Darwin The Disturber

My responses to these responses can be found at:
http://carlsafina.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/you-say-you-want-an-evolution-well-yknow/

Fauxtaographer says:
"One minor but important comment. Many mystics, probably most, consider the brain and mind to be two separate entities. The brain is a physical (as opposes to mental) object, and the mind is a far different thing, and the mind travels in a mental universe."

Yeah? Try having a mind without a brain. Check out people with frontal lobe damage and see how fine their "minds" are.

Hi Pam,

Persiflage, Moderate and I have an interesting discussion going that is up your alley, over on the Mohler thread. We could use some input from you there.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2009/02/will_faith-based_organizations/all_comments.html

One minor but important comment. Many mystics, probably most, consider the brain and mind to be two separate entities. The brain is a physical (as opposes to mental) object, and the mind is a far different thing, and the mind travels in a mental universe.

Pantheism is the idea that the Universe itself is God. If so, is the material alive or dead? It is definitely observably animated. Then a more fundamental question goes back to defining what "life" is. Or what intellegence is. Or motivation.

There does not seem to be motivation without chemicals. Try driving your car without gas, (or actually reading the entire article without a large of cup of coffee).

Pantheism clashed with early religions that opted to conceive of a god they could keep under a tent and in this way allow certain members of society privilege and centralized control. Our current society has inherited this model, and we rever this order dearly.

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.

PAMSM

You wrote, "Nor do I. We're all puffed up over our brains, but really, that's our *only* superiority."

You make an interesting point about some being "puffed up" about our brains.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JEDROTHWE111

You wrote, "So you are saying that it is in out best interests to suffer forever because".

That is not what I said, I said hell is real and we build it ourself.

I have also said that Jesus won the keys to both hell and spiritual death and will use them in due time, God's Time.

If it was only for people that repented here on earth to be with God in the Kingdom then God could have just yelled that down to here, so to speak, but God knew that not everyone would repent, so God came up with His Plan.

You also wrote, "Second, belief is not voluntary".

As it says, "Faith is a gift, that no man should boast".

Faith is not a ticket to the "good place", so to speak, what one does with one's faith is important. Also as it says, "True religion is taking care of widows and orphans", there is no mention of God there, is it? Taking care of "widows and orphans" is looking out for those that are worse off and everyone is worse off than everyone else in one way or another, so it is looking out for our fellow man in one way or another.

As I have said, God cares for us and He wants us to care for each other.

You also wrote, "An atheist such as Mother Teresa".

Mother Teresa was not an atheist, but she did, at least from some of what I have heard and read, feel abandoned by God, there is a difference.

You also wrote, " I suggest you lose the Hell part and stick to Christian forgiveness and so on."

I suppose that you mean well but I am here to do what God chose me to do not what you suggest.

Whether you or anyone else likes it or not hell and spiritual death are real but God won the keys to both and will use them in due time, God's Time.

You see, we have free will and we are responsible for what we do and why we do it and what we know whether or not we accept that responsibility.

Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand, you could say that they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

You also wrote, "If God really is the way you describe him, I would rather be in Hell, thanks all the same."

It seems as if you do not have a clue about how I describe God, because what I have said is that ALL OF HUMANITY will be in the Kingdom, if you let that sink in then you will see that God's Plan is for ALL, more than the most that you seem to settle for.

Then you wrote, "I do not fear Hell, but I do fear people who believe in it."

Why?

By the way, I do not believe in hell or spiritual death, I know that they are both real but as I have said, God won the keys to both and will use them in due time, God's Time.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DITLD said:
"To me, it is only common sense to say that man is an animal. That is just plain obvious, isn't it? And in believing that, I am not worried that animals are bad. Andimals, one by one, as individuals, and as a study of the interconnected of the many speicies are very, very, VERY intersting. As do not think of animals as 'low' and man as 'high.'"

Nor do I. We're all puffed up over our brains, but really, that's our *only* superiority. Many other animals have better visual acuity and/or see far more colors than we do. Many have a far better sense of smell - really beyond our ability to comprehend. Almost every other mammal can outrun us - with one leg tied behind their backs. Many other animals can fly - some can glide. Michael Phelps can't swim anywhere close to as well as the least of fishes, nor even the sea-going mammals.

We can't hold our breath like whales, or slow our body processes like hibernating bears. We die at temperatures where the bacteria called archaea thrive - on both ends of the possible temperature range. We turn up our toes instantly without oxygen, but some archaea live anaerobically (they are probably survivors of a time before Earth had an oxygen atmosphere).

We're pathetically vulnerable compared to almost any other animal - no sharp teeth or claws or hooves or horns, no protective armor - not even a weather-beating hair coat.

Our throat construction that allows speech comes at a high price - we easily choke. No other animal ever needs the Heimlich maneuver.

If we are the chosen favorites of some deity, why were we so shortchanged?

Parker said:
" it is mind-boggling (and mathematically next to impossible based on probability) to me to believe that even if amino acids had the fortuitous circumstance of forming into self-reproducing RNA which became a living cell which transitioned into DNA, then mutations and genetic drift (including selfish gene results) and fortuitous circumstances could carry certain living cells from that tiniest of beginnings into environments where they would begin differentiating and that differentiation would over billions of years result in all of life as we observe it."

Parker, if you're still reading, I think the problem may be that you don't comprehend just how long all this has been going on. You say "billions", but do you actually comprehend that number?

If you printed a book with a billion numeral 1s in it - at 1,000 per page, with pages printed on both sides, your book would have 500,000 pages.

To quote Stephen Jay Gould:
"The earth is 4.6 billion years old, but the oldest rocks date to about 3.9 billion years because the earth's surface became molten early in its history, a result of bombardment by large amounts of cosmic debris during the solar system's coalescence, and of heat generated by radioactive decay of short-lived isotopes. These oldest rocks are too metamorphosed by subsequent heat and pressure to preserve fossils (though some scientists interpret the proportions of carbon isotopes in these rocks as signs of organic production). The oldest rocks sufficiently unaltered to retain cellular fossils - African and Australian sediments dated to 3.5 billion years old - do preserve prokaryotic cells (bacteria and cyanophytes) and stromatoIites (mats of sediment trapped and bound by these cells in shallow marine waters). Thus, life on the earth evolved quickly and is as old as it could be."

That is a *very* long time - enough for a great many wondrous developments.

Pamsm:

I've seen that show a couple of times. I find it telling and very disturbing that the last time it was shown, the NOVA producers felt it necessary to refer viewers to a website where the producers explained why the program was being aired, as if they were apologizing for it. Based on some cases in Europe where mere criticism of religion and religious beliefs are being prosecuted, I wouldn't be surprised if programs like that weren't already being challenged along those and similar lines here and now. The current "cdesign proponentists" tack appears to be: If you can't win the science argument then claim that your freedom of speech/academic freedom is being abridged or that criticism of your religiously-based "theory" is hate speech.

ParkerD

You obviously do not understand evolution, much less appreciate it. I am not sure that you understand what it is to "know" something. As I said in several previous posts, to know something beyond you own physicial experience involves some degree of artful judgement. It is not merely a matter of saying, "show me the immutable truth." But rather, you gather up chunks of truth, that you may encounter as your life unfolds and try to arrange them in some way that you think is proper and correct.

It is not necessary for you to understand evolution or to realize that it is true. If you cannot, then it is not important. However, I believe that knowledge is good, merely or the good of knowing, and that to know, to really know, is sublime and wonderful, and a far better experience than merely puzzling over dusty old theolgy texts.

I suspect that there is something in your thinking that interferes with your ability to know the truth of the world. And based on your previous posts, I suspect that it is your religion, which seems pretty rigidly set.

As I said before, people like me want people like you to see what we see, because what we see is so very beautiful. But if you cannot comprehend, or simply do not want to know, then there is nothing that can be done about that.

You are free, as free as a bird, to observe, and study the consensus of scientific opinion regarding evolution, and then to say in a perplexed way that you reject it because it is too mind-boggling.

The loss would be nobody's but yours.

Cornbread_R2 says:
"I'm betting that the Dover, PA ID trial you cited will not be considered relevant since it was 'just one opinion from some activist judge'."

They'll have trouble claiming that one since Judge John E. Jones III is known as a very conservative judge, who was appointed by Dubya.

The evidence was so overwhelming, that even *he* couldn't deny it.

PBS did an excellent show on the trial - you can watch it in pieces here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Thomas Paul Moses Baum wrote:

"When you get to the Kingdom, you will know that not only is God Real but that He has our, humanity's, best interest at Heart. . . .

If one were to wake up in hell, so to speak, they will know that they have no one to blame but themself."

So you are saying that it is in out best interests to suffer forever because -- for example -- we cannot bring ourselves to believe in God. Or we have sex with the wrong person, or the same sex. Or for some other trivial reason. Or do you mean that only a handful of extreme murderers end up in Hell?!? Stalin and a few others?

The whole scenario strikes me as highly unlikely, and I cannot imagine how it could be anyone's best interests. First, most of the "offenses" that people are supposedly sent to Hell for are trivial matters, that no sane God would make someone suffer for. Not even a few minutes, never mind eternity. Second, belief is not voluntary. A person cannot bring himself to believe that 2+2=5, even if he thinks he will go to Hell for denying "five-ism." An atheist such as Mother Teresa cannot bring herself to believe in God, even though she wants to, yearns too, and may even fears going to Hell for not believing. Perhaps God sent Mother Teresa to Hell for withholding contraceptives and palliatives, but I cannot imagine He sent her there because she could not make herself believe in Him!

Few rational, educated, 21st century people can bring themselves to believe that God is so perverse he would punish people for eternity because they have sex with the wrong person. If these are the kinds of arguments you make, you are on the wrong side of history. I suggest you lose the Hell part and stick to Christian forgiveness and so on.

"God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him in His Kingdom . . ."

If God really is the way you describe him, I would rather be in Hell, thanks all the same.

I do not fear Hell, but I do fear people who believe in it.

CLETUS1 12

You wrote, "That is a much better fate than being forced to attend an eternal church service, or the other alleged alternative of being eternally stir-fryed in god's cosic wok."

Actually, you are right and Thank God that some of the people that say that they are speaking for God, seem to know nothing about God except for His Name.

When you get to the Kingdom, you will know that not only is God Real but that He has our, humanity's, best interest at Heart.

We will ALL be judged and hell is real, even tho it is not the monolithic place that some think that it is but is something that is custom-built by the occupant, thank God that God won the keys to not only hell but spiritual-death and will use them in due time, God's Time.

If one were to wake up in hell, so to speak, they will know that they have no one to blame but themself.

God's Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him 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.

ParkerD1 wrote:

"I will look again at Dawkins writings, but still with a skeptical view since it is mind-boggling (and mathematically next to impossible based on probability)"

I don't mean to be disparaging, but that is completely incorrect. The "probability" argument is amateur and it is disproved in any introductory text on evolution.

If you are still back at the "probability argument" stage then either you have not done your homework (not read the books carefully), or you have failed to understand the subject.

You should also realize that other people have raised this objection many times. It is not as if the biologists somehow overlooked it. Obviously, they addressed it to their own satisfaction. If you are not satisfied with their explanation, you should consider that possibility that the fault is in your understanding -- not on their side. Evolutionary theory has been worked on by hundreds of thousands of the smartest people on earth for 150 years. They did not overlook a single one of arguments raised by you or by Creationists. (Darwin himself did not overlook any of these arguments.)

I am sure you are honest when you say it is mind-boggling. It does boggle the mind when you first learn about it. But so do many other scientific concepts such as special relativity and quantum mechanics. Our ancestors thought the x-ray, the radio, the telegraph and the airplane were mind boggling, but we take them for granted.

