Evolution: The discussion and the theory...

[Ambrose]

I don't have time to reply to the post in the "atheist" thread, so I'll work with this one for you to chew on til I get home

 

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of anything resembling a soul. It is strictly a religious device.

 

And how does the concept of a soul contradict reason?

 

The rare (but not incredibly rare) case of identical twins is caused when a embryo splits into two during the first trimester of pregnancy. Where does the 2nd soul come from? In the case of triplets, where does the 3rd soul come from? If new souls are not introduced but the soul is split, what implications does that have on the afterlife? Do all the siblings have to be dead before the soul is allowed into heaven.

 

Stay with me now. Sometimes twinning can occur when two eggs are fertilized by two sperm. When carried to term, these babies are fraternal twins (born at the same time but not identical). Sometimes, in the early stages of pregnancy, one zygote will be absorbed by the other. The remaining zygote is called a chimera. Does the chimera have two souls? If not, where does the other one go?

 

Now that we've potentially blown a big hole in the idea that this unproven thing called soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception, when would it enter the embryo?

 

You're thinking of the soul on a far too physical level. The whole "soul" issue isn't really my concern; killing a fetus is simply the destruction of a developing human.

 

But it happens all the time. The Catholic Church's unreasonable (literal context) stance on contraception is literally life-threatening to the citizens of several third world countries. It's not even a matter of a debate with physicists or biologists, but a debate with medical health professionals and charitable aid workers.

 

Firstly, condoms have been proven to have an abysmal success rate for preventing STDs. An HIV virus is darned small.

 

Secondly, the most effective form of contraception has been scientifically proven to be abstinence

Neither of these statements are quite medically accurate, and since the topic of abstinence has come up several times and we all tend to go way off on a tangent, I'm going to open a thread on that topic, and we should continue the discussion of all things birth control-related there. Thanks, Jae

 

I think you're being much more charitable than most historians would be.

 

But we're not talking about history. Pope Pius XII was the first to encourage scientific development, and it's been that way ever since.

 

If the Catholic Church told you not to believe in the theory of evolution any longer, however you still felt that the theory of evolution was the best explanation for modern biology, would you change your belief? Yes or no?

 

See, but the Church wouldn't do that without first stating why. And the Church wouldn't do something like that without a darned good reason (if you want to be cynical, then they wouldn't do it without a reason because if they did, everyone would leave). I don't know what my belief would be because I don't know what evidence the Church would dictate.

 

more when i get home.

[Achilles]

And how does the concept of a soul contradict reason?

You quoted my answer when you asked this question

 

You're thinking of the soul on a far too physical level. The whole "soul" issue isn't really my concern; killing a fetus is simply the destruction of a developing human.

Actually, I'm not. We can discuss the soul on whatever level you would like to. I stand by my argument that the idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception offers some problems. Therefore, it it were being offered up as a scientific hypothesis, it wouldn't survive the first pass through the scientific method. In other words, it needs more work.

 

From a 2nd-trimester abortion standpoint, I don't have any option other than to agree with you: killing a fetus is the destruction of a developing human. From a 1st-trimester abortion standpoint, no fetus is involved so your argument doesn't apply. From stem-cell research perspective, what is "destroyed" is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. This is what a Blastocyst looks like.

 

The next question is: what reason would a scientist have to destroy a blastocyst? To fulfill their bloodthirsty need to kill developing humans? Or because the evidence leads them to believe that they can save millions of lives with the research that they would be doing?

 

The point still stands that scientific research in the U.S. has been stymied because of religious concerns.

 

Firstly, condoms have been proven to have an abysmal success rate for preventing STDs. An HIV virus is darned small.

I know what source you are invoking and I would implore you to read this article.

 

Secondly, the most effective form of contraception has been scientifically proven to be abstinence

No argument that abstinence is incredibly effective, but I don't know why one would only teach one method of prevention when several were available. If I knew I had three or four ways to prevent getting AIDS I would want to know about all of them.

 

I want to keep this on a logical train of thought, so I won't be adding any more information about contraception. If you are inclined to do so, I think we should take this part of our conversation over to the new thread.

 

See, but the Church wouldn't do that without first stating why. And the Church wouldn't do something like that without a darned good reason (if you want to be cynical, then they wouldn't do it without a reason because if they did, everyone would leave). I don't know what my belief would be because I don't know what evidence the Church would dictate.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Catholic Church and the church you select for the 2nd question both offer a rationale. Neither you nor the other person accept the rationale. Do you keep your belief or do you adopt that of the Church? Should the other person do the same? Yes or no, please.

