Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
"...Here’s my question....do you think all of those pieces evolved at the exact same time, defying all laws of probability and common logic....or is it more likely that the giraffe was designed by a Supernatural Creator."
I think I've explained this before. Most Christian churches teach something called "theistic evolutionism," which basically says, "evolution is God's plan."
Of course, I can't speak for all those churches, so what I'm saying here is me talking, not them. But I suspect they would generally agree.
"Theistic evolutionism" rejects the idea that you can find the Hand of God in any particular natural process, to the exclusion of others, but rather insists that God's handiwork can be seen in ALL of nature, by ANYONE willing to look for it.
"Theistic evolution" says the Universe is God's creation, it's fate is God's plan, and it's history is the history of God's work to make it so. At least, that's my humble interpretation, and we can let a real theologian explain where I got it wrong. ;-)
Now, as for your delightful giraffes, remember, according to science, giraffes began to evolve around 50 million years ago, starting as a deer-like creature, so we are talking about tens of millions of generations of proto-giraffes, each slightly different from the one before.
So, in answer to your question, did these features all evolve at the same time? Now of course not, why would you imagine they did?
You need to come to grips with that, man. Learned men and women disagree with you based on their knowledge of the evidence which is far greater than yours or mine will ever be."
I'll say again, everyone is entitled to their personal opinions. But it only becomes an actual scientific debate, when you have real scientists formally debating other real scientists, using the language, methods and journals of science.
When we DO have such a debate, then you and I can sit on the sidelines and cheer on our teams! But so far, there's only one team on the field, and that's science. Indeed, your team isn't even playing the same game. It's like you're sending a basketball team to play football, and then complaining because they won't let you in the stadium!
schaef21: "Science Magazine and Nature Magazine...they play on your team I think:
“It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anmone - a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal-is almost as complex as that of a human.”
U. Technau, “Evolutionary Biology: Small regualatory RNAs Pitch In” Nature 455 (2008) 1184-1185"
Did you even notice what you did here? You are comparing modern man to modern sea anemonies.
But I said the geological column shows evolution from primitive to more advanced. In other posts, I've explained that we never find elephants mixed in with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs in Precambrian rocks.
DNA analysis shows that virtually all species share much in common with every other species genetically. And evolution tells us that the more similar the DNAs, the more recent was the split in species.
Humans and sea anemones share much DNA in common, but: both large differences in DNA, and the fossil record suggest, the split between the line which leads to MODERN sea anemones and that leading to us happened around 500 million years ago. This importantly implies that much basic structure of our DNA was in place back before life began the Precambrian "explosion." To me, that is an awesome thought.
For a scientific theory to be confirmed, it must predict something which can be verified, and one of the most important predictions of the evolution theory is that the geological column will show fossils of increasing complexity, from most ancient to modern.
I've said it this way: you will not find elephants mixed with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs in Precambrian rocks -- not ever. And, so far as I know, that is an undisputed fact.
Note this carefully, schaef21 -- if that prediction of evolution theory were ever proved untrue, it would completely overturn the biological sciences as we know them. But to my knowledge, the prediction has never even been challenged, much less proved wrong.
This is an extraordinarily important point, because outside the question of what we teach in public school science classes, this whole debate is (imho) over nothing more than each of our personal opinions. And everyone is entitled to their opinions, right, wrong or indifferent.
I've said many times here, that if you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design, or Young Earthism, in your home school, or your religious school, or your private school, that is no one's business but yours and the school's. It falls under the Constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.
It's only in the public schools where the Constitutional restriction on "establishment" of religion comes into effect.
In short, you can teach your own kids whatever you wish, but you can't teach my kids your religion in the public schools.
Schaef21, if we agree on that much, then the rest of this discussion is a very friendly debate, imho. ;-)
I have just finished reading David McCollough's magisterial biography of our second President. If Adams was a Deist, McCollough didn't notice it. On the contrary, Adams — of Puritan stock — was a deeply religious man God-fearing Christian who, probably more than any other president we've had — took God's Law as the standard for his public and personal actions. And his dear wife, Abigail, was likewise.
As for Jefferson, who knows what he really thought and believed? Not for nothing is he called "the American Sphinx." But if someone wants to call him a Deist, perhaps that's not too far off the mark. Certainly he was a child of the Enlightenment.
BroJoeK, you wrote, "I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned...." It seems to me Coyoteman didn't ever do too much "defending" of science here; mainly he specialized in launching spitwads. But FWIW, I'll miss him anyway.
Naturally I strongly agree with your endorsement of McCollough's book. And I thank for it.
The Theory of Evolution was widely accepted precisely because it was a way to remove God from the equation. He told us about that in Romans 1. If there’s no God, then there’s no accountability....and who wants to be accountable?"
Here you suggest another very important point: words like "evolution," and "species," and "scientific method," are all just that -- words, utterly dependent on precisely how we define them. So you and I can say the same word, mean two different things by it, and not really agree as much as we might think.
Take, for example, the word "species." It is a totally arbitrary definition, where the line between species is usually drawn at the ability to successfully interbreed. So we consider a horse and a donkey are two different species, because their offspring -- a mule -- cannot reproduce.
