, observation, analysis and experimentation. In the end, little is fact, some is faith, and most is postulated theory. Darwin posited a theory, not fact.

What has become problematic in recent decades is placing scientific theory on equal footing with religious faith. The problem is that scientific theory has been made more equal than religious faith. Evolution, as an explanation for biological diversity, is a bona fide approach. However, so are other lines of reasoning.

If other scientific or mathematic reasoning is applied to evolutionary theory, the investigator may decide that there are limits to evolution as an explanation for how we have arrived where we now are in the larger picture. There is nothing to be gained by mocking an alternative explanation to the eternal questions of "How?", "What?" and "Why?" A better approach is give equal time and consideration to competing points of view.

Let creationism have its place along side evolution.

to chagasman: No, conservative Christians aren't trying to take over. I understand your point of view, as it may appear that way. We are alarmed at the moral degradation of the nation, where such nations have historically ended incatastrophe. We are alarmed at the insistence that anti-Christian ideas be the only ones taught to our children in schools. For instance, why can't intelligent design (which was started by a lawyer at UC Berkeley, and is adamantly not a religious group) be taught alongside evolution, since both are theories? Both have something to offer, why not let the student decide?

Conservative Christians = Facists opposed to freedom of thought, freedom of worship, freedom of action. Conservative Christians want total control of society so they can impose their religion and their values on the citizens through the force of law.

"Rich dialogue between theology and science." Next up... astronomers to compare notes with astrologers. This is absurd.

I agree with you that dialogue is essential and beneficial and as you say, “That's only possible if religion and science quit pointing fingers at each other, however”. The challenge is to prevent oneself from pointing fingers as it is easy for any human to feel that he or she is personally being attacked even when the other side is just presenting an opposing viewpoint.

I think it’s important to explore and question statements rather than just taking offense to them. For example, when you say, “We need to say clearly that this targeting of evolution by conservative Christianity is far more political in origin than it is purely theological” some may get their backs up and take this personally, however, I’d invite you to instead explain your research and basis for that statement.

I believe you touch on this when you state, “Creationists posit a God who controls the creation”, however I must politely disagree with that statement. I fail to see how anybody could think of God as controlling creation. If He did, He would not allow anyone to speak anything against Him and His Word. Instead, He gives us free will and the choice to either follow Him or to follow the world. He offers unconditional love to us and invites us to believe Him if we want to.

“We share 90% of our genes with mice. If that doesn't take the "lords of creation" down a peg, I fail to see what will!” It seems to me that the similarities in genes speak to the existence of one Creator. If it is true that humans and mice came from the same ancestor, where are the fossils of mid-stage beings? There have been a few hoaxes in this regard but nothing that hasn’t been disproven as a creation of man. Really, there should be countless fossils showing transitions between various species, but this is not the case.

“Human beings are also "one of a kind," as our DNA "fingerprints" show.” Yes, exactly. We all originate from the same two humans.

In the interest of dialogue, I invite you to respond to my questions and comments. Thank you.

Darwinism NOW!, Darwinism TOMORROW!, Darwinism FORVER!

agapn9 wrote, “The problem with Darwinism is that it posits continous progress.”

The problem with Darwinism is objections raised by people ignorant of what Darwin and modern evolutionary theory proposes. Neither Darwin, nor modern theory proposes “progress” in any teleological sense. agapn9 then moved on to some equally ill informed remarks regarding intelligence. Intelligence scores are approximate indexes of academic experience, and for over a century attempts to link them to heredity have failed. The notion of a “national intelligence” is absurd.

This basic lack of understanding is also found in the remarks by dethknite11. They hold the notion that “…having genes similar to mice is a slap in the face of God and Intelligent Design?” This was not at all what Prof. Brooks Thistlethwaite wrote. Humans sharing a 90 percent genetic similarity with mice (or nearly 50% with a banana) should teach humility. It is no insult to God, indeed there are many scriptures on humility as a virtue. Why is it that creationists fail to read the creation as testament to the Creator? This is also taught in scripture. Consider the following verses:

Psalm19:
1The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge. (New American Standard Bible)

Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven”
(NASB). The Hebrew word for truth, emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.”

The Bible demands believers to acknowledge that God is truthful and forthright. The Bible also demands that believers acknowledge the Creation as an honest testament to God’s existence and nature.

WES5

You wrote, "Mr Sagan, one of the most highly regarded minds of our time gave this subject a lot of thought. His insights will enlighten and encourage further thought.
The inevitable conclusion is that we made up "God" to make us feel more secure. No big deal."

Mr Sagan might be thinking something different now.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To respond to JohnDavidLovett, William T G Morton first employed ether as an anesthetic, so I suppose we can consider this dentist/physician as the Father of anesthesiology. And of course, ether has long since been displaced in that particular role.