[JediMaster12]

Considering the bible tells us that the universe is 6,000 years old, but Mitochondrial Eve dates back 140,000 years, I don't think there's a strong case for evolutionary theory in the Bible.

Like I mentioned before, you don't have to take it literally. I don't believe that everything happened in seven literal days. We have the geological time scale to show that. I am all too well aware that the earth is way older than the race of human beings. And I know that there were specials of bipedal persons before we get to homo sapiens sapiens, which is us. Like I have said before, I have no problem with the evolutionary theory. I just get annoyed when people attempt to misuse science to justify things like capitalism but that is another topic.

[Achilles]

Like I mentioned before, you don't have to take it literally.

I've read the Bible, and I just don't see how it could be taken any other way. If God can write our destinies, police our thoughts, and (occasionally) answer our prayers, I don't see why I shouldn't be inclined to believe that he is capable of creating the universe and everything in it in 6 days.

 

Empirical evidence that contradicts this should not be taken as a case for moderation.

 

On the same note, if he says that he wants us to keep slaves and kill our children for following other gods, I don't see why I should assume that he's only joking (especially in light of Deuteronomy 6:15).

[JediMaster12]

Uh, Achilles, he can't really police our thoughts. If you remember, man chose free will over being obedient to God. Now we live in sin and have to try and save ourselves. Of course the only way that happens if we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and the whole kaboodle.

Did you remember what I said about a day being but a thousand years and a thousand years but a day in heaven. Don't we have the geological evidence to show that? We have sent when the different types of animals have risen and there are huge spans of time in between. That's why I say not to take it literally, especially creation because we have empircal evidence ie geological and paleontological record to show that. Nothing has been shown to disprove it so why take it completely at its word?

[SilentScope001]

I've read the Bible, and I just don't see how it could be taken any other way. If God can write our destinies, police our thoughts, and (occasionally) answer our prayers, I don't see why I shouldn't be inclined to believe that he is capable of creating the universe and everything in it in 6 days.

 

Empirical evidence that contradicts this should not be taken as a case for moderation.

 

On the same note, if he says that he wants us to keep slaves and kill our children for following other gods, I don't see why I should assume that he's only joking (especially in light of Deuteronomy 6:15).

 

I'd venture a guess however that you are not a Chrisitan, and because of that, your interpertion of the Bible is not important at all.

 

It's rather the Chrisitan's view of the Bible that matters. JediMaster21's view is more important, since he's the one that actually believes in it.

 

I believe religion can be, somewhat, a construct of man. We create religion, and we can modify religion and our holy books. What do you mean the Bible says "Don't do this!" Well, we can basically go out and interpert it in so many ways that it can turn into "Do this, and do it this much!"

 

Therefore, if we can change religion, who cares about the proclaimations to go and take slaves? The people who believed in religion changed their religion to say Slavery is wrong. They got good reasons. They may be right. God may be happy. But they did change their religion. You are reading the Bible, but you are not reading the many interpertions of the Bible, which is far, far more important.

 

I think an atheist would agree that it is man that makes religion, not a holy book. So if a man wants to do something else, he'll just change his religion and change his holy book via changing the intepertions of the Bible.

[Achilles]

Uh, Achilles, he can't really police our thoughts.

Of course he can. He's omniscient. He may opt not to interfere, but he knows what you're thinking and when you're thinking it.

 

If you remember, man chose free will over being obedient to God. Now we live in sin and have to try and save ourselves. Of course the only way that happens if we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and the whole kaboodle.

Who created Free Will? Shouldn't God have to take some responsibility for The Fall?

 

Did you remember what I said about a day being but a thousand years and a thousand years but a day in heaven. Don't we have the geological evidence to show that? We have sent when the different types of animals have risen and there are huge spans of time in between.

I don't think we have any geological evidence that shows that a thousand years is a day in heaven.

 

Even if we were to accept that God's 6 days were actually 6,000 years here on Earth, we'd still have problems (such as the evidence that Sumerians were using glue and the Mesopotamians were drinking beer 1,000 years before the universe was created, etc.).

 

That's why I say not to take it literally, especially creation because we have empircal evidence ie geological and paleontological record to show that. Nothing has been shown to disprove it so why take it completely at its word?

My apologies. I'm having a difficult time following along here. Would you mind restating your argument?

 

Thanks in advance.

[JediMaster12]

I don't think we have any geological evidence that shows that a thousand years is a day in heaven.

