Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
Why is that?
Here's a review of the series from the Seattle Weekly:
Published September 20 - 26, 2001Making sense of life
BY ROGER DOWNEY
NEXT MONDAY, Sept. 24, the Public Broadcasting System "pops out" its new season with a four-night, seven-part documentary called Evolution. Both PBS and the makers of the film, Paul Allen's Blue Sky Productions, had every reason to expect the show to attract a lot of attention, favorable and otherwise.
It's hard, now, to know what people will feel like watching two weeks after the events of Sept. 11. Maybe eight hours' cautious exposition of the mechanisms governing the elaboration of living things through time will seem irrelevant. Just as possibly, people looking for some way of making sense of their world will be drawn to a thorough airing of the central philosophico-scientific issue of our time.
The most memorable PBS documentaries--Clark's Civilization, Bronowski's Ascent of Man, Sagan's Cosmos--have been author driven, with every word, image, and idea reflecting a single shaping mind. Evolution doesn't have that kind of focus: A committee of eminent scientists was asked to determine its agenda, and different writers, directors, and producers were hired to create episodes illustrating the themes selected. Of the three episodes I saw in advance of broadcast, the first and most ambitious is also the weakest: Shot in period-Masterpiece Theatre style, it's a earnest Darwin biopic (lumbered with sub-Cliffs Notes dialogue) interrupted erratically by eminent Darwinians of our own day (most prominent among them Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, who'll be lecturing in Seattle on Oct. 2, the gods and the FAA willing).
Five of the remaining episodes hew closely to answering a single big question posed and answered by evolutionary science: How does evolution "work"? What role has extinction played in the history of life? What role does competition between organisms play in the process? If evolution is a mindless, random process, where the hell did mind come from?
To judge by the evidence of episode five, these more focused segments work better, both as instruction and entertainment. "Why Sex?" adopts a jokey but, on the whole, sensible and down-to-earth tone in explaining what evolutionary thinking has taught us about why sex exists at all, how it's shaped the history of life on earth, and why men and women see the world differently.
Only in its final hour does the series confront the issue which led to its making in the first place. "What About God?" attempts a sympathetic overview of all the diverse voices asking that question: "creationists"; partisans of "creation science," like Seattle Discovery Institute; and serious scientists who find no conflict between their work and their religious views.
But, as might be expected from a committee-devised treatment of a hot-button issue, the episode lacks bite, concluding (in the words of the series' promotional summary) "that science and religion are compatible, although they play very different roles in assigning order to the universe and a purpose to life." This bland formulation may have some truth to it, but not enough. It ignores the deep, if out-of-fashion, idea espoused by thinkers as different as Marx, Freud, and Shelley that belief in God is a central impediment to human progress. It also ignores those whose confidence that they have a hot line to the Almighty, from the 700 Club's Pat Robertson to the suicide pilots of the jihad, licenses them to cast out of the human community anyone who does not bow to the idols of their particular tribe.
The wishy-washy, why-can't-everybody-just-get-along formulation concluding Evolution obscures the most important concept in the series as a whole: Science, as a human activity, may be neutral when it comes to questions like "Is there a God?" or "What is the meaning of the universe?" It is not neutral on the subject of belief. On the contrary, belief--"the evidence of things not seen," as St. Paul defines it--is the enemy of science, asserting a higher claim to truth than the evidence of one's own eyes as confirmed by the eyes of others.
The national atmosphere right now is so hazy with sanctimony that one has to be grateful for any effort to address reality with candor, and this Evolution does. The attendant education initiative, centered on providing teaching materials based on the series and the book to secondary-school science classes, may, in time, have a deep and lasting influence on the way Americans think about their world. But it will face militant resistance. If they're going to win their argument with the forces of blind faith--if they're even going to hold their own--the apologists of science are going to have to stop apologizing and start fighting.