The fact that something seems mind-boggling has no bearing on whether it is true or not. You cannot use that as standard to judge a claim. "Mind boggling" is a description of your own mind -- your perception -- not an objective standard by which to judge the outside world.

Once you get used to evolution, you may find it no longer seems mind-boggling. After a while it begins to seem normal and easily comprehensible. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, does not seem normal to me! Although I know some folks who take it for granted.

SteveSorensen:

I think you're getting ahead of yourself a little with your proposed debate between Creationists and proponents of the ToE. It seems to me that before you can take that step you first have to prove that your version of Creationism (which I assume is based on the Biblical Book of Genesis) is the correct one and not some other religiously-based creation story, such as the Hindus' or the Egyptians' versions.

Setting that issue aside for the time being, who would you choose to represent your side in this debate? What would you consider to be the slam dunk fact that proves beyond a doubt that Creationism is true?

ParkerD1:

You might also want to pick up a copy of a very recently published book on evolution entitled "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.

Chris Everett:

I'm betting that the Dover, PA ID trial you cited will not be considered relevant since it was "just one opinion from some activist judge".

Jed, Chris, (and also Pam),
Thanks for your superb comments. I will look again at Dawkins writings, but still with a skeptical view since it is mind-boggling (and mathematically next to impossible based on probability) to me to believe that even if amino acids had the fortuitous circumstance of forming into self-reproducing RNA which became a living cell which transitioned into DNA, then mutations and genetic drift (including selfish gene results) and fortuitous circumstances could carry certain living cells from that tiniest of beginnings into environments where they would begin differentiating and that differentiation would over billions of years result in all of life as we observe it. (Sorry about the long sentence.)

Pam,
I agree with you about the "family" of humankind needing to view ourselves as one "tribe", even with our vast differences of opinion and experience. Let's do hope for that.

Wishing you each well, I sign off.

Parker1 wrote:

"(wait--what happened within those ten square yards to send off developing protozoa into differing life forms and have them all survive then continue to differentiate?)"

As ChrisEverett pointed out, the first thing that happened was they spread out from those ten square yards to 10,000 yards and then 100,000 square miles, including environments very different from the original spot. Go to the sea or pond you will see that life spreads quickly, especially when nothing eats it.

You have some peculiar and unexamined notions, that do not originate in any book on biology. Why would speciation begin in only 10 yards? Why would life be confined to such a small area? The Earth is large! You invent reasons to disbelieve evolution, and then you assume these reasons appear in biology books. (Perhaps you imagine that you read somewhere that species emerged from a 10 sq. yd. area.) This is called a "straw man" logical fallacy. You should try to deal with the actual claims, not ones that you make up and substitute for them.

To add a bit to ChrisEverett's reply to SteveSorensen and ParkerD1:

The complete transcript of the Dover trial can be read here - fascinating stuff!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

And a few more good books: Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer; Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin; and Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell.

I do have one small quibble with what Chris wrote: While it's true that we don't descend directly from any of the current great apes, but from common ancestors, the line that led to us split first into the gorillas and the common ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans.

Since gorillas are apes, as are chimps and bonobos, and the earliest hominids were also pretty ape-ish, it's fair to say that that common ancestor was an ape. Just not one that currently exists.

Jedrothwell1 :

I am in complete agreement with you. None of us can "know" anything except what we experience ourselves, with our own senses. All of the body of scientific knowledge and of scientifically documented human history certainly falls outside of this definition of "knowledge."

Of course, the consensus of science is derived from a body of evidence. But the methods of science seem credible and reasonable to me. That is why I, in general, trust the consensus of science. That is why all real "knowledge" rests on a trust in the "consenus of science."

I have chosen these words carefully, so as not to say that science is truth, and I like truth, and that is why I believe in science because it is truth and truth is good. I try very hard to avoid saying those things.

Instead, I say that science has a proven utility; I understand how science works; I try to maintain my own currency with scientific trends, discsussions, and controversies. I tend to go along with the consensus of science and scientists on most things, unless I have some reason not to. Yet, of course, my belief in science is not a belief in an immutable truth, but a concurrant agreement with scientific consnesus. The consenus of science might change, or my agreement with the consensus might change.

There is an artful quality of judgemnt, in deciding what is real and true and what is not. That is why it does not really matter what people think about evolution. Understanding and accepting it as truth can enrich a person's life, because "knowing" is good, and "knowing" that you "know" something is a sublime feeling. But it is not necesary to have have this judgement of knowledge; it is just a perk of human inteligence.

Robert_B1 wrote:

"And I never claimed that atheists were not compassionate or moral; it just seems to me that you can't justify moral behavior through biology alone."

I do not think anyone makes the claim that biology "justifies" anything. That's like saying that Microsoft Windows justifies morality. (Belief in the devil, perhaps . . .) Biology itself has no moral content. It explains the origins of morality in people and other species; it does not "justify" it.

"Your point about killing the aged is a case in point; if my sole purpose is surviving long enough to pass along my genes, then doesn't it make biological sense to kill those who are taking up valuable resources?"

Obviously it does not, because if it did, we would kill off our grandparents and think nothing of it. We do not kill our own grandparents, but when you drive down any street of any U.S. city you will see thousands of other people's grandparents living homeless and dying off pretty quickly. We don't care about them because we are not closely related. That's biology for you!

Our morality is an expression of our biology, not the other way around. Things we are naturally inclined to do, we deem Holy and Good, even though objectively they might seem horrible to a Man from Mars.

For example, people hunt down and kill animals in cruel ways, and then eat them. From the point of view of these animals we are monsters. Vegetarians see it this way too, and I cannot think of any moral argument that proves them wrong. Our factory farms and the like are also a moral abomination by any objective standard. But, most people consider it perfectly okay to eat meat, and the Bible and other leading religious texts are in favor of it. They also favor things like stoning women to death for adultery, which is perfectly natural.

It may be that you personally do not think it is moral to leave other people's grandparents to die in the streets, or to stone people to death for having sex. I don't go along with these practices myself. My views are not based on religion (which I do not believe in) but rather on a generalized sense of morality, which is inborn. Yup, it is a product of my evolution! All intelligent animals feel some degree of sympathy for others, but in many cases other, competing emotions win out, such as when we eat other animals (or other people, in dire circumstances), or stone women to death.

Religion is a codification of natural instincts. Because these instincts compete with one another, and push people in different directions, a religious text will select some instincts and reject others. Christianity sanctions killing and eating animals; Buddhism condemns it. Some religions favor stoning adulterers; others say "he who is without sin should throw the first stone" (meaning no, it isn't allowed).

SteveSorensen,

What you are suggesting has essentially been done in the form of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Evolutionary biologists brought their best to square off against the Creationists' best, and the Creationists got hammered. From Judge Jones' ruling: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

You say that evolution's "ape to man" fiction is falisfiable. First of all, evolution does not assert any "ape to man" process. It says that apes and man share a common ancestor. That ancestor was niether an ape nor a man, but was, at least, a primate. Second, the reason evolution is so thoroughly accepted by the scientific community is precisely that it IS falsifiable. As one evolutionary biologist (I forget who) put it, "Rabbits in the Precambrian" would do it. Are you suggesting that evolution HAS BEEN falsified? If so, by what evidence?

ParkerD1,

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I've read a fair amount on it, including some (but not enough!) Darwin. As I understand it, Darwin thought that speciation occurred within a population as sub-populations specialized to fill various niches. He was wrong. The current understanding is that geographic isolation is the main driver of speciation. As some members of a population travel away from others, they become genetically isolated and the gene pools begin to diverge. Your idea that there was a 10 square yard area from which life's diversity sprang is a little far-fetched.

If you are interested in a comprehensive overview of the many scientific disciplines within evolution (palentology, geology, molecular biology, even cosmology), and how they all converge to support a single history, namely that of evolution from a common origin, I recommend Dawkins' "The Ancestors Tale," your comments about Dawkins notwithstanding. If you want a comprehensive appreciation for the fundamental mechanics of evolution, I recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." If you want a comprehensive overview of the (animal) fossil record, with a particular emphasis on showing transitions (e.g. fish to tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, pre-mamalian tetrapods to mammals), I recommend "Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters" by Donald Prothero. All three are easy and enjoyable reading.

DanielintheLionsDen wrote:

"Matters of settled science are not up for debate. The most popular idea cannot trump the truth as described by a consensus of science and scientists."

I think it is more correct to say that the truth is described by the weight of evidence: experimental evidence in some fields, and mainly observational evidence in the case of evolution.

The consensus of scientists has often been proven wrong when new experiments or observations come to light. That is hardly likely to happen in the case of evolution, but it cannot be ruled out. Any theory can be falsified. Otherwise, it isn't a theory but a form of religion. "Fossil rabbits in the precambrian" or some sort of neo-Lamarkian mechanism might be discovered, for example.

The consensus is supposed to conform to the evidence, but academic politics often delays this process. Also longevity. As Max Planck put it, progress in science occurs "funeral by funeral."

Parker1 asks:
"...why does speciation go off in all directions from the same locale, same physical conditions and weather conditions within that locale, if natural selection were to be a valid process of differentiating that speciation?"

Often climate change or some other change in physical conditions (including geographical isolation) is exactly what spurs evolution, but there are *many* other reasons for it.

Sometimes it's sexual selection - an innovation in a male simply makes him appear sexier to the ladies. Sometimes it's an innovation that allows the novel organism to exploit a niche that's unavailable to his erstwhile brethren (think of a proto-giraffe with a slightly longer neck, which can reach leaves that none of his fellows can). Sometimes it's an innovation that just makes life easier in some way - a more robust constitution, better disease resistance, a better ability to find, consume, or utilize food. Sometimes it's a change in coloration that makes him less visible to predators - or even *more* visible to them, if the new coloration mimics something that they find distasteful or poisonous. Sometimes it's enhanced fertility - the production of more eggs or sperm. Sometimes it's behavioral - perhaps giving better care to offspring, or being more alert to the presence of danger...

Do you need more examples? I can go on.

In this case of your one square yard of microbial life, generally the same principles apply. Euglena, for instance, developed an eyespot - a cluster of crystals that allowed it to sense light. Moving toward light gives it better opportunities for photosynthesis.

The upshot is that anything that gives a reproductive advantage - *no matter how slight* - will result in speciation.

Pamsm

I think that people who are interested in science are also interested in nature, in the natural world, and in animals. To me, it is only common sense to say that man is an animal. That is just plain obvious, isn't it? And in believing that, I am not worried that animals are bad. Andimals, one by one, as individuals, and as a study of the interconnected of the many speicies are very, very, VERY intersting. As do not think of animals as "low" and man as "high." I think that we are all interconnectly, the same, or at least similar. These realizaitons and undertandings are not painful but are rather, wonderful, and even euphoric, like appreciating beautiful music, or other beautiful art.

People who are down on science and think it is some kind of wicked secularist plot to destroy religion do not have the sensitivity or refinement to see thise wonderful things in the world.

All they see and experience is the physical that lays before them, that they touch everyday, and add to that a little quasi-religious-philosopny that they sip from to make it all bearable.

ParkerD1 wrote:

". . . I've read some of Dawkins, but found him jumping to conclusions that I didn't see justified in the data he examined."

You should perhaps acknowledge that these are not only his conclusions. This is not a case of your opinion versus Dawkin's. Many other scientists have reached these same conclusions, and just about every expert agrees with them. I do not believe we should blindly accept what experts say, but on the other hand you are too bold when you assume that you can read a book or two and find errors in well-established theories.