Horses and cows, of course, cannot interbreed at all, so that seems pretty clear. But consider the case of your delightful giraffes, where six subspecies never interbreed in the wild, even when they come in contact with each other, but can be forcibly interbred in captivity. So, is it one species, or six? Depends on your definition.
But to your point here: micro-evolution verses macro-evolution. Scientists say there is no difference -- that macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution continued on and on for millions of generations.
Is it micro-evolution or macro-evolution that produces:
Six sub-species of giraffes which can be forced to interbreed successfully, but would not otherwise?
Horses and donkeys which can be forced to interbreed, but produce only non-reproducing offspring?
Horses and cows which cannot under any circumstances be forced to interbreed?
To me this all seems obvious. Why not to you?
Finally, on "removing God from the equasion," I've said before, by definition that's what science is and does. And it has been that way since ancient times. There was never a time (that I know of, certainly) when the word "science" included acts or miracles of God. These have always come under another category of philosophy, like metaphysics and theology.
So evolution did NOT remove God from science. God was never part of science, EXCEPT in the sense I've expressed here many times: God is the beginning, the end and the reason for everyting.
I said they were accused of being Deists, and that was by people who knew them. Adams was certainly a Unitarian, and leaned toward deism -- it was after all the Age of Enlightenment, when men believed that reason alone could overcome all problems.
As for Jefferson, perhaps nothing illustrates his attitude toward Christianity better than the "Jefferson Bible," where he literally took a knife, cut out and pasted up those portions of the Bible he found agreeable, while discarding all the rest!
I'll say again, almost none of our Founding Fathers were doctronally orthodox in their religious views. All were very interested in the progress of science, Franklin most especially.
You may well be right, and what I'm told may be just sour grapes. And, the fact that I'm still here may well prove, it's more attitude than content which get's people thrown off the boat, so to speak.
Certainly? How do you know that? Given where he was from — a section of Braintree, Mass., now incorporated into the Town of Quincy — in that time period, I'd say he was a Congregationalist. (I live about 30 miles distant from the place of his birth, as the crow flies. He was a life-long resident of that place. Unitarianism wasn't "big" there then....)
I take your point about the difference between accusation and reality. But certainly, a man who "daily walked with God" cannot be a Deist. For Deism holds that God has no role in the creation, beyond having created it in the first place; whereupon, He "withdraws" and lets His "clockwork universe" play itself out without any further assistance or intervention from Him.
And I take your point that the Founders in general were interested in the progress of the arts and sciences. Indeed, that is clear from Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Science has always been held in high esteem in this (arguably) Christian nation....
My sense is you're absolutely right about that, BroJoeK. I've been around here ten-plus years now, and I can honestly say I don't recall anyone being banned from FR on the basis of posting content, but only for bad behavior in flagrant violation of the posting rules.
But then I also recognize that certain forms of posting content are themselves indicative of bad behavior; e.g., white supremacist screeds, or strident Holocaust denial would be examples. So perhaps the matter is not as straightforward as we could wish. JimRob has final discretion WRT such "hard cases" — as is his right, in justice.
But Coyoteman was not banned on the basis of any of his writings in "defense of science." Indeed, actually he wrote very little on that subject....
Don’t have a lot of time to reply to all of your posts but I’ll take just a moment to reply to this.
You can’t get banned from Free Republic for what you believe.....only for your behavior. While This is the first thread in which I’ve decided to participate in a very long time I’ve been lurking for at least 8 years.
People get banned because they are obnoxious, insulting or foul-mouthed, one of the three.
The Evolutionary side of the argument on this web site incessantly does that.
Adams did not believe that "reason alone could overcome all problems." But then, neither did he disparage reason. Adams, at bottom, was a humble, pious, yeoman farmer, a "man of the soil" — and a man of the Book. This is not to say he hadn't been splendidly educated. He was: Harvard, class of 1755.
I think McCullough well captures a true picture of the man and his core beliefs in the following lines:
Beholding the night sky, [Adams wrote of] "the amazing concave of Heaven sprinkled and glittering with stars," [and] he was "thrown into a kind of transport" and knew such wonders to be the gifts of God, expression's of God's love. But greatest of all, he wrote, was the gift of an inquiring mind.
But all the provisions that he has [made] for the gratification of our sense ... are much inferior to the provision, the wonderful provision that He has made for the gratification of our nobler powers of intelligence and reason. He has given us reason to find out the truth, and the real design and true end of our existence.
I think that’s what Karl Marx said to Frédéric Bastiat. I think that’s what the Reds and the Anarchists said to the people of Chicago at Haymarket. I think that’s what the IWW said to our Mid West farmers while tossing phosphorus cakes in their wheat fields (see Zane Grey’s The Desert of Wheat). I think that’s what ‘Uncle Joe’ said to Trotsky before he had someone bury a hatchet in old Leon’s head. I think that’s what Mark Rudd &c said while bombing banks and murdering cops. I think that’s what his Soviet masters said to Solzhenitsyn when they threw him in a gulag. I think that’s what we are more and more hearing today from one Buraq H Obama and his minions. And, I know that’s the kind of Liberal schtick I’ve been hearing for sixty years.
