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

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Alamo-Girl]

I don't know why anyone takes any of this personally. It boils down to one worldview which is incompatible with another (which isn't unusual at all on the Religion Forum.)

And I certainly do not wish to encourage anyone to hate anyone. I'd much rather encourage everyone to love one another despite the utterly incompatible worldviews.

[cornelis]

I don't wish to perpetuate distractions, LC. But I'm aware that, being human, we are all tempted to react to things that do not pertain directly to the problem or specific question. This is a common error, especially when we wish to win rather than learn.

I think that forum etiquette is something that our culture needs to take up seriously. This new medium has some serious weaknesses. It's up to the mature to keep a steady keel. More often than not the better ones turn to their own blogs, having run out of patience, and setting up a sort of microphone that rarely engages dialogue.

FR has dialogue going. But for this it must be an open forum and it has to suffer the weaker imputs. Those of us who are steady keep our eyes on the goal. My goal, and I hope we are together in this much, is to forge ahead with the issue. This is super hard at times.

[Liberal Classic]

Such comments are meant to be personal. It's a simple matter of breaking the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter.

And I certainly do not wish to encourage anyone to hate anyone.

I would rather more people discourage such notions.

[hosepipe]

[ I love the way betty boop put it in the excerpt gathered at post 1411: / Science believes all the time: It believes in the importance of the questions it is asking, it believes that the design of the experiment to test the proposition is suitable, it believes that the evidence it gathers and qualifies in the prosecution of finding the answer to the question is appropriate.... It believes in the power of reason and logic. It believes in "objective" physical laws that can be faithfully applied to problems to get valid answers. ]

GEE BELIEVERS, indeed... All they need is/are some academic robes, a Pope.. and some Cardinals.. The dogma(s) is/are certainly there.. That clergy plays musical chairs with each other.. or Mother may I.. or even hide and seek.. Like; primates in a maze running the channels(of the maze) into a matrix of dead ends.. toward a questionable future..

Is God COOL or WHAT?.. Life is about the future which starts right now in the moment.. The moment is eternal.. Boopie has a way with words don't she..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your concerns!

[Alamo-Girl]

Yes indeed, she certainly has a way with words! And you, dear hosepipe, have a way with metaphors!

And I'm enjoying every minute of it.

[betty boop]

And you, dear hosepipe, have a way with metaphors! ... And I'm enjoying every minute of it.

And so am I! Dear 'pipe does indeed have a genius for metaphor!

[Alamo-Girl]

He certainly does and with a good salting of humor to boot. LOL! Reno

[Alamo-Girl]

In the excerpts at 1411, post 249 was fully explained at 299.

Moreover, "life can only come from life" is the "Law of Biogenesis." The phrase is the definition of the theory.

Incidentally, the alternative to biogenesis, abiogenesis, which provides for life arising from non-life is an origin theory only. After the bootstrap, the law of "life can only come from life" applies according to The Nature of Evolution

Darwin's theory of evolution was about speciation only. He did not address abiogenesis in that theory. Life was taken as a given.

Nor did he ask or answer the far more important question, "what is life v non-life/death in nature?"

Without asking that question, he could not assert a serious theory of abiogenesis. His musings about a warm little pond were not a theory and were not part of the theory of evolution.

[King Prout]

you err: testimony is NOT evidence.

but I suppose those who like to go all "Roswell" consider it a distinction without a difference.

[King Prout]

Simplicio answered himself. key word: "objects"

[cornelis]

In the same year that Darwin published his Origin of the Species, Louis Pasteur's expirements gave evidence that life arises only from pre-existent life.

[js1138]

In the same year that Darwin published his Origin of the Species, Louis Pasteur's expirements gave evidence that life arises only from pre-existent life.

Only in the sense that he demonstrated that maggots do not form spontaneously from dead meat. He said absolutely nothing about biogenesis.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[js1138]

Darwin's theory of evolution was about speciation only. He did not address abiogenesis in that theory. Life was taken as a given.

That is true, as we frequently point out.

But he never said or implied, "life can only come from life". This is a factual error that needs correcting.

[cornelis]

Omne vivum ex vivo is known as the law of biogenesis.