Darwin Didn't Contradict God

Providence Journal ^ | August 10, 2005 | Kenneth Miller

[curiosity]

Another gem from Professor Miller.

[Fitzcarraldo]

What is, is. What isn't, ain't.

[FormerACLUmember]

The alternative theory to Darwin:

[curiosity]

Faith and Science Ping.

[curiosity]

Would you mind elaborating your point?

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks. Miller is good. I'll see if my ping list would be interested.

Guys? Shall the list be deployed?

[edcoil]

The fact that God create creatures that can adapt to the world he created seems pretty natural to me.

What is evolution and creating life so different today. For 5,000 years, people that could not read or write seemed to have understand this.

[Fitzcarraldo]

John Paul's 1996 letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences bore the magnificent title "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth." Writing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas, the late pope affirmed the church's twin commitments to scientific rationality and to an overarching spiritual view of the ultimate meaning and purpose of life.

There is a point of view that scientific reality is based purely on empirical observations. If we had a time machine to go back and observe the process of evolution directly, those observations would enter into the domain of rational, verifiable science, at least in that kind of scientific philosophy.

What is, is. What isn't - can't be directly observed - ain't going to pass muster.

[Reagan Man]

I've always thought evolution was part of his plan.

God's plan that is.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Wasn't Darwin a racist?

[SteveMcKing]

"What is, is. What isn't, ain't."

The problem is that to observe or know anything, you must necessarily change it. The only certain knowledge is- "what is, was, and what isn't, is both".

[curiosity]

For 5,000 years, people that could not read or write seemed to have understand this.

Because fundamentalism hadn't been invented yet.

[SteveMcKing]

"Wasn't Darwin a racist?"

Like everyone of the era, including minorities.

[curiosity]

What is, is. What isn't - can't be directly observed ain't going to pass muster.

I see, so forensic science can't pass muster, since the scientist never actually observes the crime. Ditto for the astronomical fact that the Sun is composed of hydrogen. No one has ever actually travelled to the sun to take a chemical analsysis.

Evolution is one of but countless sciences in which we study things that can't be directly observed.

[edcoil]

"Because fundamentalism hadn't been invented yet."

O-Bull - we burned women at the stake and put people in vats of oil we have had plenty of fundamentalism in the last 6,000 years.

[curiosity]

I've always thought evolution was part of his plan.

Exactly. Creationists are placing arbitary limits on God.

[curiosity]

Fundamentalism and fanaticism aren't the same thing.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Evolution is one of but countless sciences in which we study things that can't be directly observed.

Evolution is the invisible scaffold onto which observations of the remains of the past are placed.

[syriacus]

[Christoph Schonborn] seems not to understand that the neo-creationists of "intelligent design,"....argue against evolution on every level, asserting that a "designer" has repeatedly intervened to subvert the laws of nature.

I'm surprised to hear that neo-creationists would think God would break His own laws of nature.

[curiosity]

Evolution is the invisible scaffold onto which observations of the remains of the past are placed.

No, evolution is a scientific theory that predicts that the remains we find of the past should fit a certain patern, a "scaffold," if you prefer. Darwin and others made predictions about how the "scaffold" should look BEFORE most of the fossils were found. The fact that they actually fit predicted "scaffold" is powerful evidence in favor of the theory.