Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[unlearner]

" Now there's a theory. Please explain who God was afraid of and how filling our genomes with viral DNA scars protects him."

Your point makes me think of the sci-fi movie "Blade Runner". Remember how the replicants in the story had been designed to expire after a short lifespan (of about three years I think)?

What should God do to reveal Himself? And how should He have made things? Would it be necessary for Him to write "God was here" in some plain way on the DNA sequence? And should He have designed us to live forever without sickness or injury? (Maybe He actually did.)

Let me repeat my assertion on this issue. I do not deny the existence of these errors in nature. But I do not see any flaw in my earlier explanation of them:

There is no aberration or inefficiency in nature that cannot be explained by three factors. One, neither the environment nor life today is the same as it was long ago. (Evolution agrees.) Two, intelligent design does not negate possible intelligent intervention that may have resulted in less than optimum conditions in the environment and less than optimum performance of living things. (This is indeed what Biblical creationism has ALWAYS held. This is not an attempt to adapt creationism to fit modern science.) Three, by way of simple analogy, computer programs are simpler but similar to living things. All computer programs exist as a direct or indirect result of "intelligent design" (of the programmer). Most programs by the same programmer use code libraries to make the process of design more efficient. This results in unnecessary, redundant and inefficient (technically) code in subsequent programs. This concept of programming design is called "re-usability". This analogy fits perfectly within the scientific findings of biology.

"This is you distracting yourself, grasping at straws, simply refusing in your religious horror to go where the evidence points. Design is not a tight hypothesis and refuses to explain what we see. It merely reserves that a Designer could have left the mess we see for reasons of His own."

Biblical literalism is not science. It is faith. So I don't think we disagree on that per se. But that does not make it unscientific.

The thing is, these issues are thoroughly addressed in the Bible which existed long before modern evolutionary theory. These are not new questions that somehow were introduced as the result of evolutionary theory: "Why is there evil and injustice? Why is there sickness and death?"

"You are missing a demonstration that the property of being self-replicating in itself implies design."

I am not sure if you are challenging the idea that living things are self-replicating, or if you are just making a point for me that I failed to make. Yes. I think life is self-replicating, and that DOES indicate intelligent design.

We have not even explored how the environment in which life thrived MUST have been designed to foster it. But I don't foresee either of us changing our respective positions by exploring this.

We can both just keep thinking our own view is more correct. It will not hurt my feelings that you think I am unscientific. We just disagree. That's part of life.

[VadeRetro]

We can both just keep thinking our own view is more correct. It will not hurt my feelings that you think I am unscientific. We just disagree. That's part of life.

We may have to leave it at that. Remember I've been trying to tell you, though, that science is predicated on the idea that there's an objective reality out there and we can learn about it. It's not an "it can be anything you want it to be" world.

When you tell science that science is getting it all wrong, you'd better have your presentation ready to go.

[unlearner]

Agreed. See you around.

[Thatcherite]

Last year I read several technical scientific books and for the first time ever started to read a little about evolution. I was surprised at what I found. First, I did not find most of what I read to contradict what I believed Biblically. Second, and I suppose this reveals my predisposition against evolutionary theory, I found what I read to be truly scientific. It was not the work of people hellbent on disproving the existence of God.

Maybe you should ponder on the motivation and honesty of those who told you that evolution is not scientific, and the motivation of those who claim that Christians cannot accept evolution. In these forums I see the odd error perpetrated by the science/reason crowd (I've made mistakes myself), but I see an endless stream of mendacity, dishonesty, unwillingness to confront the data, and outright lying from most of the anti-evolutionists. If you have any technical training at all just go and look at a few pages on sites like AiG or ICR or DrDino in areas where you are familiar with the material to see how they put up fallacious arguments designed to appeal to the unknowledgeable. If the case against evolution is so strong why do they have to do this?

I'll butt in with one more point, that may have been made by others in response to your posts. In my opinion it is not enough just to say, "Science might be wrong." about issues like the age and size of the universe and whether evolution has occured. Unless you want to reject science entirely then it is incumbent on "your side of the argument" to produce theories that explain the facts better than the current theories. Just to say things like "the universe might have funny geometry", or "God might have put plagiarised errors into DNA for His own mysterious reasons" is handwaving, and ultimately is not acceptable. You need to see what predictions your "handwaves" make that are not made by other theories and test those predictions to see if they are true. Absent this, the only intellectually honest course is to accept the mainstream position.

[Thatcherite]

FYI, it has been known that the earth is spherical, and its approximate size has been known by some cultures, for a long time. The measurements to achieve such knowledge are not difficult for an ancient society with reasonable math skills. link

Religious fundamentalists in the past fought tooth and nail against observations like non-geocentricity and other planets possessing moons. Just as some now fight the scale and age of the universe and the evidence that points to the fact of evolution. Fortunately we no longer burn people at the stake for such beliefs.

[unlearner]

"Religious fundamentalists in the past fought tooth and nail against observations like non-geocentricity and other planets possessing moons. Just as some now fight the scale and age of the universe and the evidence that points to the fact of evolution. Fortunately we no longer burn people at the stake for such beliefs."

Please keep in mind that, in these past debates, both sides were religious. In fact, the religion you are talking about fought just as hard to suppress the doctrine of salvation by grace. Further, the dogmatism that caused people to burn others at the stake for being RIGHT does not reside exclusively with the "religious", at least not by the definition of "piety".

This issue, regardless of who is right, can be used by political opportunists as a wedge or even to politically "persecute" those who do not serve their cause.

For example, the left knows very well that conservative Christians oppose special rights based on sexual orientation, government subsidized abortion, and other parts of their agenda. They also know that many in this same group are Creationists. Liberals have no problem quoting from the Bible when it serves their purposes. They also have no problem using issues like evolution as an excuse to prohibit freedom of religion.

There are some people in our land who have no appreciation for rule of law or liberty. In fact, they want the opposite. I am sure you and other evolution proponents on this site are not among them. But this issue can be and is being hijacked by people who do not represent your political ideology. There are people who would like to burn the Christians at the stake. And if this could be done based upon some Christians' apparent unscientific teachings, so be it.

You may think this fear is unfounded, but I present to you that we are not more than 80 years behind Nazi Germany in this regard. They had the best scientists in the world, but that did not stop fascism from taking hold of the nation. Germany's fall to Nazism happened almost suddenly (on the surface). It can happen here.

Now, I may think the Amish are backward folk. I may think they really need to teach their children to appreciate the scientific and other progresses we have made as a society. But it would be wrong to FORCE them to abandon their way of life merely because I think my views are better.

This is a more significant issue than evolution itself. Do you really want your science to be hijacked by thought police? The liberals can nod their heads and tell Christians they sympathize with their views and yet not believe or understand them. They can do the same with scientists. They can nod their heads and say they believe evolution is a fact, even though they understand it no better than those debating you here. They care not. To them, everything is about their power and enriching themselves with wealth they have not earned and have no right to.

"Unless you want to reject science entirely then it is incumbent on 'your side of the argument' to produce theories that explain the facts better than the current theories."

This is a fair piece of advice as to the theory debate. I don't think we will settle this debate any time soon. The saying "agree to disagree" applies, and I don't mean that lightly. I will defend your right to your opinions, even if I disagree with them. I hope you will do the same.