"Perhaps you could suggest an author or two about evolution who don't skip over data that do not advance their particular idea or theory . . ."

These are not Dawkin's particular idea or theory, as you see in the papers he references. You will find copious evidence for the ideas in other books. You could read his references or a textbook. Dawkins and all other authors cannot help but "skip over" some data because the data in support of evolution fills entire libraries: thousands and thousands of books, papers, computer datasets and so on (such as genomes).

"Perhaps being so well read yourself you could sum up in a few masterfully composed sentences the answer to my question about speciation within, say, the ten square yards where all life began, and expanded so mysteriously through natural selection . . ."

It is not mysterious at all. You will find detailed descriptions of how this worked in countless books.

I cannot "sum up" this topic in a few sentences because biology is not hard science. A person can sum up some of the major laws of physics in a handful of equations. You can sum up laws of chemistry in a page or two. But to do justice to any major concept in biology, you have to write hundreds of pages, and no two authors will write exactly the same description or come to exactly the some conclusions.

Furthermore, I do not think I am capable of writing a more lucid or understandable description than Dawkins did, so if he did not persuade you, I doubt that I could either.

ParkerD

Your question is too detailed and specific for anyone to answer. Just because every imaginagle question of unlimited detail and refinement cannot be answered by science does not mean that the consensus of science on the general principles of evolution are not true.

And for SteveSorensen :

Matters of settled science are not up for debate. The most popular idea cannot trump the truth as described by a consesnus of science and scientists. Regarding the true nature of existence, the world, and the universe, people do not get a vote. Truth is truth, regardless of the public's caprice.

If you are someone that wants to know what is the consensus of science on evolution, the information is available and easy to access. Go ahead and look at it. Perhaps you do not have the mental capacity to understand. Perhaps you may find its comflict with a previously held religous belief too painful to get past. There is no one who can compel you to know, understand, or "believe" in evolution, if you do not understand it, and if you think you are better able than science to find truth in the world.

That is your perfect right, which you are entitled to. Your life unfolds in a landscape of experience. Secondary knowledge that we derive outside of our own personal experiences is a kind of artistic achievement. If you are not too good at it, then it is not necessary to pursue it or to understand.

Yet because you do not understand, you should not hold a grudge against others who do understand. Your own limitations of experience and knowledge should not be foisted upon everyone else.

It is the consensus of sciecne, freely derived and open and available to all, that evolution is true. And it is the consenus of a modern and sophisticated person that science is a method and system of thought that leads to valid ideas and concepts about how the world is put together, and how things came to be.

Science, its methodolgies, its consensus, its utilitiy in all aspects of our lives, is the mark of the modern world. You can incoprorate all of the utility of scicence into your personal landscape of experience, live off of it, and allow it to elevate your standard of living and quality of life, but yet, at the same time, withdraw your abstract "beleif" in it, in favor of something else of greater psychological value, but really of little practical utility, with regards to how to get things done, or how to make things happen in a good, fruitful, efficient, and feasible way.

Robert B1 says:
"Please note that I did not mention God in my post, but the soul, which is that part of man that goes beyond the merely animalistic. The soul is quite capable of grasping moral principles on its own through the use of reason. What I doubt is that those moral principles are purely based on biological principles."

Demonstrate to me that such a thing exists. I know that you can't *prove* it, but at least show me some compelling evidence.

Chops2 says, in reply to Robert B1:
"By "acting like animals" I assume u mean just kill or rape or do whatever u want or need to survive. Some don't do it because they need the fear of god to prevent it, while others do it because they are educated and compassionate enough to not want to harm our fellow man."

Other animals do not kill at random, nor do they rape. This is a common misconception among those who have little knowledge about nature.

Education is not where empathy comes from, and compassion is a direct result of the workings of evolution (see my post of 1:32 am and the article link).

Of course, *too much* compassion (as for other animals) would be selected against, since we needed to kill in order to eat.

CHOPS2: "When I hear people say if it wasn't for god why wouldn't I just kill my neighbour: I say to you that your moral compass is so far off you make me sick and religion has not helped u one bit."

Just ask them if religion is the only thing keeping them from killing. If it were to be proven to them that there were no god, would they immediately go on a killing spree? The answer should be interesting, and food for further conversation.

YO YO brother2

"Without honest compassion for one another right now, we have nothing. And stop bashing the messenger; Darwin was right."

How about some honest compassion for people's faith?

"If we really seek peaceful happiness, then learn math, science and logic."

No. For peaceful happiness Just alter DNA and build hermaphroditic homonoids that reproduce themselves. No more battle of the sexes. No reason for the opposite sex. No reason to work. Just think and jaw jack about science.

Program them to do the science.

Darwin was right. What the H does that mean?
He was righteous?

The best thing that will come out of Darwin's discoveries is they will point the way to the cure for cancer.

With a longer life we'll just be dominated longer by the underserving, pompous elites.

Edbyronadams wrote:
"That coin has another side. The price of tribes of closely related relatives that give us selection for altruism also give us xenophobia and war. Balance is the Middle Way. Altruism and genocide hold hands in human evolution."

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, our civilization has outpaced our social evolution. We tend to want to divide ourselves into "tribes" that can be as small as immediate families or as large as countries (under certain circumstances). Someday we may actually see ourselves as the Family of Man, but I'm not holding my breath.

Readers of this article may be interested in Ostrofsky's book, "The ecoDarwinian Paradigm," which discusses the application of the theory of self-organizing systems to the brain, the mind and human society. It agrees completely with Ms. Jacoby's point that this extension of Darwin's thought remains dynamite, even to people who can accept that the anthropoid apes are our close cousins. It also explains in some detail why modern science is committed to this position - viewing the mind itself as an evolving system - now bearing rich theoretical fruit in psychology and the social sciences, as Natural Selection did previously in biology.

Hi, Jed,
Thanks for the humor. I've read some of Dawkins, but found him jumping to conclusions that I didn't see justified in the data he examined. Perhaps you could suggest an author or two about evolution who don't skip over data that do not advance their particular idea or theory, and who present in minute detail each step leading to a conclusion rather than jumping to a conclusion in several mighty leaps.

Perhaps being so well read yourself you could sum up in a few masterfully composed sentences the answer to my question about speciation within, say, the ten square yards where all life began, and expanded so mysteriously through natural selection (wait--what happened within those ten square yards to send off developing protozoa into differing life forms and have them all survive then continue to differentiate?) into all the forms of life we have in our midst today as well as the extinct ones we see in the fossil remains.

Robert_B1: "Your point about killing the aged is a case in point; if my sole purpose is surviving long enough to pass along my genes, then doesn't it make biological sense to kill those who are taking up valuable resources?"

While killing elders may have some short-term benefits, it seems likely to me that those groups who assist their elder members, thereby gaining from their valuable accumulated knowledge in how and where to acquire resources (and also gaining from having an extra pair of child-rearing hands around), benefit more in the long term and will, eventually, out-compete those groups which kill their elders.

Many articles from Darwinists contain the usual dogmatic and falsifiable beliefs of Darwinian evolutionist's ape to man fiction. The code God put in place for humans to adapt to the environment and pass that information on to their children is a marvelous provision put in place for living in this broken and fallen world. It does not, in the slightest, give evidence for the millions of years ape to man evolutionary myth.

Darwinian evolutionists just love to engage in clever eisegesis of the physical evidence whenever they sense a "tingle" in what they think they are seeing because they really want to see it.

Look, just listen very carefully to the Darwinist's clever excuses when this is proposed: Have a prime-time national TV debate of the true scientific evidences for a couple of hours from the one the Darwinian evolutionists choose, and the one the Creationists choose (not the evolutionists choosing for them). Then, let the public, including the "most educated," decide for themselves.

Now, again, listen to the evolutionist's contortions in response to this. It ought to speak volumes concerning their TRUE agenda. No? Then just do it!

Chops2:

"When I hear people say if it wasn't for god why wouldn't I just kill my neighbour: I say to you that your moral compass is so far off you make me sick and religion has not helped u one bit."

Please note that I did not mention God in my post, but the soul, which is that part of man that goes beyond the merely animalistic. The soul is quite capable of grasping moral principles on its own through the use of reason. What I doubt is that those moral principles are purely based on biological principles.

To Conrbread_R2:

You wrote: "Do you think it's an accident that elephants, one of our more intelligent cousins, display compassionate and empathetic traits?"

No, I don't think it's accidental; that's just my point... :)

And I never claimed that atheists were not compassionate or moral; it just seems to me that you can't justify moral behavior through biology alone. Your point about killing the aged is a case in point; if my sole purpose is surviving long enough to pass along my genes, then doesn't it make biological sense to kill those who are taking up valuable resources?

I'm no biologist, but it seems to me that much of what man has considered moral behavior through the ages is actually antithetical to individual survival.

ParkerR1 wrote

"Having read both Origin of Species and Descent of Man, yet still remaining skeptical of evolution from one species to another through "natural selection" . . . I nonetheless enjoyed reading Darwin and admire his thought as well as his writing style."

I have read Mr. Charles Babbage's essays on productivity and looked at his plans for the Difference Engine No. 2. He is a gifted writer and an extraordinarly intellect, but I still have grave doubts about his claims. I do not think it is possible to construct "computing machinery" that solves arithmetic problems mechanically, and prints out tables of numbers. I am sure this is a settled issue, and Baggage had the last word, so there is no need to read anything published after 1848 or look at new information about these so-called "computers."

Mr. Parker are you SERIOUSLY saying that the sum total of your knowledge about evolution comes from Darwin's original texts, and you think this qualifies you to judge the subject?!? Do you also suppose that Edison's 1878 incandescent bulb was the last word in lighting, and vaccinations have not improved much since Jenner? I am sure all biologists agree that Darwin was one of the best scientist who ever lived, and that his books are monumental and worth reading even now for useful information. But -- to say the very least -- a great deal has been discovered, and evolution has been confirmed and expanded since Darwin published.

Pamsm wrote:

"If we lived like tigers - staking out a territory for ourselves and keeping all other tigers away from it - meeting the opposite sex only briefly to mate, then going our separate ways again, you might have a point. But we are, in fact, social animals, and like *all* other social animals we eschew pure selfishness to help others of our kind."

________________________________________

That coin has another side. The price of tribes of closely related relatives that give us selection for altruism also give us xenophobia and war. Balance is the Middle Way. Altruism and genocide hold hands in human evolution.

Dear Spiderman

You can rant all you want and call evolution stupid, and call "evolutionists" stupid, if that makes you feel better. If tantrums against evolution helps with what troubles you, then there is no one to stop you from it.

Yet, the consensus of science and of scientist remains unchanged, that evolution is true. Perhaps you ideas about truth are different from the consensus of science, and that is your choice; you are free to regard science any way that you want; no one cares.

I do not say that evolution is true; I say that it is the consensus of science and scientists that evolution is true. And I infer with a high degree of certainty, that the consensus of science is a reliable indicator for what is real and true and what is not real and true, and that I have no reason to doubt the consensus of science on this matter

Certainly, you have not pur fourth any arguments to persuade me that the consensus of science is in error on this matter. Merely calling people stupid and idiots does not move the argument.

I do not think that you understand evolution because perhaps you afraid to read about it, because you are afraid it might make sense. In any event, you are entitled to challenge anything that you want, if you think that you have a better vision of truth than everybody else.

But, that does not change the consensus of science. It persists, independently of dissenters, like you.

