Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Coyoteman]

I am out of here.

Me too. Good night all.

[spinestein]

[But this is article provides the basis of morality via evolution: {5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts}.]


I think this article is a steaming pile of crap (and I suspect you would agree with me on at least that point). :^)

The author is attempting to do something even more foolish than trying to come up with scientific explanations for miraculous Bible events, and that is to try to come up with moral and spiritual reasons to accept particular scientific theories. This is an affront to scientific methodology as well as religious faith and I can only assume that he's doing so because his opinion of the intelligence of creationists is so low, and I'm afraid his writing does a disservice to the scientific method and reflects poorly on it.



[Do you believe human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?]


No. The best evidence suggests that consciousness is derivative of the normal physical functioning of a brain possessing a certain minimal amount of complexity. Evidence also suggests that having both a limbic system and a prefrontal cortex (which only mammals have and humans have the most developed) is necessary for a sense of self and for the capacity to define morality and act according to moral principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

[freedumb2003]

Me too. Good night all.

And remember to tip your waitress.

[Virginia-American]

... If you have some fossils from before the proto-mammal or proto-insect and some, or many, after, there should be some way of determining what characteristics it should have had, what it could have looked like.

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. Part 5 has a fairly detailed account of the transition between reptiles and mammals.

It's interesting what can be said about proto-mammal: it had hair, suckled its young, and laid eggs. It also had 3 earbones (by definition), one lower jawbone, and other bone features mentioned in the essay. Kinda like a modern-day monotreme, (though not specialized for aquatic or ant-eating life)

Note that the website belongs to the

This is the professional society for people who prospect for oil. If YEC or creationism were true, they'd switch in a heartbeat to make more money.

[phatus maximus]

Actually you made my assertion stronger...those beings were alledgly around over 25000 years ago...so it went from 25000 yrs ago using bones and rocks to 20000 years later using rocks and then in less than 5000 years we went from using stick and stones to flying to the moon...

[Paddlefish]

Oh my, citing that article from American Enterprise Online????? I would have to say that you are seriously MIS-informed.

[spinestein]

[The question he asked was quite reasonable. If you have some fossils from before the proto-mammal or proto-insect and some, or many, after, there should be some way of determining what characteristics it should have had, what it could have looked like.]

I think this may be more what you're looking for; taken from examples of some good fossil finds of very early mammals or "proto-mammals":

{{Zhangheotherium belongs to an extinct group of prehistoric mammals that has eluded scientists for decades—symmetrodonts (meaning "symmetrical tooth"). Until this discovery, scientists had been basing all their information about symmetrodonts on isolated teeth and jaw fragments. At five inches in length, the live Zhangheotherium looked somewhat like a rat, with razor-like, triangular-shaped teeth that fit together like scissors. It lived by the lake and ate insects, and apparently was itself food for dinosaurs.

"Fossil mammals from this period are rare and extremely difficult to find," Luo says. "We knew symmetrodonts existed but had no idea what they looked like or what ecological role they played in a world dominated by dinosaurs." When the research team* first looked at the new fossil, they recognized the jaw and knew it was a symmetrodont. "But," recalls Luo, "the issue was: What was the anatomical significance of the rest of the animal’s body? That’s what we spent a great deal of time researching. And this skeleton provides us with a remarkably clear picture."

Symmetrodonts are one of six ancient mammal groups. Besides symmetrodonts, two others are also extinct: triconodonts and multituberculates. Most of us are familiar with the others, which still exist and evolved in this order: egg-laying mammals, or monotremes, like the duck-billed platypus or spiny anteater; marsupials, like the kangaroo, which carry their young in pouches; and placentals, like humans, dogs and cows.}}

http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/1998/marapr/feat3.htm



and this: From E. H. Colbert, 1980. Evolution of the Vertebrates, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY

{{Among the earliest of the mammals are docodonts known as morganucodonts, represented by the genus Morganucodon (which is probably the same as an earlier-named genus, Eozostrodon) from the Upper Triassic of Europe and by the genus Megazostrodon from the Upper Triassic of South Africa. Originally, these forms were known from scattered teeth and a few jaw fragments but, within recent years, fossil bones in large numbers have been recovered from Triassic fissure fillings within Carboniferous limestones in South Wales. Skulls with associated skeletons are known from South Africa. In addition, some closely related materials have been found in southwestern china.

The morganucodonts were tiny mammals with slender lower jaws. In these early mammals the lower jaw was of mammalian form, and functionally was composed of a single bone., the dentary, at the back of which there was a large and high coronoid process for the attachment of strong temporal muscles, and a well-formed condyle for articulation with the squamosal bone of the skull. But, significantly, on the inner side of the jaw was a groove within which was preserved the remnant of the articular bone -- a sort of paleontological reminder of the old reptilian jaw joint, still preserved in this ancient mammal. Since the quadrate bone of the skull was also preserved, obviously these animals possessed both jaw joints, as did the mammal-like reptile, Diarthrognathus, described in Chapter 9.}}

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/CH15.html



There are of course many other references, but this is a good start, and following the links will show what the known (from their fossils) transitionals looked like.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

It's called learning agriculture.