We could point to many physicians and scientists that have made similar critical/medical discoveries - all important each in their own way, but hardly ranking with Darwin's ideas on evolution and natural selection - which of course have since been greatly enhanced by discoveries in genetics and the biological sciences.

To put his findings in perspective, Newton was and still is considered the greatest mind in science, and yet his ideas have been found to apply only to massive bodies - while quantum physics has changed the understanding of the sub-atomic foundations of material reality and science altogether.

It could easily be said that Darwin's findings rank at least at a level with Newton's or Einstein's discoveries, and unlike Newton, continues to be a viable catalyst for scientific advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of biological adaptation and change. Darwin's ideas now travel everywhere - the modern ideas of emergent complexity (applied to economics, astro-physics, et al) owe much to Darwin, as only two of many examples that could be named.

This idea of Darwin's is arguably as great an idea about the fundamental processes of life as has ever been discovered, thought up or otherwise conjured into being by an individual.

HYJANKS

You wrote, "As one who has read the bible from cover to cover,...".

I have not read the bible from cover to cover yet I have met God and I have met satan.

God is Real and He is a Trinity and He is a BEING OF PURE LOVE and Jesus is God-Incarnate.

satan, besides being a liar and a thief is also a loser and a sore loser at that.

Lots of people have tried to put God in a box and these "lots of people" include both believers and non-believers.

God's Plan, which is unfolding before our very eyes, is for ALL to be in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

As a religious Jew, with a 5000 year link of transmission of Jewish thought behind me, I must say there is really nothing progressive here at all.

There is no evidence at all of the truth of the theory of evolution as most leading evolutionists cannot explain the many missing links. Many leading evolutionist are quietly abandoning this belief system, as they cannot explain many fundamental questions. They do this quietly as the academic world holds them intellectually hostage to the theory of evolution.

Darwin, although he meant well, is responsible for a causing a very dark period in scientific history. By assuming that humans are just a more developed form of animal, he set off the world of moral relativism which we are now mired in. The world is too endlessly complex to have just evolved and formed somehow into the beauty we see around us. If you were to drop a bottle of ink down on the floor, how many times would you have to drop it for its contents to form just the word CAT? How about a full sentence? How about Shakepeare? This is essentially what one has to accept to celebrate Darwin.

Imagine the "accidental" formation of the human eyeball, the brain, or even an apple seed. This is such a stretch of logical thought, that I consider Darwinists to be more "religious" than non-Darwinists.

I would like to see Darwin placed in the dustbins of history as someone who was simply wrong. This does not negate our passion for and our exploration of science and the natural world, but rather increases our intellectual honesty which will ultimately enable us to reach even greater levels of understanding in the future.

"Religion and science are, in the end, different ways of knowing."

Religion is the system that requires, to remodel Ronald Reagan, "trust but don't verify".

"If we can accept God as the ultimate first mover then we can go from there to answer the other questions..."

What questions do you mean? And why assume a single god versus many gods or other supernatural beings? Hypothetically, if it turned out that there were many gods instead of a single god, all the answers to those questions would be wrong.

The problem is too many men got theologically greedy, and over-defined the explanation for the realites we perceive (ie. God). When science (Darwin, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo etc...) started disproving these made-up details, the men in power were threatened and responded predictably. Let's start to settle the arguments by debating three basic questions:

1. Did God personally write any books?
2. Did God promise anything to anybody?
3. Did God choose one group of people over another?

Now let's move on to a real discussion.

personally, I feel it does'nt matter how, when or why. we know WHO. ..........GOD! everything else should be placed within context. the Bible echoes the voice of God BUT expressed through the words of men.

If we can accept God as the ultimate first mover then we can go from there to answer the other questions...IF God allows our wisdom to reach that far (afterall our brain has yet to evolve to the point of full usage)

EASTONC says it best!!..

Science reveals God's beauty in the universe, the world, ourselves... not a lack of it. That is something I don't understand about this fear of science. Every time a religious person denies science, I'm sure that it is for political reasons, not for religious ones.

It took the Catholic Church over 300 years to apologize to Galileo for his theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I don't expect religious leaders that are in real positions of power to make a concerted effort to stop attacking science any time soon.

Isn't it time Charles Darwin became just a footnote in history? What he discovered pales alongside someone like William T G Morton whose discovery has benefited the whole of humanity but how many people have even heard of him?

J. Lovett

"A natural phenomenon, and as such, is asocial, apolitical, amoral, and (dare I say it?) atheistic. Human social, political, and theological response to this natural phenomenon are irrelevant to its existence."

While I agree for the most part, I would replace "atheistic" with "secular." The phenomenon itself takes no position on whether gods exist. It merely rejects the assertion that gods created diversity in life all at once.