What I am saying that if you are trying to justify the scientific world to a religious person, this is but an example. Of course we have no proof that that Bible verse holds true but if you look at it as a means of drawing a conclusion, it might make more sense. That is just a verse. What I am saying is that geological evidence shows us that this earth is millions of years old. The reasoning behind the verse is that the verse supports the notion of time being needed to create something or change something as with evolution. That and it it is goofd if you are trying to put science in a good light with Christian conservatives.

 

Even if we were to accept that God's 6 days were actually 6,000 years here on Earth, we'd still have problems (such as the evidence that Sumerians were using glue and the Mesopotamians were drinking beer 1,000 years before the universe was created, etc.).

Which is why we go back to the geological time scale. OF course there are things far older than the present race of humans.

 

believe religion can be, somewhat, a construct of man.

Religion is a construct of man. Religion is part of the bigger system of culture. If we fall back on the basic definition that culture is a series of learned behaviors, moods and motivation , then there you go. Culture can be changed through invention or innovation and is dynamic meaning that it is constantly changing. The rate of change depends on the region and the willingness of people to accept change. Cultural evolution for you folks.

 

SilentScope001: Perhaps you haven't noticed and maybe my username is arbitrary but for future reference I preferred to be referred to as a member of the female of the species.

[Achilles]

What I am saying that if you are trying to justify the scientific world to a religious person, this is but an example.

That seems dishonest. If I have two opposing explanations for the existence of the universe and everything in it, I don't know why the one that is based on evidence has to twist and turn and hold back in an effort to cater to the explanation that is not.

 

When my children ask me questions, I try to find language that they will understand to answer their question, but I don't intentionally mislead them or try to make them believe something that I know to be false.

 

I guess a much shorter way to say that would be: I don't see any reason why science should have to be justified to a religious person. If religious people were interested in science, they would follow science already. Once someone has made up their mind that they've recieved all the information that they need on a subject, there's nothing that's going to change that.

 

Of course we have no proof that that Bible verse holds true but if you look at it as a means of drawing a conclusion, it might make more sense.

I respectfully disagree. The more we try to make religion line up with science, the more extreme the mental gynastics become.

 

For instance:

 

The Bible says that the universe was created in 6 days

Scientific evidence shows that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

 

Well a day in heaven must equal 2.83 billion years in Earth time (if we are so fluid with our interpretation of the concept of a day, what hope do we have of making any sense out of the rest of the Bible).

 

or....

 

God didn't really create the Earth in 6 days.

 

I would argue that trying to shoe-horn the width and breadth of our scientific understanding of the universe into the Bible generally results in explanations that make less sense rather than more.

 

That is just a verse. What I am saying is that geological evidence shows us that this earth is millions of years old.

4.5 billion years is the generally accepted age, actually.

 

The reasoning behind the verse is that the verse supports the notion of time being needed to create something or change something as with evolution.

But scientists can use mitochondrial DNA (DNA that is only passed down through the mother) to determine that all the humans alive on the planet today have a common female ancestor that lived approximately 140,000 years ago. There's a far cry between 6,000 years and 140,000 years. If the Bible truely wanted to give us a sense of scale, the author would have given us years (in the billions) rather than days.

 

(Note: Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor, not the first or the only. Just wanted to clarify that before the reference got turned into something else).

 

That and it is good if you are trying to put science in a good light with Christian conservatives.

Could you help me understand why you think this is necessary?

 

Thanks in advance for your reply.

[JediMaster12]

Achilles: I have Christian conservatives in my family. They believe in a literally seven day creation. They never want to hear about evolution. When I say they, I mean mainly my strongly opinionated grandpa. As far as he is concerned, I could be one of those Leftie Commie Pinko Persons that he talks about. He has a string bias against liberals so you can see why I make the jokes about being interrogated on whether or not I have converted to paganism every other week.

 

The reason I say that to make correlations with the Bible is necessary is because I see it as a means to trying to get along. I have endured the debates of science versus religion. I have read part of a transcript of the Scopes trial. Call me idealistic but I believe that if we take steps to show that something like science and the theory of evolution is not a threat, we can divert attention away from what I see as petty nonsense and direct our minds to the problems that are necessary.

 

I would argue that trying to shoe-horn the width and breadth of our scientific understanding of the universe into the Bible generally results in explanations that make less sense rather than more.

Probably that is because you can't see the subtle relationships and that you really don't have religious inclination at all. I am not trying to bad mouth you and I don't intend to. As an anthropologist, I study the relationships between people and society. My actual area of study is within the realm of religions. I have numerous texts on different religious beliefs, mainly from Native North America and Asia. There is also some Wiccan texts that I have, hence the jokes I make about my religious affliation. I actually study codices and myths and lately I have been studying Bible texts hence why I insist upon this idea that the Bible is a representation of what has happened in earth's geological history. I have this tendency to think that the Australopithicines are God's way of a joke until we get the archaic humans.