Once we learned to grow food on farms etc, citystates were able to develop, and instead of spending all of our time trying to feed ourselves, we were able to put our time into creating civilizations, and making war.

War is the greatest reason for developmental leaps.

Trying to keep up with the jones's so the jones's don't kick your butt up around your ears is quite the motivation, or for that matter, wanting what the jones's have, and creating more and more sophisticated weapons to do it.

Farming, and then civilizations, and then war.

war has always been there, but on a very small scale, I am talking big wars, with thousands of soldiers, which was not viable when you are a hunting and gathering society.

Farming allowed civilization, and civilization created more sophisticated war making, and then war allowed leapfrog developements in technology.

Competition and free market economies will do that also.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Oh, and it is also about climate, when the climate changed to a point where large scale agriculture became viable, we took off running.

[spinestein]

[What was the advent that made them humans?]

I just found out that this thread evolved itself (pardon the humor) into the religion forum, and so I think I'd like to attempt to answer the above question in a Biblical context.

In Genesis, God ("Elohim" literally -gods) creates Adam (literally -man) and then woman, then warns them not to eat the fruit of a particular tree but a serpent tempted them to disobey.

[[2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”]]

I understand this to mean that the fruit is a metaphor for humanity gradually attaining the brain capacity and mental ability of forethought allowing them to gain the knowledge of both mortality and morality

[[6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.]]

With this evolutionary step of greater brain capacity comes the ability to manipulate the environment including making tool and weapons, clothing and using fire. After God finds out about their disobedience:

[[ ... 16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children ...]]

Humans are the only animals which have a painful childbirth. The reason is because the huge head of infants necessary to cover a large brain gained through a relatively recent evolutionary change doesn't easily fit through the female pelvic opening which is already significantly larger than any other primate.

[[17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:“ Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground,For out of it you were taken;For dust you are,And to dust you shall return.” ... 22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.]]

God is telling man that since he's gotten to be such a smartypants, it's time for them to give up the hunter-gatherer ways they've become accustomed to in the Garden of Eden and find out what it's like to practice agriculture and work hard all day in the fields to grow their own food.

[[24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.]]

Humans evolved the largest brain of all primates allowing our species to invent civilization, and there's no going back. Everything that follows Genesis is God's directive to USE that brain properly; He's telling us how to discipline our minds to make morally correct decisions which lead to morally correct behavior which pleases Him, and THAT is the advent of humanity.

[jennyp]

placemarker

[Between the Lines]

You should be very careful of the "science" you find on creationist websites. They do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want. That is not science!

LOL, the same can be said of many evolutionists past and present.

[srweaver]

Yours is the divided response that many are offering, in a refusal to make a commitment to their position that is consistent. I understand you to be saying the Bible has some significance to you when it speaks of moral issues, but no significance when it speaks of historical issues as relating to the origin of the universe or living creatures, including mankind.

However, God addresses both to some degree in Scripture. Even though the Bible is written primarily to show men (inclusive) the way to heaven, God does not depart from His ability to tell the truth when He caused inspired writers to record historical events.

Jesus also adressed Biblical events and personages as historical fact/truth, such an Noah and the flood that destroyed all people with the exception of eight individuals.

If scientists can genetically/biologically prove that all of mankind did not descend from eight individuals within recent history (10,000 years or so), then they can disprove the Bible's statements about the flood.

Have they done so?

Jesus claimed to be the truth, and that the word of God was absolutely true, not just in "religious" matters.

Coyoteman said he wasn't talking about religion, but this thread began with the assertion (with reasons) that Christians should accept evolution (macroevolution).

I suggest to do so is to reject the teachings of the Bible.

[srweaver]

Perhaps you could do the google.

These are my own questions.

You say you are talking about science, and not religion. Perhaps we should talk about truth, and what is or is not truth. Jesus claimed to be the truth, and to speak the truth. If His statements contradict the statements of macroevolution theorists, then I would submit that at least one set of statements has to be wrong.

If evolutionists are wrong, they will change their theory. If Jesus is wrong, and the Bible is wrong, all sincere Christians will lost any absolute, objective authority for their faith.

Still unwilling to talk about the topic of truth?

[srweaver]

Processing...thanks for the info.

[Thatcherite]

Are you saying that science has proved that God did not create man in His image, or if He did science has proved that He used evolution to do so and that it took circa 3.5 billion years?

Science cannot disprove God's actions, since God can do anything, but yes, if God created man He (a) used evolution to do so, or (b) He planted ubiquitous false evidence that He used evolution to do so, or (c) He permitted an adversary to plant false evidence. Since Christians prefer not to call God a liar the huge number of Christians who accept evolution believe (a).