Having read both Origin of Species and Descent of Man, yet still remaining skeptical of evolution from one species to another through "natural selection" (for example, why does speciation go off in all directions from the same locale, same physical conditions and weather conditions within that locale, if natural selection were to be a valid process of differentiating that speciation?), I nonetheless enjoyed reading Darwin and admire his thought as well as his writing style. I'm not "troubled" by his thought at all, nor by any true science. My deeply held religious beliefs have much deeper roots both intellectually and spiritually than the shallowness that often passes as "reason," particularly on the internet.

But thanks, Susan, for your essay here. I wish you the best in your daily commutes and in coming to understand during your life how your writing and compassionate understanding have been influenced upwardly by some of the difficult trials you have experienced. I wouldn't wish them on you or anyone, but your insightful writing was not born in a vaccuum of feelings and experiences.

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??

Robert B1
"If we're all just animals with more complicated brains, then why shouldn't we act like animals?"

You think we dont act like animals? Fighting, tribalism, sex, love for our kin are all traits examinable in many animal species as in ours are they not?

By "acting like animals" I assume u mean just kill or rape or do whatever u want or need to survive. Some don't do it because they need the fear of god to prevent it, while others do it because they are educated and compassionate enough to not want to harm our fellow man.

When I hear people say if it wasn't for god why wouldn't I just kill my neighbour: I say to you that your moral compass is so far off you make me sick and religion has not helped u one bit.

Just accept our existance be it from evolution or otherwise it really shouldn't matter.

Homesower wrote:
"The social darwinists, supporters of eugenics, and Nazi supremacists are all taking Darwinian selection to its logical conclusion. The only morality is that which serves to advance my gene pool, so away with all those old, limiting ideas like right and wrong, good and evil."

You could not be more wrong. If we lived like tigers - staking out a territory for ourselves and keeping all other tigers away from it - meeting the opposite sex only briefly to mate, then going our separate ways again, you might have a point. But we are, in fact, social animals, and like *all* other social animals we eschew pure selfishness to help others of our kind.

Empathy and altruism are perfectly explained by natural selection acting on animals that live in social groups that consist largely of related individuals (as we once did). Sacrificing yourself to warn the group about the approach of a predator, for example, might advance more of your genes to the next generation (by way of your siblings, cousins, parents...) than your own production of offspring would.

It doesn't require braininess - worker bees sacrifice themselves quite thoughtlessly for the good of the hive - natural selection at work.

Read about the evolution of empathy here: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Note the Rhesus monkey who nearly starved himself to death rather than press a lever for food, when he realized that every time he did, the monkey next to him got a shock.

Oh, and BTW - you don't have a "gene pool" to advance. You only have your own genome. The "pool" comprises the gene of all of the members of your species.

Great article, Susan!
Regarding most of the posts:
lmao,rofl. 39% believe evolution to be fact, 61% suffer H.U.A. syndrome (head up a$$). Mankind is the supreme predator. Old Religion justifies predation: Dominate land(plunder & pollute), dominate humanity(war, marriage, politics, commerce), dominate nature(destroy the diversity of life). Darwin wasn't revolutionary, just revelatory; Pealed back the curtain of the Great and Powerful Oz. Mankind is an animal within a huge system of natural progression, no more, no less. DNA, no more magical than light from stars. Our evolution from plasmic quarks was inevitable, not special. "Wonder" is not evidence of "God", it is proof of ignorance. Jesus, a great man, taught us to stop preying upon each other, duh, and just accept the unknowable "God". We cannot know a "creator" by examining her creations, duh. To try is hubris, folly and justifies more predation.

If we really seek peaceful happiness, then learn math, science and logic. Before the Big Bang there was nothing. Beyond the edge of the universe is nothing. Without honest compassion for one another right now, we have nothing. And stop bashing the messenger; Darwin was right.

Mean Spider, I think that you are proof that some of us have never evolved.

As for being related to bacteria, we are, if you go back far enough to include the building blocks of life. Every living thing has DNA, including humans. DNA is made of the same four amino acids. (Don't ask me to quote them. I'm way too tired for that.) We are connected to all life on Earth through our DNA. It's not a tree of life, it's a web.

What Mean Spider and other Bible literalists forget is that the Bible was not written by "God". It is a collection of the oral history and creation myths of the Hebrew tribes that was written down sometime after people developed the alphabet. It has been changed, edited, translated, and mis-translated many times since then. These are people that didn't have the scientific knowledge that we do now. Taking a 4,000-year-old book literally is not using the brain that that Higher Being gave us! The Biblical creation story is no more valid, and certainly less accurate, than the Australian aboriginal story of the universe being contained in a cassowary egg, which hatched and produced the stars.

As for "Hitler was a disciple of Darwin", so what? They weren't contemporaries. Darwin isn't to blame for how Hitler twisted Darwin's discoveries. Hitler was also a vegetarian. Does that mean that we should condemn all vegetarians as Nazis? Darwin was an abolitionist. His Theory of Evolution proved that all humans were the same under the skin, which was NOT the prevailing belief in the 1850's. As a scientist and an Englishman, he would have been appalled at the misuse of his findings by those that came after.

Good. I'm glad to see an article in the media whose writer actually understands this issue.

"Darwinism" etc. are really only a "debate" to those who don't understand them. The headline I'm not so sure about though -- Darwin doesn't trouble me much...

Personally I've always figured the split between science and religion/ethics was "can I" versus "should I". The two don't really mix. You can't scientifically determine if something is a 'good' idea, and you can't religiously engineer...

Themoderate wrote "Darwin does not trouble me in any way."

That's what you think. The guy has caused a lot of troubles already. A big portion of the world would be destroyed soon because of the stupidity spread by evolution. It has turned many people to become stupid and therefore dangerous.

Communism is just one example. It has twisted many people's views about morality and equate their morality with animals.

Natural selection is the process by which FAVORABLE heritable TRAITS become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

Immoral traits are not favorable and therefore according to this theory, a lot of people will be gone soon.

Maybe the theory has got some sense after all. The only problem is the people who believes the theory don't undertand it.

The problem with evolution is that they link themselves or consider themselves as far RELATIVES of bacteria.

Yes they are but in a different sense. Relative in terms of being malignant and infectious. A source of disease. A disease to our modern society.

They carry the STUPIDITY disease.

edbyronadams "On the other hand, bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a genetic characteristic."

Part of intelligent design. Unlike humans, bacterias divide to propagate. It's not evolution.

Susan,

"Darwin's conclusions about life continue to trouble and challenge us,..."

Speak for yourself. Darwin does not trouble me in any way. Does he trouble you?

Spidermean, you wouldn't happen to be related to Bill O'rielly would you?

The louder you make your argument has nothing to do with how good it is.

"Does it mean huamns evolved when they become immune to small pox?"

It would if the immunity was carried in our genome, but it's not, so it isn't. On the other hand, bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a genetic characteristic.

"it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heal".

Yup that is mediaval and it's gonna happen soon. The Bible is a very intelligent book and it's not a wonder why stupid folks laugh at anything that possesses intelligence beyond their grasp.

spidermean2 said:

"Evolution tells us how it was done."

Nope. Evolution tells stupid stories.
the sequence how
The Bible tells us
The Bible tells us
The Bible tells us
The Bible tells us
The Bible tells us
The Bible tells us
_______________________
In other words [sings] "it is all as it is 'cause the bible tells us sooooo..."

Don't bother with spidey folks, he has only a faint grip on rationality.

But he'd be great in a stage show, how about 'GOD: The Musical.'

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

"Evolution tells us how it was done."

Nope. Evolution tells stupid stories.

The Bible tells us the sequence how it was done. Some science like the Big Bang theory gives us a glimpse how it was done. Just a glimpse coz it can't explain what caused the VERY BIG explosion. The "explosion" or the bang was almost infinite in size coz the universe continue to grow upto now. It means it can't be measured.

Religion tells us who made the Universe. Evolution tells us how it was done.

Before you characterize Charles Darwin, why don't you go out to http://darwin-online.org.uk/ and read his writings for yourselves? Oh, I'm sorry. That would require critical thinking, not parroting opinions from pastors and Fox News.

It might surprise people that Darwin was an abolitionist, and his ideas proved the point that all humans were the same, they just had minor variations to adapt to their environment. Therefore, one human should not enslave another or discriminate against them because of their race. It was a radical idea back in the 1850's.

bushieisa wrote " Like micro-biological immunity to penicillin, to provide just one short time-frame evolutionary example."

Ever heard about the phrase "defense mechanism"? Does it mean huamns evolved when they become immune to small pox?

If ever we can create future buildings in which it would strengthen itself whenever it experiences tremors, does it mean it evolved or does it mean it's part of an intelligent design?

Stupid folks can't understand the word INTELLIGENCE.

Spidermean2 wrote: "Daniel wrote "It (evolution) still works, producing utility,"

Like what utility?"

Like micro-biological immunity to penicillin, to provide just one short time-frame evolutionary example.

"This logic does not, of course, explain why a supreme being would choose such an inefficient process as evolution to arrive at the human species"

inefficient process?

Susan, there is more to life than humans, and humans need far more than just other humans to live.

An entire biosphere had to be created, and things that we would later term 'natural resources' needed to be stocked, to set the stage for human kind.

The social darwinists, supporters of eugenics, and Nazi supremacists are all taking Darwinian selection to its logical conclusion. The only morality is that which serves to advance my gene pool, so away with all those old, limiting ideas like right and wrong, good and evil.

I am not saying that you are in that category, only that you don't really believe in natural selection. You believe in a fairy tale version of it, that evolves us to where we are, but allows us to have the ideals and values that come from an eternal source outside of evolution.

Susan Jacoby, on one point concerning the biological aspect of human beings you are contradictory--and no wonder, as it is an extremely sensitive topic.

What I mean to be exact, is that there are quite a few people who are willing to discount the spiritual view (I mean by this religion in general) but do not have the courage for a total biological view--including you.

Many people are willing to acknowledge the often harsh aspects of nature, genetic disorders in humans such as the very alzheimer's disease you mention, but are not willing to accept that there are genetic differences between men and women and between races.

How to explain accepting the genetic basis of so many dreadful disorders but being unwilling to accept that say men are better in math than women (and they obviously are if anyone has the courage to just see it. To increase your courage I suggest accepting someone's bet that the next field's medal winner will be a man--which is to say, put your money on a woman and see what happens. When money is on the line people tend to wise up immediately).

Or take up this bet: that the next Nobels in the sciences and even arts will be predominantly Asian, Jewish, and white men. Please for your side of the bet choose women or say blacks or hispanics. Do you doubt that for years to come you will be shelling out more money than you will win?

But to cut to the chase, obviously we are not willing to see differences between men and women and between races because the human race does not know how to live with such knowledge without discriminating in the negative sense. In other words trying to discriminate positively as I have done in the previous paragraphs is largely indistinguishable from discriminating in the negative sense and destroying people's lives totally.

But of course humans will have to arrive at positive discrimination someday or acknowledge that we really do not have it in us to choose our evolutionary future even though before our very eyes we often have evidence of such a direction. We are willing to be discriminatory in the positive sense in fields such as athletics (just try out for a professional football team to see what I mean) or arts such as acting and music (just try to succeed there as well) but when it comes to the more intellectual endeavours positive discrimination breaks down completely.

No more need to be said. Enough thought for speculation already.

Robert_B1: "For me, a purely materialistic conception of man is one without the need for compassion, justice, or morality."

And yet compassionate, just and moral atheists exist...

Might it not be possible that a sense of compassion, justice and morality has aided our species in surviving? Which species do you think would be more successful: one that kills its elder members the moment they are too weak to defend themselves or one that assists them and benefits from their accumulated knowledge? Do you think it's an accident that elephants, one of our more intelligent cousins, display compassionate and empathetic traits?

