See Inside
A geneticist ordained as a Dominican priest, Francisco J. Ayala sees no conflict between Darwinism and faith. Convincing most of the American public of that remains the challenge
Note: This story was originally published with the title, "The Christian Man's Evolution".
This article was originally published with the title The Christian Man's Evolution.
Sally Lehrman teaches journalism in the public interest at Santa Clara University.
See what we're tweeting about
FlyingTrilobite Tomorrow's Globe shocker: Rob Ford is Vinz Clortho, Keymaster to Gozer. Plans to unleash Destructor/Marshmallow Man upon downtown.
BecCrew Dragon Island Blue is taking over my life
docfreeride Plus side of commencement: I leave so early no one expects me to prepare breakfast before I depart. When I return, however ... #LateLunch
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
254 Comments
Add CommentIt is a welcome sign when a religious scientist such as Mr. Ayala embraces evolution, but still, evolution has no need of religion, whether mainstream or fundamental. The tenets of religion should not color science. The results of science should not be distorted in order to fit preconceptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo its credit, the Catholic Church has abandoned preconceived physics and biology, except where its moral dogma is affected.
Observation, testing, analysis, validation, logic criticism are necessary for science in general. Untestable beliefs have as much a role in science as the stories of Mark Twain. They may be admirable, but they are orthogonal to science in general and to evolution in particular.
To say that religion and science are incompatible is to ignore hundreds of years of history. Up until very recently, some of the finest scientific work was performed by religious persons. When one field, however, tries to inject itself unnaturally into the other, that is where we see problems. Entering scientific research with an absolute withdrawal of objectivity negates the entire definition of science; that is, science is rooted in neutral objectivity and testability. Going into a field of research like evolution with an agenda based in theology or philosophy destroys the validity of the scientific investigation. It is like conducting a poll but targeting only those people that help prove a desired result. That being said, when men like Dawkins try to use science and its objective results of the natural world to disprove an immeasurable supernatural entity, that is, God, or immeasurable things like faith or heaven or an afterlife, science is being used in an unnatural manner as well. You cannot measure what is not part of the physical world. To attempt to do so is folly. The two spheres of science and theology should complement each other without intruding unnaturally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a graduate student in the realm of biology I have noticed a disturbing trend in the zeal of scientists to discount faith or religion of any kind. An example of this came last year when I attended a talk by a nobel laureate who defied anyone to affirm their faith in his presence. He went on to invite attendees to hear his viewpoints of how life began in private and offered to enlighten anyone foolish enough to cling to the supernatural to the common sense answers of science. In my opinion this level of rhetoric borders on that of extremism. What's next the church of Darwin? As a whole I feear the religious debate is drawing the concept of science away from it's original intent of observational and experimental explanation to something of a cause, or religion to itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSelection is better than instruction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is so vague it seems to be fake. Who was this person and what do you study?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is discovery, Religions, all religions are fiction. My credo, observing, reading and digging on many subjects concerning the immensely large and the extremely small teach me that there is more than matter and that only an "initial" spiritual spark could ignite such order and beauty that is our universe but when someone, anyone comes to me and affirm that he(she possess the truth, I run away from those polluted minds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that there might be something in astrology and religion but when one gets in the fine details and dogmas I cease to listen.
I'm disappointed to see SciAm referring to "Darwinism", a term being promoted by creationists as a subtle way of portraying the science of evolution as just another "belief system".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually it is a quote for Gerald Edelman. The universe, a virus or bacteria does not care if you are religious. Evolution, and science in general, is important for our survival and religion is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is discovery, Religions, all religions are fiction. My credo, observing, reading and digging on many subjects concerning the immensely large and the extremely small teach me that there is more than matter and that only an "initial" spiritual spark could ignite such order and beauty that is our universe but when someone, anyone comes to me and affirm that he(she possess the truth, I run away from those polluted minds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that there might be something in astrology and religion but when one gets in the fine details and dogmas I cease to listen.
At 11:15 I succesfully logged as Antoine Alexandre & after being asked
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto change my user name, I logged as Alexandre Antoine (11:22). I want to cancel the last user name for only Antoine Alexandre. Is it possible ?
Please, swicth my user name for Antoine Alexandre. If not possible, let me know by email. Merci.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has shown how religions originated and evolved. What more needs to be said?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo quotes from the incredibly couregeous and perceptive 19th centruy American Iconoclast and Freethinker, Robert Green Ingersoll:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I read the works of these great men [Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Haeckel] -- of many others -- and became convinced that they were right, and that all the theologians -- all the believers in "special creation" were absolutely wrong. The Garden of Eden faded away, Adam and Eve fell back to dust, the snake crawled into the grass, and Jehovah became a miserable myth."
"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstititon is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athelete:' Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet."
These words ring even more true today, as the "atheletic", energetic fields of scientific endeavor, representing the best that our minds can aspire, have left the atrophied crumbling edifice of religious dogma in the proverbial "dust bin of history".
