Evolution under fire? -- Part 2

Canadian Christianity ^ | 10/31/03 | David F. Dawes

[I Am Not A Mod]

Threads on related topics have been going better recently. Let's keep it that way.

[Dudoight]

I don't understand why the evolution theory threatens some christians. Sure, the theory is incomplete. But, it makes sense. Evolution in no way denies or disproves God.

[Dudoight]

I don't understand why the evolution theory threatens some christians. Sure, the theory is incomplete. But, it makes sense. Evolution in no way denies or disproves God.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

Better than what? Do these discussions tend to get nasty?

[Ichneumon]

I need to get to bed and don't have time for a more detailed and documented response, but in short this woman has obviously been reading way too many creationist pamphlets and far too few scientific journals.

The only way that anyone can honestly claim that evolution is not as well supported as other fields of science is for them to be vastly unfamiliar with the field.

[HalfFull]

My book features lots of stories of people who have suffered career damage simply for saying that they believe that Darwinism is not true.

Truely sad when speaking out against a lie causes harm to people's life. Especially in the USA.

[Raymond Hendrix]

The Blind Atheist

[Michael121]

Incomplete? Indeed there is no missing link that has ever surfaced. Only hope that one will be found. Macro-Evo has never been proven.

It will only make sense when it can be proven through real evidence that a T-Rex changed into a meat eating bird. But the IN-BETWEENS, the LINKS are not there.

Evolution has to change when they find that Modern man existed at the same time as Neandrathal. The cave-boys could not compete with modern man. Yet in the same show, they were blank on saying where modern man came from, if his so called ancestors were living at the same time.

[Kerberos]

"I don't understand why the evolution theory threatens some christians."

That's the part I don't understand either.

[f.Christian]

If you really want to get down to the slime bottom of liberalism ... abortion - sexual promiscuity - aclu intolerant political bigotry --- it's all a step after step up from evolution !

This brave new world order and conservatism on the FR ... is being hi jacked by psuedo intellectual - PC nazis (( non pluralists - anti democratic - monopolists )) --- atheists - new agers !

Aren't these liberal republicans really ... anti conservatives --- moles - sleepers ?

[Physicist]

Pong.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so we don't have to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Project Steve: FAQs (National Center for Science Education)
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].

[Ahban]

bump

[Doctor Stochastic]

Natural selection means that only those organisms that survive and breed leave offspring, so their traits are passed on.

The author doesn't explain her objections to this observations.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may, I'd like to comment on your comment:

The only way that anyone can honestly claim that evolution is not as well supported as other fields of science is for them to be vastly unfamiliar with the field.

IMHO, it is not dishonest to value laboratory experiment over observation. Likewise, it is not dishonest to value the formal proofs of math over laboratory experiment.

When it comes to the disciplines, I have the greatest confidence in math and geometry. To a slightly lesser degree, I have confidence in physics, chemistry and molecular biology; to a lesser degree, cosmology and astronomy; lesser still, archeology and evolution.

My value assessment has nothing to do with the volume of evidence - but it has everything to do with the kind of evidence. Moreover, it has everything to do with my confidence in any particular theory.

Going back to evolution theory, there has been a relatively recent involvement of mathematicians, information theorists and physicists looking at a variety of issues, e.g. ”What is Life?”, biological information content, complexity. At the same time, molecular biologists and geneticists are exploring genetic functions, in particular regulatory control genes. It appears these efforts are converging to a consensus that variation emerges from autonomous biological self organizing complexity (though different scientists use different words to describe it.)

This is all happening within conventional science – not a hint of creationism or intelligent design – yet the meaning is clear, at least to me.

The long standing theory of biological evolution involves the interworking of random mutation plus natural selection. No doubt both occur as we can see it happening in viruses and bacteria. And if that were the entire story, life would be a directionless walk - happenstance.

However, if variation primarily emerges within the constraints of autonomous biological self organizing complexity – then the walk is not directionless after all.

To science, such a determination would not even be a speed bump on the road to future discovery. But to religionists and philosophers it is equally significant to the last science bell-ringer: that the universe had a beginning.

[Youngblood]

Evolution is under fire? If you didn't follow American politics you would not be aware of this "controversy". There is nothing in the biological scientific literature that suggests a rethinking of the validity of evolution.

[Tribune7]

But Darwinism is more than a theory in science. It is the chief prop of an approach to science called methodological naturalism. Put simply, this approach means that law and chance are assumed to govern everything in the universe. In principle, design is ruled out.

Bears repeating.

[VadeRetro]

Indeed there is no missing link that has ever surfaced.

Somebody has to take the bait. Forgive the canned response but this comes up a lot.