Daniel wrote "It (evolution) still works, producing utility,"

Like what utility? Evolutionists and believers of it are really clueless.

This is what evolution has done to our society. Teaching them to be stupid.

How can I be able to teach idiots if they are not capable of learning?

MITCHS52

Charles Darwin is not the "father of the greatest story every told;" he is the discoverer of evolution.

To accept the consensus of science on the validiy and truthfullness of evolution does not require any profound faith, other than the assumption that the methodologies of science have the capcity to map out how the world is put together and how it works, beyond our mere sensory perceptions of our own individual, limited, and local lives.

It is science.

Science is a great tool of mankind and has great utility. It works. If you do not see that, then, that is ok. There is no necessary requirement for any particular individual to understand and accept science and the findings of science.

It still works, producing utility, and enabling us a picture of truth about the world that is more and more refined as the work of science progresses. The validity of science and of evolution holds true, with or without your personal endorsement. Evolution is still true, according the the consensus of science by which we measure truth, even if you think that truth should be measured a different way.

MyView49:

If the ToE as we currently know it is just too improbable to be true, how much more improbable would it be that the whole business, right down to DNA sequencing, is being *imperceptibly* directed by an omnipotent, eternal intelligent designer? Why would one call such a designer "intelligent" when 99.9% of it's designs have gone extinct through a process that was much more pain than gain?

goku234:

If anything, Hitler believed in human husbandry, not natural selection. Actively culling undesirable individuals from the gene pool is un-natural selection

Shouldn't we exchange gifts and have a lit tree or something. Darwin is, after all, the father of the greatest STORY ever told.
The writer fails to point out the profound faith one must have to believe in Darwins ideas. Make up a story about how things might have happened. I do not demand you believe my religion. Yet you demand I believe yours. I am a firm believer in reasearching all aspects of how we began. Honest reasearch with honest conclusions. God Bless you.

Ms. Jacoby: "I do not understand why it seems so important to theologians (and some sociologists) to find an explanation for human behavior that extends beyond the purely naturalistic...if, as I believe, everything about human beings that we call "spiritual"--our ability to love, to create art, to imagine our own deaths--is inescapably housed within our material corpus, why is that so disturbing?"

What makes it disturbing to me is that if we are nothing more that this flesh, then we are no better than beasts. The concept of the human soul is what drives us to embrace what that other birthday boy called "the better angels of our nature". If we're all just animals with more complicated brains, then why shouldn't we act like animals? For me, a purely materialistic conception of man is one without the need for compassion, justice, or morality.

I appreciated your article, Susan, though I think you were a bit harsh with Carl Safina. Darwin, like many great thinkers, is often co-opted -- indeed, the 'neo-Darwinists', such as Fisher, Wright, and Mayr, great men in their own right, out-Darwinned Darwin. Darwin was a humble man, and did not see natural selection as the only form of evolution: he saw it as an extension to adaptive inheritance through a more mysterious innate force (go back and check Origins of Species) more akin to Lamarck's ideas. This is important because much of the brow-beating in evolutionary science, which, like many of the less empirical disciplines, has a good deal of internal strife, has been using a narrow version of Darwin as a stick: that evolution of adapted traits occurs only through natural selection acting on random variation. Darwin was more expansive and less sure of himself.
I think that if you were a biology student in the last decade or two, you would likely be frustrated with this dogma. Independent thought in evolution is discouraged, as it is in any discipline, by institutional inertia, but the situation is made a good deal worse by scientists that circle the wagons to fight off the fanatical religious nutters. Darwin is constantly evoked by these Whips of Science.

The result is that rather obvious questions that are not iterations of neo-Darwinism get shoved aside and are primarily expressed in fields other than 'evolution.' What are these questions? They have to do with maternal effects of the cellular state (life requires not only the DNA blue-print, but the cellular reader of that blue-print), of inheritable epigenetic imprinting on DNA (e.g. attachment of a methyl group without changing 'the code') that changes its expression pattern and has more akin to Lamarck than Darwin, and the more general possibility that the ability to evolve in a less random fashion may well have evolved by random. Darwin was a great man, let us salute him, learn from his expansive mind, and delve back into the data.

Darwinism evolves. What Darwin originally propoed was actually derivitive, in part from his grandfather, in part from other sources. Many of this original particulars, such as behavior affecting progeny, have been first observed, then denied, and are now back in fashion. What he propoesed and what are now believed the elements of evolution are different. So the person who believed Darwin in 1860 would be wrong today. Those who believe in evolution theory today will be proved wrong tomorrow, no matter how much they claim confidence in the current knowledge and logic.
Spencer's social Darwinism is also derivative, and is an obvious outshoot of the theory. It's opposite, that man has not evolved at all in the last 10,000 years, is likewise wrong. So those who grasped the theory at one point in time was found to be wrong in other points of time, which also goes to show you that Darwinism evolves just as rapidly as Darwinists do.

Creationism also eveolves. First, it was non-belief in the roundness of the globe, which is described as flat in the Bible and Koran and most other religious scriptures.
Then there was a denial of any changes in the earth. Bishop Ussher calculated the length of days mentioned in the Bible, and came up with his own numbers for the age of the world. Then there was a denial that he was wrong. Then an admission that he was slightly wrong, but that the age of the earth wasn't as old as science said.
Intelligent Design is a compromise, which accepts many precepts of evolution, but with a directed component. The concepts of Intelligent Design would never, ever, have been accepted to the Christian fundamentalists of the 1920s. But creationism has evolved since then, and will evolve some more. What creationists believe today will be changed tomorrow, as their concrete belief will change with time.

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)

allenc1:
“As a programmer you should be able to analyse a system, identify the elements and the classes of elements, how they interact, and the rules that govern the interaction. You show no sign of that ability either.”
Just because you have a bunch of objects (micro) does not explain the clock within the DNA that provides the timing and the sequencing of all the objects at just the right time. It would take intelligence to develop the rules that govern the interaction. Plus there is still no explanation of the life force that drives all this.

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".

MYVIEW49: "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."

I too am a computer programmer, and I have no problem with macro-evolution. The difference is one of scale. Take a 1000 micros and you have one macro, or thereabouts. Now that wasn't very difficult was it?

As a programmer you should understand the way that highly complex systems can be created out of a small set of simple rules, see the Lisp and Smalltalk engines, for example. For something slightly more complex there are entities like the Java VM, and then any high level language with its rules of syntax. As a programmer you should understand these things, but you don't.

As a programmer you should be able to analyse a system, identify the elements and the classes of elements, how they interact, and the rules that govern the interaction. You show no sign of that ability either.

Perhaps you should study evolution, it might make you a better programmer. The Blessed Richard Dawkins would be a good start.

I agree Jed.

But in response to the education part. I think that we should be taught to think critically, so that we can discern whether something is right or wrong, with the understanding that right and wrong answers are out there. Furthermore we should understand that it is okay to be wrong, and be able to adapt when confronted with strong evidence that is contrary to our ideas.

Too much to hope for? Probably. However, your idea gives too much power to those with the information. Which scares me just as much as what we have now.

If there really was a god, he would stop spidey from tarnishing his good name.

There, now we have concrete proof.

In my previous post, I said:

"As evolution explains, we are animals, primates, advanced mammals. And we perceive the world much as they do. Our senses are similar. We cannot really "know" anything for sure, except what we experience in the landscape of our unfolding lives, just as all the other animals do."

I would like to add here, that for some people, for many people, this enough. Knowledge of the landscape of sensory experience is enough. Where is the next meal coming from, where is the next beer coming from, where is the next sexual experience coming from, directions for getting around, maps, how to navigate and do things, laying on the beach, lift weights, watching TV, all expereinces of our unfolding lives, enough "realiity" and "truth" for many people's subsistance.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that.

But there is more to know, about how the entirety of the world is put together, and how it works. It takes a brighter and more curious wit to strike off the path of our sensual landscapes, to seek to understand through imagination, how all things got to be the way they are.

ApostasyUSA Author Profile Page:

"Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. They are entirely different disciplines. The truce that one day will allow for science and faith to become mutually inclusive should be constantly nurtured."

I know that many people of good will believe this, but I find them mutually exclusive. I cannot reconcile them, and I have not wish to do so.

Stephen Jay Gould often said this sort of thing, but I find his arguments unconvincing and halfhearted. They lack the enthusiasm he brought to evolution.

Perhaps I am a philistine. People who preach this doctrine of tolerance -- the "let us have it both ways" school -- should be tolerant of us philistines whose imaginations lack suppleness, and who are incapable of either entertaining or believing what appear to be mutually exclusive answers to the same questions.

Like it or not, religion and biology overlap in many areas. They both attempt to answer profound questions such as: How did we get here? What (if any) is our purpose? Is there evidence for an intelligent creator? What is the source of morality? The answers provided by one seem utterly at odds with the other.

As Susan Jacoby wrote: "That so many manage to accommodate belief systems encompassing both the natural and the supernatural is a testament not to the compatibility of science and religion but to the flexibility, in both the physical and metaphysical senses, of the human brain." I do not find it wonderful that people can convince themselves of contradictory beliefs. I find that scary, because people often use this ability for irresponsible ends, and because it seems mentally unhealthy. If you cannot tell which is right, it is better to stop believing in both, and admit you are ignorant.

It is old fashioned and politically incorrect to say this, but I think that one purpose of education should to be to teach people how NOT to think, and when it is best to be a little inflexible and closed-minded.

Evolution is settled science. That means that there is a consensus of scientific opinion that is in agreement that Evolution is valid and true. You can agree with this consensus, or you can disagree with this consensus. But either way, there is no "ism" to be attached to the word "evolution" or to the name of "Darwin."

As evolution explains, we are animals, primates, advanced mammals. And we perceive the world much as they do. Our senses are similar. We cannot really "know" anything for sure, except what we experience in the landscape of our unfolding lives, just as all the other animals do.

People who do not believe in evolution because they do not have first hand experience or knowledge of it are actually proving Darwin's point, that we are animals, with only very limited knowledge of the world, through our senses, just exactly as the animals experience it.

But we have a secondary sense of knowledge, of what others have told us, or of what we have read or somehow, otherwise heard about, or how some obvious phenomenon, has been explained in a different less obvious was, that makes more sense, ultimately, that the earth goes around the sun, for example, instead of the sun going around the earth.

This kind of knowledge is not what we have experienced with our own senses; it is rather more closely related to art or music or poetry. There is a sense of judgemnt about its quality, and even its beauty. Some peoople have a knack for descerning it and appreciating it; others require a great deal of education and study to get the hang of it. Other's just have tin ears, and cannot seem to tell the difference from what is true and what is untrue.

We have a technical system of measuring, quantifying, and observing the world, called science, and a scientific way of debating these observations and conclusions. We have certain, special people, like Darwin for example, who acquire insight, by unknown means, into the truth of the matter, that remains hidden to most everyone else, as though they remember it from a dream that they had almost forgotten. All this adds to a scientific discussion and consensus on what is real and true, and what is not.

Scientific consensus is available for anyone to observe. Anyone can dissent from it, and say that they do not agree with the settled consensus of science. But that disagreement is totally and completely irrelevant to the science of the matter.

To be sure, knowledge of evolution as scietific truth is a mark of sophistoicated and modern person. People who reject evolution for their own personal reasons cannot expect that their opinions on anything else, in general, will be taken seriously.

There is not really any controversy about evolution. It's true. All modern, thoughtful, and well-educated people are aware of that.

If Spiderman, or anyone else does not accept this, that is their choice, which is nor relevant to the truth, and will not change it.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. They are entirely different disciplines. The truce that one day will allow for science and faith to become mutually inclusive should be constantly nurtured.