Religions, being an enterprise of men... and their god(s), being created by them, have evolved as the True Nature of Reality has been inexorably revealed by the Light of Reason and humble scientific endeavor. Of course humans that are otherwise "intelligent" can continue to cling to faith-based absurdities while being trained in various scientific disciplines. It's what humans are adept at doing and it's callled COGNITIVE DISSONANCE... delusion... and self-deception.
Last time I checked, the over-whelming majority of the world's elite scientists (90%) carried no such religious baggage. This fact, among others, gives me at least some hope for our evolutionary future.
Cheers!
Science has shown how religions originated and evolved. What more needs to be said?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has shown how religion originated and evolved. What more needs to be said?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to put to fine a point on it, but another edifying quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God does not exist if Big Bang cosmology, or some relevantly similar theory, is true. If this cosmology is true, our universe exists without cause and without explanation. There are numerous possible universes, and there is possibly no universe at all, and there is no reason why this one is actual rather than some other one or none at all. Now the theistically alleged human need for a reason for existence, and other alleged needs, are unsatisfied.
But I suggest that humans do or can possess a deeper level of experience than such anthropocentric despairs. We can forget about ourselves for a moment and open ourselves up to the startling impingement of reality itself. We can let ourselves become profoundly astonished by the fact that this universe exists at all."
Dr. Quentin Smith in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) ,p. 216.
The same can be said if evolutionary theory or any similar model is true. We can categorically state that at a minimum, the so-called "god" or "holy trinity" of the bible is pure mythology, and further, that "intelligent design" fails at all levels of explanation.
In every instance where religion and science have clashed (the model of the universe, the age of the earth, the earth orbiting the sun; the cause of natural disasters and diseases; miracles, supernatural events and global flood fables; The Origin of Species and our profound genetic link with other primates, etc.), religious beliefs have been proven hollow and impotent. Not too many centuries ago, the religious took great comfort in the 'fact' that mankind was the center of a perfect world, with the reassurance of the static heavens above, and pontificated it was clear 'proof' of the divine.
Thankfully, the evolved human capacity for objective inquiry via the discourse of science has pulled back the curtain on the lame Wizard of OZ, the "god" of the bible... and photographed this naked Emperor of Faith.
Cheers to all freethinkers, skeptics, Naturalists, agnostics, atheists and good people who have the courage to admit that religious dogma and faith-based musings do not comport with the real world. .. the universe... the Cosmos.
That is a long way from what you described, isn't it? People are not bacteria or viruses or stars (although we contain stardust). Knowing that you don't know it all is part of being a scientist. Scientists are known for saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Very few would say there is not a God or that people must toss out their faith. Some do but scientists are as diverse as all people are. This us vs them attitude is more hype than reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall science is based upon FAITH! the BELIEF that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will continue as they have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby the way, YHWH created evil for a purpose; and that is why YHWH can destroy it! it is NOT SELF EXISTENT!
"whoever can destroy a thing, controls the thing." ....the dune chronicles
The problem is not science vs religion, the problem is atheism vs creationism. It is two conflicting world views. Science is irrelevant in the debate. Evolutionists are so convinced they are teaching "science" that they are blind to their own bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever I find Ayala rather disturbing. He doesn't seam to have read the Bible even though he professes to "reconcile" religion with "science" (atheism). No reconciliation is required, just ask Sir Isaac Newton.
For one the Bible clearly states we live in a fallen world corrupted by sin. Thus all the evil we perceive is not created by God, but is a result of a lack of God do to man's sin against God. Evil is not something, it is a lack of righteousness. His statement that 1 in 5 pregnancies is a miscarriage may be a fact. But his statement that it is God’s fault is childish. God did not kill those childeren, we live in a fallen world, the mother’s body is imperfect, the father’s body is imperfect. The result is imperfection. You can no more blame God than you can blame an automobile manufacturer for a car accident when the owner damaged the car and then drove it on the road. The auto manufacture didn’t make a bad car, the owner damaged the car.
God did not make an evil corrupt and degrading world, man brought sin into the world and thus “broke” every thing and condemned the whole of creation to decay. Every thing we see around us is a result of decay, not created intent .
No, this is not a battle of science vs religion, but of two conflicting and incompatible world views. No one can prove how things originated since no human was there to observe and record it. Thus origins will remain a religion for eternity, whether that religion is Darwinism or Creationism. Science deals with the here and now: observable, testable, and falsifiable. In that religion has no conflict.