 

I hope that makes it easier Achilles.

[Achilles]

Achilles: I have Christian conservatives in my family. They believe in a literally seven day creation. They never want to hear about evolution. When I say they, I mean mainly my strongly opinionated grandpa. As far as he is concerned, I could be one of those Leftie Commie Pinko Persons that he talks about. He has a string bias against liberals so you can see why I make the jokes about being interrogated on whether or not I have converted to paganism every other week.

I'm very lucky that I did not grow up in that environment. I'm sure that it can't be fun.

 

The reason I say that to make correlations with the Bible is necessary is because I see it as a means to trying to get along. I have endured the debates of science versus religion. I have read part of a transcript of the Scopes trial. Call me idealistic but I believe that if we take steps to show that something like science and the theory of evolution is not a threat, we can divert attention away from what I see as petty nonsense and direct our minds to the problems that are necessary.

I appreciate and respect the sentiment of your argument, but I don't agree with it. If religion can offer evidence that refutes science, then science must step aside. At this point, religion offers no evidence at all. I don't think that reason should be forced to take a back seat because it is the will of the majority.

 

Probably that is because you can't see the subtle relationships and that you really don't have religious inclination at all.

Where you see subtle relationships I see special pleading and mental gymnastics.

 

I am not trying to bad mouth you and I don't intend to.

No offense taken so far

 

As an anthropologist, I study the relationships between people and society. My actual area of study is within the realm of religions. I have numerous texts on different religious beliefs, mainly from Native North America and Asia. There is also some Wiccan texts that I have, hence the jokes I make about my religious affliation.

I have a fairly similar background. I read a lot of mythology as a young adult and studied a lot of sociology and anthropology through high school and junior college (along with more mythology). After a while all the similarities begin to wear down the idea that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are somehow different from all the other belief systems that came before. After walking around with that in my head for a while, it just made sense to look at modern religion in past tense (which is true anyway, because of when they were developed). Then I developed an interest in science and then all bets were off. Obvious to me because of the books I've read, but not obvious to others, I understand.

 

I actually study codices and myths and lately I have been studying Bible texts hence why I insist upon this idea that the Bible is a representation of what has happened in earth's geological history. I have this tendency to think that the Australopithicines are God's way of a joke until we get the archaic humans.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it.

[Darth InSidious]

Achilles, do you have to drag everything on to your own personal agenda? Can you not stay on-topic for once, please? The title of this topic is 'Evolution: The discussion and the thoery...', not 'Is the Catholic Church right?'.

 

For the record, Achilles, if you want to argue whether or not a Catholic must *always* believe what the Church teaches, I suggest you read some of John Henry, Cardinal Newman's works. In particular, his Letter To The Duke of Norfolk is particularly interesting on Papal authority, at one point commenting that the conscience is the 'aboriginal Vicar of Christ', and that 'The Pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature'. However, I would strongly suggest reading the rest of the Letter before replying to this point.

 

Furthermore, why should Ambrose know what other faith's should believe, and why are you haranguing him to defend other beliefs? They aren't his, and he has no reason or need to defend them.

 

On-topic: I believe in evolution.

 

Furthermore, I fail to see the need for evolution and intelligent design to contradict. As far as I can see, they don't unless you take Genesis 1 literally, when this is thought to be a priestly account written in about 600 BC, and is quite clearly metaphorical. Furthermore, bits are lost in translation.

 

Did you know, for instance, that before God created Woman, 'Adam' was in fact an asexual clay being, 'Adam' in Hebrew meaning something along the lines of 'clay creature'?

[Achilles]

Achilles, do you have to drag everything on to your own personal agenda? Can you not stay on-topic for once, please? The title of this topic is 'Evolution: The discussion and the thoery...', not 'Is the Catholic Church right?'.

I think if the moderators objected to the sub-topic introduced by Ambrose, they would have addressed the matter several days ago.

 

For the record, Achilles, if you want to argue whether or not a Catholic must *always* believe what the Church teaches, I suggest you read some of John Henry, Cardinal Newman's works. In particular, his Letter To The Duke of Norfolk is particularly interesting on Papal authority, at one point commenting that the conscience is the 'aboriginal Vicar of Christ', and that 'The Pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature'. However, I would strongly suggest reading the rest of the Letter before replying to this point.