"We share 90% of our genes with mice. If that doesn't take the 'lords of creation' down a peg, I fail to see what will!"

Good observation by Thistlethwaite. The issue isn't really about gods but about the myth of human specialness in the universe. That's the reason creationism rejects alternatives that include gods, such as the deist concept of gods creating the natural selection process.

The social, political, and theological implications of evolution are incidental. Evolution is a scientific theory. A natural phenomenon, and as such, is asocial, apolitical, amoral, and (dare I say it?) atheistic. Human social, political, and theological response to this natural phenomenon are irrelevant to its existence. As regards finger pointing; scientists NEVER burn priests.

All I can say is WOW! If free thought is what we are looking for, then why aren't "conservative Christians" allowed to think Intelligent Design and why aren't they allowed to present it in schools along with other theories that haven't been proven.

I'm sure believers in ID could list a number of wonderful gifts to society based on that theory. Additionally, they could list a number of horror stories based on evolutionary biology--Arian Nation sound familiar?

Let's be clear about this: There is no scientific discovery to date that has required the god hypothesis as an explanation; no natural phenomenon has ever required the god hypothesis as an explanation; it is not expected that the god hypothesis will ever be required to explain future scientific discoveries.

The so-called "dialogue Science-Religion", the ideas of "coexistence of Science-Religion" is all publicity for organized religion to give themselves some importance; they probably feel threatened by the explanations of the natural world that are provided by science.

Science, in general, is not interested at all in scientific opinions coming from the point of view of religion.

There is a fundamental difference between Theogony and metaphysics. And metaphysics can be in alignment with natural theology. Science is based on a continous and accumulative process of inquiry, speculation or theory based on facts or intuition, test and logic (where no fundamental test is possible). Metaphysics is based on logic and observation. Natural theology is based on revelation, logic, and observation.

You can not assume that revelation is Theogony. If you are of a scientific bent the big-band theory clearly demonstrated the veracity of an absolute starting point to the universe as stated in the book of Genesis. So people who profess atheism and claim science as their bastion of truth need to be cognizant of fact things aren't going their way.

Every point you try to talk on to me showed how God's design was so masterful and precise. You try to say that having genes similar to mice is a slap in the face of God and Intelligent Design?! That is just being nonsensical. This just proves that the same being created both mice and man, and all creatures. It shows how POWERFUL God is to be able to make such similar beings, and then give souls and the power of free will to man kind; making us stewards of all.

Progressive Christians embrace the ideas of evolution, as God's design. God created the process of evolution, in His awesome design; just as he designed chemical reactions. It is no wonder how everything in this world I have seen is so close to something else.

Each excerpt of your posting showed how closed minded and anti christian your views truly are. All I can say is that you are not a progressive christian... progressive christians still have faith in God. You show no faith and truly show no true arguable knowledge in creation theory as a whole.

There is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science is not just about knowing but about showing your work, backing up your theories with evidence and reason, and winning over your peers to your point of view. This is how a scientific consensus emerges which is neertheless not static but dynamic and allows progress to occur.

Religion on the other hand is static and can never reach consensus because there is no evidence, just a bunch of assertions based on appeals to authority and antiquity, with no rational way to choose between the assertions on one religion and those of another. (And no religion is even internally consistent.) That's why religious wars are always the bloodiest, because you can only "convince" other people by killing them or beating them into submission. If there was one true religion, it would be the only religion around by now.

To say human nature is not fixed in some sense is an implied self-contradiction.

I think going back to the distinction Aristotle made between accidents and substance is an important one - if human nature's substance is not fixed and transforming into something else then how can you call us humans?

And if we are transforming into something else what is that exactly?

The problem with Darwinism is that it posits continous progress.

Man came from the lower and evolution continous modifies man to make him better or more adaptable to the environment.

But to become more adaptable to the environment may not mean better - in that case - man may have already peaked and is in the process of decline and scientific evidence points out that some groups of humans are in decline in terms of IQ (the British - though steps are being taken to reverse the decline). Others like the Japanese are becoming more intelligent. One group progresses, one group declines.

Reality shows progress and decline, theory predicts continuous progress. It makes more sense then to talk of a fixed human nature than it does of mutiple human species - those in decline and those progressing.

The progress and decline are accidents or aspects of a particular group.

But what about alterations like blue eyed people who seem to have a genetic advantage over brown eyed people. Still an accident. Nothing superior about blue eyes.

For some reason men and women with blue and brown eyes would rather mate with blue eyed people but that of itself does not make the blue eyed people superior in human substance only in accidents ie, appearance and of course even that is debatable.

