Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
But evolution did arise out of the other theory.
Actually, He told to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.
Yes it does!
And what, would you mind telling me, is the “common descent”.
Now as for “It doesn't say where the first life came from” Let’s take a look at that for a moment, a “common decent”, but no explanation for where the “common decent” came from.
And you call that science?
I believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all things in them and on them. Evolutionist believe that in the beginning a big bang of nothing took place and all life came from that big bank of absolutely nothing.
Evolution is a religion that takes more faith to believe than Christianity. We have Christ the Creator, the evolutionist has a big bang of nothing creator.
Oh by the way, I do believe in a big bang, just not the same as your big bang, wanna hear about the big bank I believe in?
Now tread carefully, for I may just ask you to define evolution, all six definitions would be required.
Ever heard the ole saying “Know thy enemy”? Well, first you need to know what you believe in, that would include all six definitions of evolution, and then you need to study the Bible to know what I believe in.
For trust me on this, when it comes to Creation by God vs evolution we are at war.
I'm afraid you have your chronology askew. The Big Bang Theory of cosmology didn't originate until the middle of the 20th century or thereabouts (I'm not a cosmologist, I can't give you an exact date). The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life let alone the origins of the universe -- it simple explains observed changes in allele frequencies over time.
Really?
OK, list the six differant definitions of evolution or the six types of evolution if you prefer, and then show me where or how they do not become interdependant upon one another.
Seeing as evolution came first, I find that hard to believe.
The Big Bang didn't happen until the 20th century??? Wow, it must have been the little popper gun before that. Actually, I was referring to the one referring to the Big Bang Theory creating the universe and the solar system we know today which then gives rise later to their being conditions for the formation of life or the Theory of Evolution. Thus one does arise from the other. I'm not referring to when the theories came about.
You've raised a very good point, one which has been under investigation by evolutionists for sometime--formally, the problem is often known as 'The Evolution of Altruism,' and a reasonable introduction can be found at http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html
Briefly (though we can expand, if you like, I think it's a good topic), I think you are right to assert that evolutionary science per se doesn't give anyone a 'moral compass'--but neither does quantum mechanics, or organic chemistry, or any other discipline of science. That just isn't what science is for; science is about knowledge, and cannot speak to moral matters
It probably should be noted that classic Darwinian theory is chiefly concerned with the development of animal physiology rather than behaviour, though the subject was of parallel interest to Darwin. In more recent times, it is very interesting (to me, at least), that a number of distinguished evolutionists (notably Maynard Smith) have developed some strong indications that what we call 'altrusism' (that is, the behaviour of an animal to behave in the apparent interests of the group over its own self) may be a superior evolutionary stable strategy, that is, confer evolutionary benefits which are realised as enhanced success (which in strict Darwinian terms means a higher number of viable offspring which in turn reproduce).
An example? Well, ever try to pick up a wild bear cub in the woods? Does the Mama Bear skedaddle to save her own skin, or does she risk her life (and probably take yours!) protecting her offspring. The cub whose mother lacks what we call 'maternal instinct' is a bear cub less likely to survive and procreate.
It is arguable (but not strictly demonstrable) that further enhancements of this process allowed our early, proto-human ancestors, with far bigger brains, to develop more complicated co-operative behaviours, that indeed it was precisely our ability to manage complex group co-operation as hunters which allowed us to develop into humanity. Certainly, it is demonstrable that relatively large portions of our brain are dedicated to managing the complex demands (such as facial recognition) for social co-operation.
I doubt you will find my potted summary above compelling--but please accept it is offered as an 'honest' response, as you asked.
And I might add, with the caveat that no disrespect to your religious beliefs is intended or implied, that rejecting evolution in favour of Creationism doesn't really solve any moral issues either. In the Darwinian model, microbes that cause appalling diseases exist because they are very successful at adapting to survive and replicate; in the Creationist model, God created tuberculosis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, etc. etc., or, God created the earth as our dominion, but why, if He gave us animals to eat, do they experience pain when we kill them?
I'm not expecting your agreement on these specifics, simply hoping I have shown you a little of how one can very reasonably maintain two things:
[1] The model of life arising through evolution does not entail 'immoralty' or rampant selfishness
[2] Simply invoking a Creator, of whatever description, does not automatically illuminate moral questions (I'll leave alone for now the huge issue of how differences in various religious beliefs give rise to hugely different 'moralities'!)
Cordially and with respect...
You're right. Some evolutionists are indeed soemthing less than made "in the image of God." Good point.
Thanks for the example. You've just demonstrated how the creationists/IDists often operate just like the MSM and Michael Moore. That is, snip, cut, and paste statements made, take them completely out of context, and present them as the views of their opponents.
I'm not sure I understand these conditions. Let's just say Big Bang Theory explains why galaxies are moving away from us at great speeds and the Theory of Evolution explains changes in living creatures over time. Like I said, they have nothing to do with each other.
I'm afraid you're wrong, it doesn't. I'm not sure how else to respond -- you're telling me I and other scientists believe something we don't.
And what, would you mind telling me, is the “common descent”.
Species share common ancestors. This has been proven morphologically, genetically, behaviorially and probably other ways that I just haven't heard of.
Let’s take a look at that for a moment, a “common decent”, but no explanation for where the “common decent” came from.
Common descent is different from common decency, but no, we don't know where the first life form came from.
And you call that science?
I do indeed. We don't know the answer and we admit we don't know. That's different from the dogmatic zealots who don't know but insist that they do. I for my own part believe that God created life.
Evolutionist believe that in the beginning a big bang of nothing took place
I think you're mixing up evolutionists with cosmologists. I don't think you'll find too many evolutionary biologists studying background radiation.
For trust me on this, when it comes to Creation by God vs evolution we are at war.
Well, I hope your arm chair has a kevlar backing, because I hear the biologists might be planning a winter offensive in your region.
You know you're right. I am looking a little bit like Michael Moore. I need to shave my beard. It's nice to know there are people who take themselves so seriuosly, because I don't. I'm more "evolved." :)
I got my scissors ready for the nest one.
Because if it was supervised we would see selection for different traits genetically and in the fossil record.
You seem to have forgotten the social sciences - Psychology deals with the why and tends to base it's approach from the same mindset as the evolutionists..
IMHO, the so-called "social sciences" are not really science. I prefer to refer to them as pseudo-sciences. If the creationist crowd really wants a target to attack, the pseudo-social sciences would make a good one.
They are not a good recommendation for God either.
Seeing as evolution came first, I find that hard to believe.
Hmmm.... You mean we evolved as life forms before the universe was created. Sounds logical I guess--maybe like some forms of creation maybe.
That all? Piece of cake. I already know who you got the "six definitions of evolution" riff reom.
You misunderstand. The theory of evolution was put to paper long before the big bang theory was.
Show proof that evolution says that or be called a liar.
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.