Thank you for the recommendations. I'll be sure to look these up.

 

Furthermore, why should Ambrose know what other faith's should believe, and why are you haranguing him to defend other beliefs? They aren't his, and he has no reason or need to defend them.

I asked him for his opinion, not to speak for others. He raised the point that he believed in evolution because the Church did. I simply wanted to find out if he would still believe even if the Church didn't.

 

Furthermore, I fail to see the need for evolution and intelligent design to contradict. As far as I can see, they don't unless you take Genesis 1 literally, when this is thought to be a priestly account written in about 600 BC, and is quite clearly metaphorical. Furthermore, bits are lost in translation. .

Did you mean "guided evolution" rather than "intelligent design"? The former has no emperical evidence which means that it could be true, but it will not be accepted by the scientific community until it can be put through the scientific method (which is likely to be never considering that it is a supernatural explanation). The latter also has these challenges with additonal issues in that it does directly challenge evolution as a scientific theory (even though it has no roots in science itself).

 

In both cases there is explicit contradiction so long as these untested hypothesises continue to have their roots in creationism. What is dangerous about them is that their supporters are willing to view them as superior explanations to unguided evolution even thought there isn't a shred of science to back them up.

 

Did you know, for instance, that before God created Woman, 'Adam' was in fact an asexual clay being, 'Adam' in Hebrew meaning something along the lines of 'clay creature'?

Yep. Several creation myths have deities creating their followers out of the dirt, clay, dust, etc. It's a common theme.

[Darth InSidious]

I asked him for his opinion, not to speak for others. He raised the point that he believed in evolution because the Church did. I simply wanted to find out if he would still believe even if the Church didn't.

 

I'm asking if you think that other religious people in other churches should go against the doctrines of their church if they don't agree?

Looks like asking him to speak for others to me.]

 

I hope that my above references will help to elucidate you on this point.

Did you mean "guided evolution" rather than "intelligent design"?

Err, probably. Basically, I meant that I support the midway point between pure evolution and pure intelligent design. My belief is rather that God set evolution in motion. Whether He did anything along the way is an open point, as far as I'm concerned.

The former has no emperical evidence which means that it could be true, but it will not be accepted by the scientific community until it can be put through the scientific method

Naturally. We're dealing with the realm of noumena at this point.

(which is likely to be never considering that it is a supernatural explanation). The latter also has these challenges with additonal issues in that it does directly challenge evolution as a scientific theory (even though it has no roots in science itself).

There is my most basic problem with Intelligent Design.

In both cases there is explicit contradiction so long as these untested hypothesises continue to have their roots in creationism.

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction in guided evolution...?

What is dangerous about them is that their supporters are willing to view them as superior explanations to unguided evolution even thought there isn't a shred of science to back them up.

Well of course there isn't empirical evidence. We have a chalk and cheese situation - or in this case, phenomena and noumena. It is much the same situation as when scientists try to use phenomenal empiricism to disprove the existence of the supernatural - you can't.

 

Yep. Several creation myths have deities creating their followers out of the dirt, clay, dust, etc. It's a common theme.

The point was not that God created humanity out of clay, but that in this version, before God created man from one of his ribs (may also be translated as 'side' - roughly means anything between the two, though rib is the most usual anatomically accepted version), Adam was *asexual* - there was no man and woman, and thus man and woman were created equal...It was meant to highlight the loss of nuances in translation.

[JediMaster12]

Where you see subtle relationships I see special pleading and mental gymnastics.

A feat that I have been able to do since kindergarden

 

Adam was *asexual* - there was no man and woman, and thus man and woman were created equal...It was meant to highlight the loss of nuances in translation.

That is an interesting take and would throw into chaos the whole male dominance complex. Us females could take a stand and...well you point is taken and you make a good one. Especially the nuances of translation which I have stressed to my friends when dealing subjects like these.

 

he believed in evolution because the Church did. I simply wanted to find out if he would still believe even if the Church didn't.

I don't think this is right. Maybe that's because the church my family attends is conservative. I would think the Scopes trial would prove that the Church has a low opinion of evolution.

[Achilles]

Looks like asking him to speak for others to me.

If you look at the quote again, you'll see that I'm asking him for his opinion.

 

Err, probably. Basically, I meant that I support the midway point between pure evolution and pure intelligent design. My belief is rather that God set evolution in motion. Whether He did anything along the way is an open point, as far as I'm concerned.

That would be guided evolution.