Additional information:
Nina Shapiro's Seattle Weekly article on the Discovery Institute¹s patronage of UW astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0116/news-shapiro.shtmlFor the conservative Christians funding the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design campaign, see Los Angeles Times religion reporter Teresa Watanabe's "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator," published March 25, 2001. This article is available free at the Discovery Institute's own website,
http://www.discovery.org/news/EnlistingScience.htmlFor more on Clear Blue Sky Productions and Evolution,
http://www.clearblueskyfilms.com/
Evolution airs nightly at 8 p.m. Mon.-Thurs., Sept. 24-27 on KCTS 9 Seattle. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould addresses Seattle Arts and Lectures at Benaroya Hall, 7:30 p.m. Tues., Oct. 2. $18-$15. 621-2230.
What JmyBryan said is true: Many evolutionists are Christians. In fact, Kennetn Brown, IMO the best evolutionist debater today & I hear is one of the talking heads in the Evolution series, is a Catholic.
But since I'm not one of them, let me state the Objectivist/atheist view:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator* with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
*The "creator" was once almost universally thought to be a supernatural person, but it is becoming clearer over time that the creator of (us as human beings at least) was a purely natural process. This fact changes nothing about the self-evident truths above - the essential fact is that we are endowed with these rights. Individual rights are essential for our survival as thinking beings.
It will be a pleasure to have something else to talk about on FR.
Natural, yes, I agree. Still, it's funny, I see the opposite of your perception...
There is plenty of room for Christianity in evolution, as well as Judaism and other religions, as long as one doesn't use these religions as a pretext to try to rewrite natural history. You're comparing apples and eggs.
According to these religions... they wrote "Natural History".
But you do get extra credit for seeming like you know what you're talking about.
Amen. Er...
According to these religions... they wrote "Natural History".
But you do get extra credit for seeming like you know what you're talking about.
If you're saying that these religions' view of natural history is different than the scientific view, than how can you complain that there's no room for them in the scientific view? Why should there be? How could the scientific view possibly accommodate all religious beliefs, when they're incompatible with each other, as well as with science?
Again, you're comparing two different belief systems--one that relies on the scientific method, versus one that relies on divine revelation. You're entitled to believe either one, but it shouldn't be surprising that they're incompatible.
And as to your original question, if you're a Bible literalist, then apparently there's no room in Christianity for evolution, either, so I don't even understand the question.
What caused the 'process' to exist? What about the argument of first cause? It didn't exist out of nothing... so who created this physical universe? The fact that we are even discussing shows that something/someone exists as a creator.
And as to the process, micro evolution within a species is what is often cited as proof, however that is significantly different than macro evolution. If that were happening we would have a continious stream of evolving species and not the distinctly different sets we see now.
One large deficiency with living with evolution is that you are left with conclusions that are too difficult to live with.
For example, 'racism' is natural. What human civilization didn't have it? Name one? So if it is a part of our nature, then why change it. The argument would be, hey that's the way I'm made so back off! It's an alternative lifestyle right? Well, that is where natural law comes in (er at least the need for absolutes). Regardless of our behaviour, it is inherently wrong to murder, kill, steal, be racist, etc.
And that isn't because of evolution, but rather because God has written his law on our hearts. Each person has some sort of general sense of right and wrong (regardless of the sin nature that each of us has... being a human). I've never yet seen any child yet who naturally always obeyed and had to be taught to lie. It is always the reverse.
Fwiw, I think a couple of simple reasons mankind loves the idea of evolution (secular society anyway) is because:
- Mankind loves to be able to figure out how things work and this model provides a formula for about everything we see (i.e. wait long enough and it'll just happen). Never mind order from disorder violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
- More importantly, we don't have absolutes anymore and therefore we can do what we want. [Isn't mankind naturally a rebel?] No one inherently likes to be told what to do.
This is absolutely not true, the theory of evolution does not invalidate the concept of a God. In fact the Roman Catholic Church has officially accepted the theory of evolution as NOT in conflict with the church.
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.