Faiths practitioners are no more of less passionate that the practitioners of science. Faith is based on the assumption of knowledge, where science assumes knowledge is infinite.

The truce between science and religion can be derived by the rulings of our Justice system, through the mandates of our voting, and through compromises made by the religious elite.

The oppressive excessively religious will always be able to challenge science, simply by giving ID a new name.

The inveterate of our society come in vicissitudes marked by generations; therefore philosophical changes in society usually happen over centuries.

To Ajoness (2nd comment)

Just because there is an individual benefit derived from the expression of spiritual traits, does not mean that they are any less special.

It may help to think of individual fitness not as your status in life or in society, but as your ability to produce viable offspring, that can produce offspring of their own. It is the perpetuation of your genes that are most important.

Therefore when a mother bear chooses not to retreat in fear but chooses to stand and fight an aggressor, she is not simply motivated into such a behavior by anger. She does it instinctively to protect her cubs, and therefore her own genetic code. It is in her own self interest to sacrifice herself for her cubs.

This behavior must exist because it works in passing down genetic information.

What is important here is that even lesser evolved mammals such as bears have a capacity for self-sacrifice, which I believe is the root of the human expression of love. Combine the capacity for self-sacrifice and you have compassion. The noblest of human behaviors, because self-interest isn't part of the equation anymore.

These realizations have charged me with task of treating my fellow man with love and compassion, not because of a supernatural mandate. To realize that it is within our power to be good and only our power, makes our choices all the more important, doesn't it?

@BobDog2

hahahahahaha-sorry if my post isn't up to snuff, I only have a B.S.

Many religious conservatives oppose evolution and science, but I was shocked to learn the extent to which some mainstream political conservatives do as well. This is quite a change from the 1950s. A right-wing website "Humanevents.com" which publishes many prominent conservatives put out a list of the most dangerous books of the last 200 years:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

It includes some obvious choices that conservatives and liberals agree on, such as "Mein Kampf" and "Quotations from Chairman Mao." Item #4 shocked me: "The Kinsey Report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." And below that the Honorable Mention of runner-up titles include "The Origin of the Species"!

Evidently these people are opposed to knowledge, and they think it would be a better world if biologists and doctors had no clue how bacteria and viruses evolve. I doubt they realize how much they would sacrifice to protect us from dangerous knowledge.

What were these people thinking? Can they be serious? When a political movement reviles science and free inquiry it has "jumped the shark" in modern lingo, or more likely it is headed for extinction.

One of the many things I like about Obama is his unequivocal support for science, curiosity, evolution, and even "non-believers." Bravo for Darwin & Lincoln on their 200th birthdays! Bravo for Obama (so far anyway)!

Oh and by the way, it also funny how anyone and everyone's a biologist. If I'd known all I had to do was "believe" I knew anything about biology AND could make arguments about evolution without ANY advanced education in biology, then why the hell did I spend so much money on a GRADUATE DEGREE IN BIOLOGY?

Wow, I wonder if that works with physics? Let's try it. mmmmmmmm, bam. I'm a physicist. Cool...just like that! ok, now I can tell other physicists what's what...they don't know anything...like, uhmmmm, the world is flat. There I said it. And I'm right becuase I'm a self-described physicist...who needs education? You just claim to know something and, poof....your a scientist.

Let's see...maybe it'll work as annnnnnn...engineer! Yeah, that's it. I'm an engineer now....Ok, now I'll go build a bridge, or a highway, or a skyscaper....cool...now I'm an engineer...Hey ma, look...I'm on top of the world....

It's funny how you people think because you're a human being that that somehow makes you qualified to argue about evolutionary biology! Never mind the fact that the people who actually DO have advanced degrees, have published peer-reviewed articles based on 150 plus years of scientific research on the subject, and have studied evolution for 40, 50, 60 years actually may know more than you. But I guess that attitude also is why you feel your righteous enough to believe in some supernatural being and tell the rest of the scientific world they're wrong.

BTW - evolution by natural selection even explains YOU and why you believe the way you do...kinda ironic, huh?

Good article.

I'm OK you're OK.
Everything is beautiful except what I choose to believe.
It doesn't matter if you don't mind I don't belive.
Tha's where the emotions emanate from.
Kinda like DNA floating by impinged upon by chance conciousness. My body lies over the ocean My body lies over the sea,my body is the reason for my discontent unless I am one with prevailing thought's.

The funny thing about all the commentors on this story? The guy you're all discussing is , uhmm, dirt! He died and didn't got to hell, or heaven or anywhere but ultimately back into dirt! That's what he knew, accepted and became. If only he could hear us now.

Happy B-Day Darwin! You rocked the world and don't even know it...

Good article, thank you.

To Ajoness:

Your quotes point to Darwin's belief in Group Fitness, which doesn't really exist. He was wrong to think that he needed to describe a different mechanism to explain how group behavior evolves.

Group behavior can be traced back to its positive effects on individual fitness. Which brings me to the other point I wanted to mention. I think it would be beneficial to explore the evolutionary beginnings of the emotions and behaviors that are most revered in the spirit, such as love, compassion, and sympathy.

This may help bridge the gap of understanding. Personally I find the theorized evolutionary origins of all the best of mankind to be a much more beautiful account.

Susan,

You're belief that "everything about human beings that we call "spiritual"--our ability to love, to create art, to imagine our own deaths--is inescapably housed within our material corpus, why is that so disturbing?" is initially disturbing but at the same time very calming and peaceful. Kinda like being dead, scared to be hurt,never trusting anyone but yourself.

Is this article just a chance to float a trial balloon about your faith in humanity. NONE. Only believe in yourself. IF you are a financial success,are healthy and don't need to rely on anyone then you made it. Highly evolved.

gdod25 :
"Vegasgirl, I will tell you what the point is. To push a dead hypothesis and continue government funding for it. Of course non believers are ticked. Is there government funding for creation theory?"

With all due respect, poster, evolution is not "dead." And, given that is taught in most schools, why would non-believers be "ticked"?
(Sorry, but that makes no sense.)
Creationism can be taught in religious schools, and that's fine. And if a parent doesn't want his/her child learning evolution in a public school, then the child can opt out (from what I understand).
And, as I wrote previously (which I'm probably sure you won't be on board with) many people of deep religious faith also believe in evolution.
Appreciate your viewpoint, and hope if you respond, you will do so in a respectful manner.

Ironically, it is man's pride that announced I came from a CHIMP.

Vegasgirl, I will tell you what the point is. To push a dead hypothesis and continue government funding for it. Of course non believers are ticked. Is there government funding for creation theory?

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.

goku234: Thanks for not disappointing me -- I expected a nasty, illogical rant from someone who doesn't believe in evolution, replete with the usual "libruls hate us good Christians."
Oh, and love the Hitler reference. Of course, he and Darwin had *so* much in common!
Congratulations for not letting me down!
Look, poster: The point of this article isn't to "stick it to Christians."
If you chose to belive in Creationism, that's fine and within your rights to do so. You are not bad. And guess what? No one thinks you are, either. Imagine that!
Others chose to believe that life evolved on our beautiful planet in a different process, and owe Darwin much gratitude for his brilliance -- and yes, we also believe deeply in a Higher Power!
*Gasp!* Why, the *nerve* of us for doing so!
You'll really be doing to yourself a favor, goku234, if you knock of the predictable victimization and actually learn some tolerance yourself.

Whoah! This is unbelievable, I think I know how Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution.
Did you look at his picture in the news? The popular picture that had his bearded face posted on many websites and another one like that herein. In that picture, Darwin looked like … an ape! I mean his face. I think when Darwin saw himself in the mirror, he must have noticed the same thing that I noticed when I saw his face. Raising his hands slowly up to cover the thick beard then the nose, suddenly, his eyes, his uncovered part of the face would look more like a man's face. So there must be a link. The change, the "evolution", ape to man, happened right before his very own eyes. Then the birth of his theory. I am not making fun of Darwin or anyone at all when I say this. If Darwin had a long face like John Kerry, I think his theory would link horse to men. And to tell the truth,, I evolve everyday, from monkey to man, before and after shaving. You, too, how is your evolution?
Anyway, I hope that Darwin is not mad if he knows that I compared him to an ape. I think he is not any intelligent person, his brain was just full of imagination. But after death, there should be nothing here that matters to him. Darwin must have met his Creator telling him that life is a slow running train, average 60 years per stop. Like everyone else, he’s stuck in the train, dreaming up, doing anything, saying anything that he could. The train stops from time to time, riders are told to get off to either side of the train. One side is to Hell, the other to Heaven. The secret of the train is to find the right stop and the right side to disembark. Good luck on your ride.

How dare you call me ignorant. This is what Im talking about. No facts, you do not know me yet you have made you conclusion. You are a religeous fanatic. And there is NO proof.

Susan, Susan, Susan,

I hope you live your life outside of the bounds of your professed scientific knowledge.

Be empathetic, patient & understanding of other's who lack the accumen of you're highly evolved frontal cortex.

I agree with ParkerD1.

We need a timeout to review Susan's insightful & enlightening article...

Darwin...as well as a scientific giant.

If we are reviewing Darwin's scientific contributions we must also try to understand the man. Below are some other thoughts Darwin expressed.

“With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit."

"... A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase."

"Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)

gdod25:

200 years and still waiting for proof! This is not a science it's a religion.

----------------------------------------------------
There's a great deal of proof. Because one is ignorant of the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

The god of this world has blinded hearts and MINDS. The "putative"oringal cell is more complex than the lap top I'm typing this with. Further more, this "oringal cell" was formed in the chiralitiy of left handed proteins swimming in a supposed soup of both left and right handed proteins. This lap top not only functioned but reproduced. Something is incredibly sinister about an inablility for people much smarter than me not able to see the insantity of this...

For a fun read by an atheist go here http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed155.html

spidermean2
According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations?

----------------------------------------

The term "favourable trait" means a trait that improves reproductive success within a specific environment. If you could demonstrate that watching pornography leads to decreased offspring AND that atheism is also a heritable trait, then you could predict a decline of atheists in the general population.

Unfortunately for you, neither the supposition that watching porn decreases reproductive success nor the supposition that atheism is heritable seem to be remotely accurate (God gene not withstanding).

Something there is that causes people who have not experienced something to deny it’s existence. If you believe humans evolved out of “light matter”, what makes you think intelligent beings didn’t evolve out of “dark matter”. Or for that matter, out of the energy (m = e/c^2 was Einstein’s original equation) from which the energy this “universe’s” time/space/matter continuum came from (obliviously it is capable of taking on form and therefore evolving something). The theory of evolution implies the existence of the beings religious people believe in (possibly because those being’s find the religious people sufficiently worthy of interacting with).

200 years and still waiting for proof! This is not a science it's a religion.

Here is another reference to the problem that a belief in biological determinism has for members of an intelligent social species.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119410409/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Perhaps a belief in God and eternal justice is the only thing that can make society work.

The tritheistic Christians have never been at peace since choosing tritheism for themselves, unless you subscribe to the roman concept of peace, “create a desert and call it peace”. So to call Darwin a disturber of the peace is rather arrogant. If he was a disturber of anything he was a disturber of the official ignorance. In this he was no different from Galileo or the Muslims that brought Europe out of the dark ages.

When the Muslims started injecting truth into Europe it created a paradigm shift backlash that resulted in a “reconquesta” that continues to the present with the example of bush and his bush league of doom’s crusade against Islam, science and the worlds economy. The aim of this to return to church installed kings spouting rex non protest peccare, an aristocracy defined by being “rich” and serfs.