 

I disagree that it's a non-point, because there is no evidence to support the idea that evolution is guided and there are mountains of examples that show that evolution is almost certainly not-guided (the poor design of the human eye, shared holes for eating and breathing, the appendix, and wisdom teeth are just a few examples that I'm taking specifically from humans).

 

Guided evolution would seem to be the tool of the God of the Gaps. A creator god has no use for guided evolution, nor does the scientific theory of evolution.

 

Naturally. We're dealing with the realm of noumena at this point.

Right. I believe I illustrated that in this post.

 

There is my most basic problem with Intelligent Design.

Agreed

 

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction in guided evolution...?

Guided evolution = supernatural causation = non-emperical = not science.

 

An explanation not grounded in science (even when it tries to manipulate legitimate science to argue its point) is always going to be at odds with an actual scientific explanation.

 

Well of course there isn't empirical evidence. We have a chalk and cheese situation - or in this case, phenomena and noumena. It is much the same situation as when scientists try to use phenomenal empiricism to disprove the existence of the supernatural - you can't.

I'm glad to see you agree. I hope that you're just as outraged by the Dover trials and the antics that took place with the Kansas School Board as I am. ID has no place in a science classroom.

 

As for scientists trying to disprove the supernatural; seems like a fool's errand. Trying to offer scientific explanations for alleged "supernatural" phenomena on the hand....

 

The point was not that God created humanity out of clay, but that in this version, before God created man from one of his ribs (may also be translated as 'side' - roughly means anything between the two, though rib is the most usual anatomically accepted version), Adam was *asexual* - there was no man and woman, and thus man and woman were created equal...It was meant to highlight the loss of nuances in translation.

I think this highlights critical problems with religion that I have tried to discuss in other threads. I doubt repeating them here will accomplish anything. The fact remains that that we seem to apply reason to some parts of the Bible but not others and that process fascinates me.

 

I don't think this is right. Maybe that's because the church my family attends is conservative. I would think the Scopes trial would prove that the Church has a low opinion of evolution.

The example that Ambrose pointed to for his argument that Catholocism embraced evolution was a Pope that reigned a few decades after the Scopes trial. In other words, the Catholic Church appears to have had a change of heart.

[Darth InSidious]

If you look at the quote again, you'll see that I'm asking him for his opinion.

OK. Having looked at it again, you are correct.

That would be guided evolution.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I disagree that it's a non-point, because there is no evidence to support the idea that evolution is guided and there are mountains of examples that show that evolution is almost certainly not-guided (the poor design of the human eye, shared holes for eating and breathing, the appendix, and wisdom teeth are just a few examples that I'm taking specifically from humans).

Perhaps, or perhaps they served a purpose in the past that, because of changes in our society from hunter-gatherers, foragers etc, they have become no longer necessary and nuisances? I'm not sure - anatomy eating habits of Pre-Dynastic Egyptian Man (from the Early Neolithic to ~3100 BC, when Egypt became unified) isn't really my speciality

Guided evolution would seem to be the tool of the God of the Gaps. A creator god has no use for guided evolution, nor does the scientific theory of evolution.

I would posit that if we fully understood God, we would be God, also, I draw your attention to the Five Minute Hypothesis, Last Thursdayism, etc., not as evidence, but to illustrate a possibility other than the scientific theory. God may have created Earth over a period of billions of years for a reason we cannot yet grasp - perhaps because of the mechanics of the universe, perhaps because God wanted to do it that way. Who can really say on something some 6 (?) bn years ago?

Right. I believe I illustrated that in this post.

Absolutely.

Agreed

Hold up - we agree on something?

 

O_o

 

The end is nigh!

 

Guided evolution = supernatural causation = non-emperical = not science.

 

An explanation not grounded in science (even when it tries to manipulate legitimate science to argue its point) is always going to be at odds with an actual scientific explanation.

I suppose, but then the two are not actually incompatible - I mean to say, does evolution as a scientific theory necessarily preclude God?

I'm glad to see you agree. I hope that you're just as outraged by the Dover trials and the antics that took place with the Kansas School Board as I am. ID has no place in a science classroom.

I'm not sure I am familiar with those, however I would say that ID would be worth a 'however, some people do argue that...'. I think it is often good to show both sides of an argument. Too many kids come out of school now with the idea that Science Is Law and Fact, and are unable to comprehend the idea of multiple, equally valid theories...

As for scientists trying to disprove the supernatural; seems like a fool's errand.

Absolutely.

Trying to offer scientific explanations for alleged "supernatural" phenomena on the hand....