And yes, there is disagreement (NOT "absolutely unambiguous statements") over whether there is a LUCA or not among those "in the know" AKA those who make educated guesses.

The nature of that disagreement is related to information at the boundary of our knowledge and subtle distinctions about the exact nature of early life on earth. That is an answer that we may never know, given the remoteness in time and the paucity of physical evidence of exactly what happened. It isn't related to whether or not the modern biological kingdoms share common ancestory, since assuredly they do. The fact that (at the very least) the overwhelming majority of life currently existing on our planet shares common ancestory is not currently scientifically disputed.

[Thatcherite]

I have. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, scientific journals and textbooks do not allow arguments for Creationism to be published, so the debate is rather one-sided.

In many years of reading creationist pamphlets, books, and websites I have seen precious few arguments *for* Creationism. Attacks *against* evolution aplenty of course ("Teach the controversy!" is the battlecry), invariably aimed straight at a non-scientific audience. But curiously, despite their wealth and vast constituency, the creationist organisations rarely seem to do any scientific research to back up their own ideas. Largely they just copy each other's phony arguments so on creationist websites and in their books you see the same bogus claims again and again. Creationists make no effort to address the scientific community with the only currency that counts: physical evidence in favour of their proposition.

You seem to be subscribing to some kind of conspiracy theory on the part of mainstream science to suppress well-founded evidence for creationism. The problem with this is that the number of conspirators would be vast, and the timespan is over a century, with no-one squealing. None of the conspirators benefit from the supposed conspiracy. On the contrary science is *avid* for new ideas because they give scientists a chance to make their name in a fresh area. Anyone who came forward with well-evidenced ideas that overturned a major established paradigm would generate a feeding-frenzy of scientists trying to get in on the act.

Have you researched the data, experiments and non-mainstream articles concerning Creationism?

Yes, sadly I've wasted a deal of time on this. I've never found one single well-evidenced argument for creationism, and neither have I found one single well-evidenced argument against evolution from those sources. It sounds as if you have found persuasive arguments. Perhaps you would like to post the very best one that you've found here, and I'll examine it. Here is your chance to persuade me.

[Thatcherite]

I just found out that this thread evolved itself (pardon the humor) into the religion forum, and so I think I'd like to attempt to answer the above question in a Biblical context.

Surely the intervention of the Mod was Intelligent Design in action? :)

[spinestein]

[Yours is the divided response that many are offering, in a refusal to make a commitment to their position that is consistent. I understand you to be saying the Bible has some significance to you when it speaks of moral issues, but no significance when it speaks of historical issues as relating to the origin of the universe or living creatures, including mankind.]


Your perception is very close, but I want to be clear about my intention. I was offering an interpretation of "the divided response that many are offering" but that stance isn't mine. I've made my commitment to a consistent position which is based upon scientific methodology as a way to answer questions to my satisfaction, though I see a great many people who alternatively use both religious faith as well as science to understand their place in the world. They are in the majority among people I know and among those I talk to about philosophical matters and I notice a tendency among many or even most of them to be reluctant to admit that they use two very different methods of thinking at different times. I do completely understand though, the reasoning which leads those to accept literal creationism, and you state it very concisely in your last post:

[...the Bible is written primarily to show men (inclusive) the way to heaven, God does not depart from His ability to tell the truth when He caused inspired writers to record historical events. Jesus also adressed Biblical events and personages as historical fact/truth, such an Noah and the flood that destroyed all people with the exception of eight individuals. ... Jesus claimed to be the truth, and that the word of God was absolutely true, not just in "religious" matters.]

I'm mindful of the chastisement that the apostle, Thomas receives from Jesus after Thomas refuses to believe, without direct proof, the resurrection of Jesus even after he was told by Jesus ahead of time to expect it.

{{24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.}}


Jesus is telling him that it's virtuous to have faith in the word of God and that skepticism of God's word is a hindrance to truth and most Christians understand and accept this.

I'm think I'm going against the conventional wisdom on this (and I know I'm going against the main point of the article) when I say that this philosophy of faith is totally incompatible with the philosophy of science, a central part of which is the directive to NOT accept the word of any authority, that the word of God is meaningless by definition, and that the ONLY way to truth is through a process of rigorous methodological skepticism. In my opinion, it's why there exists such hostility between science and religion and also the reason why articles like this are written to try and paper over the differences, in support of various motivations, not all of them involving the pursuit of truth.

I suspect that you are as satisfied with your choice as I am with mine, though I admit it amuses me to see so many people like the author of this article try to do a balancing act between the two philosophies, wanting to have the best of both worlds. I'll probably make some enemies by saying so, but I don't think they're doing anything useful.

[spinestein]

Heh heh heh !!! :^)