Something there is that causes tritheists to wish to be told what to think and when that flies in the face of logic to “take it on faith”. This makes them easy fodder for anyone willing to feed them a pack of bush s..t propaganda as a way to develop a power base. When the existing power brokers couldn’t use Darwin’s theory to further their control another group did.

To think of a person that is rich as being “fit” and therefore automatically a force of law is to ignore the selection process of the Day of Judgment. That Intelligence that created this existence chooses chaotic processes, having the particular quality of being non-traceable in causality, to minimize the bias that traceable control would create. Further, certainty in religion creates a responsibility that few are capable of.

None the less, it is the responsibility of the faithful person to learn, learn, learn and then put into practice the betterment of all life. At this point “fitness” applies to the society. Always does anyway, gene POOL remember. But the arrogant will want to believe it applies to them.

I agree entirely with this article. Our thought processes are inextricably linked to our physical brain. There is no proof of the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist. And yes, the Social Darwinists were out of their tiny minds.

Chaotician:

You raise some interesting and incredibly important questions and I hope you are honestly looking for the answers. You'd be a pretty poor scientist or student if you let your hypothesis or your emotions dictate your results.

Instead of crafting a straw-man of Christianity (based on what you think Christianity is) and comparing it to your beliefs, maybe you should research what "Christianity" believes itself to be and then compare it to your beliefs?

The fact is you don't seek or want answers because you think you already have them. To actually seek the answers to the questions you ask would require research (primary sources, scholarly commentary, etc.) and reflection on your part, which is not nearly as fun as insulting or dismissing the intelligence of others by picking the intellectual equivalent of a bar-fight (which I guess is the only thing these messages boards are good for anyway...).

There are a lot of very intelligent people who believe in Christianity (I don't believe myself to be one of them). Instead of trying to dismiss all believers as idiots or rubes, why not do the honest thing and realize there are intelligent Christians who faith is reinforced by their capacity to reason.

Brilliant and beautifully sad and joyous understanding and explanation of what makes us both human and spiritual beings.

Tony Gillotte
Vacaville, CA

spidermean2 wrote, “According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography."

Those survey data perfectly prove that theists are 20 times more likely to lie about their porno habits than atheists.

Great article!! I have to ask though why the author assumes at the end of the article that all theologians see the "spiritual" as having primary emphasis on the eternal. I will not deny this element, but it is hardly the main point. I think the main point is acknowledging that the spiritual is all of that which exceeds the sum of all our parts.

I think the author of this article got this, perhaps there is hope that this also means that this something extra can survive beyond a lifetime- but we will just have to wait and see. Even as a Pastor I hold on to tighter the spirituality we have in the confines of our humanity.

In reality that is itself the central message of Christianity, Jesus is the story of the Spiritual residing in humanity. The incarnation is about God entering into his creation and thus experiencing the good, the bad and the ugly. This is transformational in the sense that in it God calls us to a better Way. The Apostle Paul called Jesus the second Adam- the beginning of a new creation; perhaps this calls us to embrace a new evolution of humanity where we put away hate, violence and injustice and embrace one another in hope of a better future.

Darwin was a realist, and sought real answers and came to conclusions ahead of his time with out the benefit of modern tools of science. In the process of exploration Darwin outgrew his faith, and I think this is easy to do when faith itself starts to abandon humanity and instead focuses more on whatever life is to come one wants to imagine after death.

Their is nothing wrong with an imagination- if it were not for imagination Darwin would not have been able to be so groundbreaking in his work. But our imagination should not stray too far from being grounded in our own humanity as we understand that without humanity their also is no Spirituality; at least as far as we can ever know.

Why would Catholics oppose the Pope on this decision. Remember, for Catholics the Pope is infallible. He is: 1) God's Earthly representative; 2) He speaks for God; and, 3) They agree with him. The Catholic Church (as with most Christian denomiations) is filled with many who are hate-filled and intolerant (think about how they vote and the candidates who have flourished by appealing to them and their so-called 'values').

For 2 thousand years the teachings of the Christian religions have been that the Jews murdered Christ. For those long years Jews have been persecuted for that. For many, Hitler was simply doing God's work. Recall, this country, among many other "Christian" countries, turned away thousands of Jews who were fleeing the Holocaust. As a Christian, I have read Christ's teachings. And I know there are a number of people who are Christians in the true sense of practicing Christ's teachings of love, tolerance and compassion for all--not just those who are the same race as you and who agree with you. That's one of the reasons I find the support of "so-called" Christians for politcians who rise to power by feeding and perpuating the hate and intolerance bred by rabid religiousness. The right-wing sickens me in how they have corrupted religion. And those who call themselves Christians make me sad when they engage in such intolerance and hatred in the name of God. It's no different from terrorists using God to justify their actions. This history of anti-semitism is as long as it is recent. It serves a purpose for those who want to get and hold power--including the Pope. Recall, for many, the Bible prophesies that only after the Jewish people are eradicated will the Messiah return. It is no accident that the Pope and many rabid Christians would want to hasten that.

So, again, I ask: "Why would any substiantial portion Catholics (or any other Christians) oppose the Pope? In their eyes, he is doing God's work.

spidermean2
According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself.
=====================================
Not favored by whom? You? Other religious people?
My wife and I like to watch together sometimes. We find it very favorable.
I didn’t do any research on the "According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography." because your "one survey" comment is not very descriptive provide a link plz. But let’s say it is true, it would most likely be because we don't fear that some invisible guy is always watching and judging us, just waiting to send us to eternal torture if we don't do as his book tells us to do.

RabbiC writes:
The world is too endlessly complex to have just evolved and formed somehow into the beauty we see around us.

------
Why exactly?? Just beacuse our simple minds do not know EXACTLY how the complex mechanisms that have formed our world accomplished it does not mean it was CREATED by some being? By the way, is God endlessly complex and beautiful? Who CREATED her??

-----
Yes the world is beautiful and also ugly. But what other world do we have to compare it to?

Natural selection is the process by which FAVORABLE heritable TRAITS become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself.

I'd like to see how accurate Darwin's theory is. Maybe the guy has a point afterall if he actually knows the "traits" he was talking about.

Ms. Jacoby,

I think you didn't understand Safina's point. The cult of personality around Darwin has become so ingrained that even you found it "shocking" that someone had the gall to suggest that Darwin as a symbol has eclipsed the science to which he contributed so much. It does science no good to make saints out of mere men, and Safina has shown the kind of courage you say you admire in Darwin when he suggests that if we see Darwin on the road, we should kill him. Through no fault of his own, Darwin has become *the* symbol for anti-theism: the cross which atheists wield against the believers. By making Darwin a saint, we make evolutionary science into a religious argument.

For the sake of discussion, let's forget about the Bible and let's just talk about real science.

All animals like bees are scientific creations. A bee won't be able to move or fly if it defies a single scientific law like any laws of physics, chemistry, etc.

A computer won't function if a single equation defying science is added to it. Only a perfect science makes things work, whether it's man made or how animals functions.

INTELLIGENCE is the root cause why these plants and animals work perfectly. No complex system which works perfectly can exist without a guiding INTELLIGENCE behind it.

IDIOTS CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS.

Im just wasting my time for these people and I hope these people start knocking their heads to fix them.

RabbiC :
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.
=======================================
There is TONS of evidence... seriously way to long to go into details here. As for transitional forms, we have found thousands of them. In fact scientist can predict where they will find transitional forms they are missing and the depth they should find them, and Whala! That is exactly where they find it.
=================================
RabbiC :
The world is too endlessly complex to have just evolved and formed somehow into the beauty we see around us.
===================================
Yea except we have mountains of evidence that said it did exactly that, what do you have? One book written by men, 1000's of years ago that has hundreds of direct contradictions to itself written in it.
======================================
RabbiC :
Imagine the "accidental" formation of the human eyeball, the brain
===================================
The "Irreducibly complex" argument has been debunked in every way shape and form. Just Google "Irreducibly complex" and be prepared to cry at your own ignorance.
=================================
RabbiC :
I would like to see Darwin placed in the dustbins of history as someone who was simply wrong.
=====================================
Religion is heading there pretty quickly thanks to the information highway which helps people debunk the old and constant mistruths presented by religion. Your arguments are old and have been constantly debunked.
RabbiC :
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?
========================================
Not nearly as many time as you think if each time you drop it you keep all the blots that are helpful to reach your desired end result; quite a few good examples of this on youtube.com

GOKU234 :
Why no mention of Hitler who was a disciple of Darwin?

And good job with the religious hate speech, everybody. Let's stick it to those foolish Christians! They're sto stupid, maybe we should, I dunno, round them up in camps and tell them to take "showers."

Strike another blow in the name of tolerance, brothers and sisters! Amen!

Goku
In a country where every President has been Christian and Christians hold the reigns of power and Christians perpetuated a holocaust on the non-christian indigenous people of this continent it is disingenuous is not silly for Christians to play the victim. Christians have been more responsible for genocides than the victims of it. It has been quite a while since the romans threw the christian to the lions.
If you feel as a christian some people think you are being "stupid" maybe it is because many christian refuse to open their minds to honest debates and refuse to accept proven science such as the evolution. If there were some pagans who refused to believe in the theory of gravity despite all evidence to the contrary wouldn't you questions the intelligence to their beliefs?

Virtually eveybody currently in existence is destined to be completely forgotten within 120 days of their death. Ultimately, the pursuit of knowledge is pointless, but no more pointless than anything else people do. Everyone becomes worm food, unless you have a coffin of sufficient quality to allow you to rot in peace. In 5 billion years, what remains of the organic material that used to be your corpse will be incinerated by the sun going supernova.

That is a much better fate than being forced to attend an eternal church service, or the other alleged alternative of being eternally stir-fryed in god's cosic wok.

Rabbic said: "As a religious Jew, with a 5000 year link of transmission of Jewish thought, I must say there is really nothing progressive here at all"

Oh Dear. If the rest of your post is exemplary of your "5000 year link of transmission of Jewish though", I'm afraid you have a serious down-link problem. Have it checked. Please.

Natural selection is the process by which FAVORABLE heritable TRAITS become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself.

I'd like to see how accurate Darwin's theory is. Maybe the guy has a point afterall if he actually knows the "traits" he was talking about.

Darwin has enslaved many a people's mind and caused it to be idiotic. For how can a thinking person escape the fact that nature is full of INTELLIGENCE in it?

How stupid can these people get? I can't imagine. These people are SO DUMB.

Great article! Keeping an open mind though, how do we know that the great species-changing mutations are truly 'random' and not due to factors more subtle than science can measure?

Hilter was raised catholic but was confirmed against his will and subsequently left the catholic church right after that.

His father was an atheist, his mother a catholic. He was absued as a child by his father and liked to shoot rats as his passtime.

He liked Martin Luther because Luther turned on the Jews when they didn't follow him after he introduced his notion of salvation.

Hilter personally hated Jews because a. a Jewish doctor couldn't save his mother from cancer, a mother Hilter almost adored and b. a Jewish professor wouldn't accept Adolph into the University Arts program because Adolph's portraits were weak. His landscapes were good.

Hilter hated the Pope and planned to have him assasinated.

"In any case, Safina--who is obviously afflicted by an acute case of "Darwin envy"--need not worry that anyone will turn his writings on the oceans into "Safinaism" 150 years from now."

Made me laugh out loud. Brilliant!

As a religious Jew, with a 5000 year link of transmission of Jewish thought, 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 Shakespeare? 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. I think that is time that the scientific community accept that most of its leading members really don't accept Darwin anymore. This will not negate or dull our passion for and exploration of science and the natural world, but rather it will increase our intellectual honesty which will ultimately enable us to reach even greater levels of understanding in the future.