...I fail to see the point of. Even if there is a scientific explanation, does that lessen the reality of it? And if so, why are scientists so bothered by the sign that they feel the need to disprove it? It seems very much to be Dawkins-esque obsession, to me...

I think this highlights critical problems with religion that I have tried to discuss in other threads. I doubt repeating them here will accomplish anything. The fact remains that that we seem to apply reason to some parts of the Bible but not others and that process fascinates me.

Not quite true. We refer to some events as metaphorical and others as literal, yes, but it is generally divided between the events which are descriptions of events that are purely religious texts - say, Genesis, and the historical accounts - say, Daniel.

The example that Ambrose pointed to for his argument that Catholocism embraced evolution was a Pope that reigned a few decades after the Scopes trial. In other words, the Catholic Church appears to have had a change of heart.

It's been a while since I delved into this, but as I recall, the Church didn't make any decision in regards to whether or not to accept evolution as valid until about 1950...

[Achilles]

Perhaps, or perhaps they served a purpose in the past that, because of changes in our society from hunter-gatherers, foragers etc, they have become no longer necessary and nuisances? I'm not sure - anatomy eating habits of Pre-Dynastic Egyptian Man (from the Early Neolithic to ~3100 BC, when Egypt became unified) isn't really my speciality

No argument from me. But realize that we're now talking about evolution over time as a result of a changing envirornment. In other words, we're talking about evolution as a natural process. We see similar changed in plant and animal species. This is evidence of a process that does not need supernatural causation. Trying to attribute it to one is similar to forcing a healthy man to walk with crutches.

 

I would posit that if we fully understood God, we would be God, also, I draw your attention to the Five Minute Hypothesis, Last Thursdayism, etc., not as evidence, but to illustrate a possibility other than the scientific theory.

Yes, I'm familiar with Russell

 

Steping outside the realm of science, we are then left with reason. Applying Occam's Razor, which makes more sense: That the universe actually is billions of years old or that it is magically generated in the not-too-distant past with all the evidence of being billions of years old?

 

As an argument for God, even if we ignore Occam's Razor and accept Last Thursdayism, we're still assuming that the default answer is God. Based on the evidence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as legitimate of an option. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

 

God may have created Earth over a period of billions of years for a reason we cannot yet grasp - perhaps because of the mechanics of the universe, perhaps because God wanted to do it that way. Who can really say on something some 6 (?) bn years ago?

Yes, he may have. But we have no evidence that he did, so I don't understand why I should be inclined to entertain such a thought.

 

Hold up - we agree on something?

It's happened before. We're done for the month though.

 

I suppose, but then the two are not actually incompatible - I mean to say, does evolution as a scientific theory necessarily preclude God?

Until we have some way to emperically measure God, I'm afraid it does.

 

Let me try this another way: no scientist can tell you with any degree of certainty that there is no God. What anyone can say with absolute confidence is that there is currently no evidence for God.

 

So it's not so much that scientists are trying to keep God out of science because they don't like Him, they just refuse to consider any explanation invokes Him because there is no evidence for His existence. If at some point that changes, then scientists will be able relax that stance to the degree that the evidence will allow them to do so.

 

The rub comes in that once we have some emperical evidence for Him, he automatically loses His status as a Supernatural Being, and scientists will begin looking for a natural-world explanation for His existence and we can start the process over with God's creator.

 

I'm not sure I am familiar with those, however I would say that ID would be worth a 'however, some people do argue that...'. I think it is often good to show both sides of an argument. Too many kids come out of school now with the idea that Science Is Law and Fact, and are unable to comprehend the idea of multiple, equally valid theories...

Science is a process that can be used to tell us more about the natural world. That this seems to be lost in the current education system is a case for more science in our schools not less. I'm not sure what the numbers look like in Europe but 83% of U.S. citizens are scientifically illiterate.

 

There are scientific laws and science is based on accepted facts, but no one that is familiar with science will tell you that any theory is impervious to scrutiny.

 

With that said, I have no problem with ID being taught in school, however it should not be done in a science class. If schools want to include it as part of a philosophy course, then that's fine, but it has not earned the right to be considered science.

 

...I fail to see the point of. Even if there is a scientific explanation, does that lessen the reality of it? And if so, why are scientists so bothered by the sign that they feel the need to disprove it? It seems very much to be Dawkins-esque obsession, to me...

People in the Middle Ages blamed the Bubonic plague on God's wrath. Surely you would agree that having the scientific explanation for the disease would have been more beneficial than the supernatural one.