My God is great enough to create using any mechanism he chooses including an evolving creation. As we grow in knowledge of his creation one has to be left dumbfounded by the complexities of his thumbprint in that creation. Intelligent creation? You bet!! Our understanding of Revelation given to us in the Bible is as limited and incomplete as our ability to understand the fullness of his infinite intent. As we use our GOD given intelligence to discern the universe he placed us in, it should leads us to an ever expanding recognition of the patterns HE has fashioned, not a rejection of it. How can we be be so arrogant to as to believe we have final and unalterable understanding, and that an infinite God has nothing left to reveal to us!? Science is nothing more than a disciplined way for us to examine his creation and has led me to ever more completely (if imperfectly)appreciate just how awesome my God is.

I'm a Creationist. I believe an All-Powerful God created the Heavens and the Earth and all Life.

Seems to me the way He did this way to first create the strong and weak forces of subatomic attraction, causing particles to coalesce into molecules, then over a few billion more years, bodies massive enough to ignite hydrogen fusion. Let there be light.

Then He set a chemical soup to cooking on a planet racked by gravitation and geothermal forces, until He had protein strands long enough to work with. He then breathed upon the protein strands and they spent a few more billion years recombining into wondrous living variety, the apex of which is a race of hairless apes grown wise enough to contemplate the vast cascade of microscopic effects that produced their own genesis.

That's my view of God's Creation. It is glorious to behold and infinitely fascinating to study. "Intelligent design" was created by those with weak minds and even weaker faith.

- mattmchugh.com

Professor Thistlewaite's seems to have lost some perspective in her "progressive" versus "conservative" dichotomy. It might surprise her that the Roman Catholic Church, presumably the most "conservative" church in the world, has never had a problem with evolution. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

As for Mr. Sagan, and the others he represents, there is no doubt that he was a superb scientist. Unfortunately, he forgot what every true scientist is supposed to know: science is an exploration of the physical universe. If it has no physical presence, the scientist has no basis to comment on it one way or the other. Going beyond that, as Sagan did, is going beyond science itself, and is itself a form of theology.

The irony here is that it is your views, not the "conservative Christian's" that are thoughtless and dogmatic. Speaking as a scientist, the neo-darwin theory of natural selection is a best an extremely incomplete and flawed theory and more likely junk science. It will be the flat earth-theory of our time. It has been disproven, its just hard for the dogmatic die hards to let go. Do some research, read opposing points of view and stop speaking as though you were an authority on the subject! You are more like those evil "conservative Christians" than they are!

I have been a member of fundamentalist circles for over twenty years and have many very anti-Darwinist friends and acquaintances. Some of these friends have even written books on the subject. Though I agree that their views are Kooky and embarrassing, their motivations have nothing to do with control of society or any such political agenda. Such a view of conservative Christians is a projection and worse a form of demonization that undermines understanding. These men and women see themselves as defenders of the Bible. Their sole motive is a reverence for scripture coupled with an inability to develop an approach to the bible which can reconcile modern science and cosmology with faith in biblical authority. For myself, such a process of reconciliation is not difficult, but, for others, this task is seen as treasonous not to their political views but to their religious commitments.

Progressive Christianity? The way I read the bible, no progression is allowed. So you must be something other than Christian. You best come up with another descriptive phrase that means something before I take your writing seriously.
This is just another failed attempt at cherry-picking a so-called holy book. And when one includes the Old Testament as part of this series of fictional novels, one REALLY has some cherry-picking to do (No? Read Leviticus and then get back to me).
What part of Christianity don't you understand, Ms. Thistlewaite? This is one of a vast number of religions past and present that demands adherence to strict dogma (your Bible, if you haven't noticed, is filthy with penalties directed at the infidel and believer alike should they stray from orthodoxy). If you don't comply, you can forget about relaxing on that cloud, strumming your golden harp while being fed peeled grapes by seventy virgins--oops! That's another religion, sorry.
Trying to make religion into something that it isn't has been going on since man first invented gods. It's only natural that an individual or a like-minded group would tailor make their religion to fit their life styles, peculiarities, moralities . . . try to make it compatible with science.
No? Then why different denominations of Christianity? Which denomination is correct? Yours? If, in the end, yours is proven bogus, you'd better be prepared to suffer the consequences as outlined in your holy book.
As one who has read the bible from cover to cover, I'd say you had better be looking for a good, sturdy roofer's shovel and an asbestos suit to accompany you in your next life--unless, of course, you repent and become an actual Christian.

Darwin was still a product of the scientific "Dark Ages". That's why he refused to try and dispel the common belief of an all powerful deity. We know a little more about our universe these days.
Please read "The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God" Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan.
Mr Sagan, one of the most highly regarded minds of our time gave this subject a lot of thought. His insights will enlighten and encourage further thought.
The inevitable conclusion is that we made up "God" to make us feel more secure. No big deal.

Darwin did not challenge the existence of God. He only challenged church dogma.