But I’m going to assume that you meant that remark in a kindly and good-humored fashion. As a matter of fact, I would like you to straighten me out on a few things; that being questions I’ve asked, which you’ve never answered, and which were keyed directly on assertions and accusations you’ve made. They’re contained in the next four paragraphs with post numbers so you can check the thread for context (context is important; we know that because we’ve been told so by our betters, who lecture us severely on the subject anytime we confront them with an issue they find uncomfortable – uh . . . when they don’t just run away):
#1509 - What credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?
#1496 - You are a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur, yet you seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world (Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can.
And again – In pointing out differences of behavior from one venue to another, I asked you if you had exercised any great care in familiarizing yourself with how scientists characterize their own discipline.
And again – In response to your complaint that science was being accused of ‘suppressing alternate views,’ I asked if you had discussed the data and the logic with the accusers, or if you had merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike.
So straighten me out on those issues, if you can.
”Now I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned, most recently Cayoteman. [sic]”
Do you ever check what you’ve been ‘told’? Or does little old blue-eyed innocence you just swallow whole anything you’re fed? Coyoteman committed suicide by moderator. He engaged in behavior towards JR that he knew would get him banished. He was a FReeper Kamikaze. He wanted DC immortality, and he knew how to get it. I’m sure there was a silk scarf and sake ceremony over at DC before his final flight into FReeper oblivion.
And, what you’ve been ‘told’ in no ways accounts for the considerable number of ‘fundamentalists’ who were tossed off FR several years ago for behavior similar to coyoteman’s. But none of your informants knew anything about that, did they.
”Well, I'll keep going until I get banned too.”
Yes, and you’re such a brave, brave fellow too. My heart swells with admiration. We’ll speak of you with fondness and regret for years (decades even). [sniff]
”And, we should take note of the fact that the first "free republicans" were our Founding Fathers, and it's their views on things that I've tried my level best to reflect.”
You’re failing.
”In this regard, we should note that our Founding Fathers were almost all Christians”
You’ll get no argument from me on that score. But, do you understand how many of the scientists you passionately defend would vehemently deny this last statement? They dare not admit that Christianity’s influence had any part in the founding of the United States.
”Washington was a sincere Christian, but also a Mason, along with many others, which means they were in no way devoted to any particular church's doctrines.”
What are you talking about? Washington was for many years a vestryman at Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. My grandfather was a 32nd degree mason and a Presbyterian. So what? Have you a conspiracy theory you would like to share for the thread’s amusement?
”So, in defense of our Founders, I will also defend science.”
I don’t know what you genuinely believe you are defending, but it isn’t science and it isn’t the Founding Fathers.
”. . . among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.”
What do you mean “taught”? Do they spend twenty minutes each week in Conformation or Sunday School teaching something called “theistic evolutionism.”? Or at the Wednesday night prayer gatherings? My grandson attends a parochial school, and they teach Science, not “theistic evolutionism.” And there’s none of this business that Evolution somehow proves that: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (per Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). As a matter of doctrine a good number of denominations may, indeed, subscribe to the validity of science, but when certain religious, philosophical, or moral conclusions are derived from science facts, that’s when the fur starts to fly.
”Well, here is a source for my claim that most scientists DO believe in God: 2/3 of scientists believe in God”
You cite MSNBC as the source for your claim? The first thing I note about that is that it is MSNBC. That’s like asking me to take VP Biden seriously. The second thing I notice is that social scientists have to be included to give a boost to the number of ‘scientists’ who believe in God (God or a god?). Do you understand in what scorn social scientists are held by those in FR who count themselves as scientists or who claim to speak for scientists? This is hardly credible.
To counter your claim, I offer an equally unreliable source: Time, 5 November 2006, God vs. Science which reports considerably less belief in God on the part of genuine scientists, and considerably greater tension between science and religion. Guess these two 'sources' had differing agendas at the time they produced their respective reports.
But don’t let us get you down. Address schaef21’s post and keep of FReeping.
(Courtesy ping to JR)
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else respond in such a manner to remarks presented to them and accepted as being in a kindly and good=humored fashion. It doesn't seem like it would be very condusive to civil discourse.
Nature 394, p. 313 (1998)
| Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists | |||
| Belief in personal God | 1914 | 1933 | 1998 |
| Personal belief | 27.7 | 15 | 7.0 |
| Personal disbelief | 52.7 | 68 | 72.2 |
| Doubt or agnosticism | 20.9 | 17 | 20.8 |
| Belief in human immortality | 1914 | 1933 | 1998 |
| Personal belief | 35.2 | 18 | 7.9 |
| Personal disbelief | 25.4 | 53 | 76.7 |
| Doubt or agnosticism | 43.7 | 29 | 23.3 |
| Figures are percentages. | |||
What percentage of scientists are deemed to be “greater” scientists?
Is this really representative of scientists in general, or could it be the product of someone who wants people to think that real scientists don't believe in God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.