 

I think if we lived in a world were everyone was an island unto themselves, it would be easier to just shrug and say, "well if he wants to believe that fairies make his plants grow, then that's his problem". Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

 

For example just over a year ago people that believe that killing infidels assures them a place in Paradise, complete with 72 virgins, decided to practice their religious beliefs on some public transit vehicles on your side of the pond.

 

On this side, we have people with similarly radical (similar in there degree of radicalness, not in their display) ideas creating public policy that affects everyone in our country. So the intense desire to dispell the supernatural is 1 part altruism and 3 parts self-preservation. The fact that we have Christian leaders publicly stating that recent natural disasters are evidence of God's displeasure with homosexuals and atheists should give you some insight into the dilemma.

 

Not quite true. We refer to some events as metaphorical and others as literal, yes, but it is generally divided between the events which are descriptions of events that are purely religious texts - say, Genesis, and the historical accounts - say, Daniel.

Ok, then how would you categorize Exodus? Or G.John? Leviticus?

 

I think you feel comfortable categorizing these books because of your modern viewpoints. The study of ethics has advanced much in 2000 years, but these books have not changed at all (KJV excluded). One has to be plied to provide context for the other while keeping both relevant. Luckily, we choose to bend our interpretation of the Bible to match our ethics and not vice versa (for the most part), but I don't think that's a testimony to value of the Bible.

 

You seem rather comfortable identifying Genesis as fable, but accept The Sermon on the Mount as historically accurate (I'm assuming that you do anyway) even though there is no evidence that it ever took place. I don't understand how that works.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to have this discussion with me. I've enjoyed reading your responses.

[Jae Onasi]

It's happened before. We're done for the month though.

.

 

Humor mode way on:

Jae's not sure whether to laugh at the 'we're done for the month' thing or have a heart attack that you all agreed on something. Someone mark this day in history....

[BruceLee_Reborn]

hey Achilles, i warned you about the stalking. it's a habit. sorry. it's nice to see you agree, though i've only been here for a short time. i clicked the link to wiki, and i must say, crude. i've been using that word wrong all my life. eh. oh well. ok, so, if you were born in 1907, what would you believe?

[Achilles]

I don't know. I imagine I would believe whatever I was enculturated to believe. Evolution was already fairly established and Scopes would've been happening right about the time I would have been getting to university. I'd like to think that I'd still be science-minded, but really it just depends on what you're exposed to in your formative years (largely).

 

So, does this mean you buy into the "evolution" thing now?

[BruceLee_Reborn]

what do you think of us religious people?

 

hm. no, i don't buy into it. you haven't proved anything, but then, neither have i.

[Achilles]

what do you think of us religious people?

I think that your brains are running bad software called "religion". That's the nicest, most clinical way I can think of to phrase it.

 

hm. no, i don't buy into it. you haven't proved anything, but then, neither have i.

It was a pretty compelling case from where I was sitting

 

Where are the holes?

[BruceLee_Reborn]

a better question would be where aren't there. which would be the part where the origion of every thing cannot be proven

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/fernandes3.html

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa100798.htm

 

 

 

top one seems to be theist, bottom atheist. i read them over, and wasn't moved, you should read them too. maybe you will be moved.

[Achilles]

a better question would be where aren't there.

That isn't very specific. If you're interested in learning more about evolution so that you can make your own decision, I can help. If you're just here to take pot-shots at something you don't understand...well, I'm already juggling enough of those, so wait your turn.

 

which would be the part where the origion of every thing cannot be proven

Indeed. As it stands now, you are absolutely correct. One of group of people accepts this while another group has a completely fabricated answer that they feel is infallible. If you choose to believe in a doctrine that claims to have answers but provides none, then that's certainly your right. However, such a choice seems rather foolish.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/fernandes3.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa100798.htm

These links do not address evolution, rather theism vs. atheism. If you would like to pick 2 or 3 key arguments from each of these links for me to address, please post them over in the appropriate thread and I'll post my thoughts? Sound reasonable?

 

EDIT: Actually, I was inspired to respond to the first link and have sent a critique to you via PM. Have fun

 

top one seems to be theist, bottom atheist. i read them over, and wasn't moved, you should read them too. maybe you will be moved.

The only things that moves me when I read these debates is the number of logical fallacies people with Ph.Ds try to base their arguments on. All in due time though.

 

Something to keep in mind: Evolution is completely separate from Origins. Some theists believe that god created the universe and uses evolution to create life. I point this out because they are separate topics. Most of your response deals with theism/atheism and almost none of it with evolution. I don't mind debating, but let's try to keep some measure of structure please. TIA.

 

I look forward to your response.