BONGO2YOU wrote:
"It's interesting that the media and scientific communtity does not mention that findings based on the study of DNA, contradict Darwin's theories."

I am a molecular biologist, and I am blissfully unaware of these findings that contradict the ToE and Natural Selection. I hope that BONGO2YOU will enlighten us as to what these findings are.

BONGO2YOU :
It's interesting that the media and scientific communtity does not mention that findings based on the study of DNA, contradict Darwin's theories.

Dear Bongo 2 you
When you make an assertion but do not support it with facts your assertion is merely your belief. Why should anyone believe what you say when you neither make an argument nor provide any facts. Prove your assertion if you can. Without facts to back it up your statement is as insubstantial as if I said why is it that the church never mentions the fact that all people called Bongo have three heads?

Sorry, but I had to laugh when I read Jacoby's baseless assertion that, "we are enjoined to use the brains within our bodies to leave as much as possible to those who will inhabit the material world after us." Says who? Where does this ENJOINED come from? This assertion is of no more significance than any other materialistic based expression and as C S Lewis pointed out of no more significance than a belch based upon what one had for lunch. I would refer the reader to Elton Trueblood's, A Place to Stand, pages 115 and following. The logical conclusion to Jacoby's unexamined premise is that the world has no meaning at all and "if this is true, all effort at understanding anything it ultimately futile any way." page 116.

Excellent article. Its a shame that people are not educated enough to understand that science is a dynamic body ever changing based on the observable and repeatable evidence discovered in its process.

Evolution and Darwin did not set out to destroy religion as most evolution non-believers think that is attempting to do. It attempts to describe the world as it is seen. Evolution makes no claim to your god or his existence, but that merely that our existence was not as simplistic as some book - which like The Origin of Species - was written by man. Who is to say that god did not look down on the world and saw man developing and gave him the gift of spirituality? Science certainly does not seek to answer that question.

Science / Evolution and Religion, I believe can coexist if both understand that they exist on different planes. Science seeks to explain the world we SEE around us, and Religion seeks to explain the world we BELIEVE is around us.

Ms. Jacoby writes:
"I do not understand why it seems so important to theologians (and some sociologists) to find an explanation for human behavior that extends beyond the purely naturalistic."

_____________________________________________

Consider this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-vs-programmed-brain&page=2

It seems that a purely empiricist view of nature leads to social breakdown, something that may be happening and is due in no small part to the influence of Darwin.

This is a real dilemma for believers since it involves the fundamentals of the idea of free will. It is easier for a Buddhist, who recognizes that intent describes environment, not the other way around.

"It does not enhance human dignity one bit to find a "spiritual" explanation for our higher mental functioning; nor does it decrease human dignity to look upon our highest achievements as part of nature, inexorably tied to the body that is ours for a finite period. This finiteness renders life more, not less, meaningful: we are enjoined to use the brains within our bodies to leave as much as possible to those who will inhabit the material world after us"

I wish more people thought this way. Especially everyone who chanted "Drill baby, Drill in the last presidential election.

I can't believe there are only 18 comments. Usually the religious nuts flame everything like this. Only one person mentioned Hitler so far - come on - got to be a lot more crazies out there!

Anyway - great post - there is hope for the dear old USA after all.

Only one question - I love blaming the Catholic church but did it really suppress Mendels work?

Perhaps those that claim "belief" in religion should take pause and reflect upon how they came to their faith. I would argue that their "faith" was a consequence of endoctrination when they were young and impressionable. Afterall, it is by this means that superstition and primitivism is perpetuated from generation to generation.

This is called "truth" by authority. It is not truth due to reason and critical thinking.

This was the first thing I read today, and it was excellent. My thanks to Ms. Jacoby. I was particularly glad she took the time to relpy to the pouty and historically obtuse essay by Carl Safina.

The comments to the Post have included some typical creationist lies.

goku234 wrote, “Why no mention of Hitler who was a disciple of Darwin?”

While Hitler used a word commonly translated as "evolution" in Mein Kampf, he is obviously not referring to Darwin's evolutionary theory. Darwin does not receive any mention in “Mein Kampf,” or any of Hitler’s other writing or speeches. A careful review of Hitler’s writing exposes him as an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. X

(Hat tip to Allen MacNeill for those quotes and many more in a similar vein)

Far from being a “disciple” of Darwin, Hitler and the Nazis ordered the collective works of Darwin, and the most ardent supporter of evolutionary theory in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, to be removed from all German libraries and destroyed. Soon after coming to power, the removal of all, “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)” was ordered in “Die Bucherei,” the official Nazi journal for lending libraries (see 2:6 (1935), p. 279). Quoting from the evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung);

“6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).”

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

Darwin has opened doors and windows in the structures of all established religions, not just Chritianity. This phenomenal contribution it is that has given impetus to scientific fact and fiction of today. The major religions must take future steps in the spirit of humility that his deduction of our origin being from an inferior species and that most possibly being from still more primitive species entails. Mankind must stop and ponder at its acts of violence against one another and found a new religion of agnosticism that accepts an all pervasive all encompassing power tending to all and sundry affairs and events and needs of this world, and decides whatever doom or deliverance future holds to diverse souls and beings.

Susan Jacoby

The notion that Hitler was a "disciple of Darwin" is typical of ignorant attacks on evolution by people who have never read what Darwin actually wrote. Darwin's research vitiates all of Hitler's crackpot ideas, which had such evil consequences, about separate and inferior "races." Hitler's knowledge of science was on a part with his abilities as an artist.

Andy25,
Thank you very much for introducing me (and others) to some basic reading about James Clerk Maxwell. I don't recall having ever heard of him (though perhaps I did in Physics class in high school), but quick reading about him on the internet has been enlightening and delightful. Thanks!

A whole lot of words to say not much.

It's interesting that the media and scientific communtity does not mention that findings based on the study of DNA, contradict Darwin's theories.

For better understanding, please research what other credible scientific contemporaries of Darwin actually said about the theory of evolutionism. Consider James Clerk Maxwell's words about evolutionism if you are really interested about truth and fairness. Einstein considered Maxwell to be the greatest scientist after Newton. Why not? You have nothing to fear but the truth.

Excellent, enjoyable essay. I think there is room for discussion about some of Susan's statements and conclusions. For example, following are some quotes from Descent of Man about the progress of man:

“We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

“With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit."

"... A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase."

"Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant." (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)

I'm not trying to throw water on the essay by Susan, just wanting to show that Darwin's writing contained issues that she has not addressed. Have a good day, all.

IanB1 commented: "Religion rejects the scientific method of knowing and claims to already know the most important truths about the universe... and...Religion trains its followers to silence their critical thoughts and eschew doubt."

Really?

I challenge you to read "The Case for Christ" and then to still make that claim.

My atheistic beliefs give me the understanding that because there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell, that I'm to enjoy the time I have on this planet while I'm alive. To work to embrace it for what it is, both the misery and the joy of each day. I don't give to score points or volunteer to have a place held for me in "heaven". I don't practice kindness to others in my community in an effort to avoid eternal damnation. I do it because it makes life (the only one we have) more enjoyable for myself and others. To be good for any other reason is essentially self serving and uncharitable.

I was really pleased to find this column today. It needs pointing out again and again that "Darwinism" is a notion invented to malign those who accept the truth of evolution, and especially to brand atheists as cultish followers of their own secular religion. I would venture to guess that atheists are more misunderstood and vilified than any other group in American society. An atheist is simply one who views every claim as a scientific hypothesis, and therefore requires evidence before believing. Religion rejects the scientific method of knowing and claims to already know the most important truths about the universe. Science is purposefully designed to be self-critical and self-correcting. Religion trains its followers to silence their critical thoughts and eschew doubt. Can these systems ever co-exist in a truly harmonious way? I think not.

Happy Darwin Day, everyone. Today we celebrate something truly worthy of celebration - the single greatest achievement in science!

Ms. Jacoby is quite right, that after all this time; critics still don't fully understand evolution. I think Michael Shermer put it best yesterday in Scientific American, "Darwinism, properly understood, gives us a dual disposition of selfishness and selflessness, competitiveness and cooperativeness."

Darwin's Origin of Species is not a difficult read. In fact it's so easy to understand that it shouldn't intimidate anyone. You can handle it - read it!

I challenge “Christianity” to take some fundamental look at its theology!
What is the nature of its view of God?
Is your God some character from the Torah of Jewish superstition evolved to include some intertwining amalgamation of Jesus, a SON of God, and a Holy Ghost now translated as Spirit?
Is your God Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, unchanging? Benevolent or tyrannical? Loving or wrathful? Understandable or unknowable? Ethereal or concrete? What is the nature of God Consciousness or is God merely random creation and destruction? What is the purpose or intent of God?
What does a Triune God mean anyway? Is this some literary mechanism to make room for Jesus?
Why would the torture and murder of some sort of manifestation of God be something beneficial?
Do you really believe in human sacrifice as a expression of worship?
Do you worship a God who would treat the “sacrifice” of himself as the only means to overturn some Godly insult by his supreme creation that was passed for eternity to the progeny of this creation? Does that even begin to make any sense?
Do you really believe the cannibalistic practice of eating the flesh of God and drinking the blood of God is beneficial in the practice of the worship of God?
How can you claim a human literary work of a thousand variations with obvious contradictions is the sole source and the only needed source for the “truth” of God?
One can point to literally hundreds of atrocious, inhumane, unforgivable acts committed by men in the name of religion; from crusades to Hundred Year wars, from the Holocaust to the Inquisitions, from the murder of the first born of Egypt to the sacking of Sodom and Gomorrah, from Iraqi civil war to the fall of the Twin Towers of NY, from Zionist genocide to Muslim intifadas. Can you name even one act committed in the name of religion with similar beneficial result?
What is the reward for worship of God? Is it some immortality? Some eternal happiness? Why is the “fruit” of this worship and supplication of the priests always intangible, remote, a bundle of meaningless words?

Great article, Susan! And GOKU234, you prove your own point about foolish Christians. Hitler was a devout Christian, and embraced as such by both the Vatican and the Protestant churches up to the day of his death. His antisemitism derived not from Darwin but from Martin Luther, whose essay "The Jews and their lies" sounds like a blueprint for the final solution.

Why no mention of Hitler who was a disciple of Darwin?

And good job with the religious hate speech, everybody. Let's stick it to those foolish Christians! They're sto stupid, maybe we should, I dunno, round them up in camps and tell them to take "showers."

Strike another blow in the name of tolerance, brothers and sisters! Amen!

Why no mention of Hitler who was a disciple of Darwin?

And good job with the religious hate speech, everybody. Let's stick it to those foolish Christians! They're sto stupid, maybe we should, I dunno, round them up in camps and tell them to take "showers."

Strike another blow in the name of tolerance, brothers and sisters! Amen!

Thank you Susan!!! This is an incredibly coherent article that should be read and comprehended for the next 150 years.

It is only when we arrive at the understanding of true mortality - that we are highly evolved pond scum, a temporary chemical reaction, living on a speck of dust, orbiting a unremarkable star, in the corner of nowhere - that we are at the starting point of spiritual growth. Thus science gives us a far greater spiritual lesson than religion ever has.

Very astute, insightful commentary, in my opinion; I think Darwin would be pleased to read it. Thank you!

Why does it seem so important to theologians (and some sociologists) to find an explanation for human behavior that extends beyond the purely naturalistic?

Because it means that we die. For real. We don't go off to Heaven or Hell - we DIE.