YHWH did not create evil, evil is a result of a lack of His presence. Just as darkness is not something, darkness is a lack of light. How can evil come from good? YHWH explicitly states He can tolerate no evil in his presence and that he is unchanging. He cannot create evil, just as we cannot create darkness, we can only turn off the light, and that is exactly what happened when Eve sinned and Adam followed her.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe attributes claimed by YHWH GOD of the BIBLE ( i.e.; SOVEREIGN; TRANSCENDENT; ETERNAL; OMNISCIENT; OMNIPOTENT; OMNIPRESENT; INTELLIGENT; LIVING; PERSONAL; EMOTIONAL; MORAL) are precisely what is required to be 'THE' UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of the universe and everything in it. that is to say, there is a 1/1 probability that YHWH GOD created the heavens and the earth and all that exists therein and thereon!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again the universe (nature) does not care if we are a scientist or a theologians; it will kill us just the same. Humans are very arrogant in thinking we have any answers. All we have is a small amount of science, reason, and math that helps us survive. Religion is most likely an evolved coping mechanism. Evolution of technology just like biological evolution is what helps us adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Selection is better than instruction.
you assume there is evolution without intelligence being added, yet use an example of intelligent design to prove your point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no evidence that things left unto themselves improve. Technology advances because intelligence is constantly adding information. without intelligence driving it technology would not exist, let alone evolve.
biology has no information being added to it and thus is decaying not advancing. don't believe me? try and breed your dog to become a wolf, you can never do it because the dog has lost the information required to be a wolf. why are new GINETIC diseases that never existed before being discovered? Biology is decaying from a once perfect situation, it is not evolving from non living matter to perfection.
After much thought I have come to think of myself as only a deist rather than a religist. I am always amazed at those who claim to believe in an all powerful God, but can't accept that a truly all powerful God could set a system going some 15 billion years ago and know that at some point a sentient being with a belief in him would be the result. It just seems like so much hubris to believe otherwise, like a bad version of that old Smothers Brothers routine, "God always liked me best". I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't so pathetic and obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod could have done anything He wanted, however He reveals in Genesis how He chose to do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeculation about how the Creator could have done it has no part in an argument if the One who started it all has already told us how He started it.
Of course He could have taken billions of years, but He didn't. He created in 6 days.
The only thing religion can bring to bear on this admirable quest for truth is its untimely termination at a knottier-than-usual problem. No-one has described what credible evidence for God's part in evolution could possibly be, what possible form it could take, that would demand a genuine end to our continual searching.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is God here in this case? I do hope it is not those dread words "Templeton Foundation", when mammon steers good people from the simplicity of personal and private faith into hateful propaganda....
hey xylyx3d,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYHWH said that HE created light and darkness; good and evil. i don't call HIM a liar, but i do call lucifer one. lucifer (a.k.a.- satan) is a powerful "being" who was created by YHWH with the "power" of, and to do, "evil" in "his" possession; NOT YHWH's; lucifer was created a murderer from the beginning, but was perfect in all of his ways until his evil iniquitous heart manifested itself by the envious, hateful (murderous) and arrogant declaration that he would ascend to a position even higher than that of YHWH's. at which point, he was cast down and became known as satan the dEVIL. he then proceeded to exact revenge by using his "evil power to corrupt" the minds of the "very good" human beings which YHWH also created. now, the previously "good" humankind, being "corrupted" by the "destructive force of evil" brought forth the "corrupt and evil" fruit of sin/rebellion against GOD; which was and now is being passed on to their and our posterity. the rest is HIS story; which is revealed in the HOLY SCRIPTURES.
not only did YHWH warn humankind not to mess with evil, he commanded them not to, but we went and did it anyway. now, when we "see" and suffer the consequences for our "evil" disobedience; we complain at HIM... "how could YOU do this to us?" BUT YHWH, being rich mercy, gave "HIS WORD" to prepare "THE WAY" of escape, and will restore all things under HIS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN SON, YESHUA "THE" MESSIAH!
p.s. the remedy, for the horrors of evil corruption, is in HIS WORD!
"God could have done anything He wanted, however He reveals in Genesis how He chose to do it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut He reveals it through the words of an "imperfect" man, which is why it's so dangerous to take the Bible 100% literally. Like another commenter here said, man is imperfect and that is why evil exists. The Bible may be divinely inspired, but it is still written by men - perfection filtered through imperfection. Just read the creation in the book of Genesis; it was obviously not written with any modern understanding of the cosmos. The sun and moon are described as two "great lights" and separate from the stars. God Himself, of course, knows that the sun is only one star (and not a very "great" one, at that), and that the moon is not a light at all. But the author can only take what has been revealed to him and attempt to describe it in terms that he understands.
Belief is the process where the brain converts illusion to allusion, and allusion into certainty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is no problem taking the bible literally, yes it was written by an imperfect person but mary gave birth to Jesus, He was perfect she was not. God can use man to make perfection but man can not do it alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything that is scientifically verifiable in the Bible has been shown to be true. how can you pick and chose those those parts you're comfortable believing in and those you aren't when this text has never been shown to falible?
Science and superstition do not intersect. Entertaining baby talk is not a signal of intellectual openness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisat toothfull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are accusing God of creating evil, no one was created evil from the beginning or God would not have said on day seven that It was good. God wanted real fellowship with conscious beings. In order to attain that, God had to create beings that could chose for or against Him. You mistakenly believe that evil is created, and you do not realize that that belief accuses God of being evil.
using cars again: If i make a car that can go in any direction, (forward, backward, left, right just like a normal car) and you take it out on the road and use those directions to break the law, it is not my fault. I made a car that was capable of breaking the law because it must have that ability to fulfill it's purpose. but it was not designed to break the law, nor am I guilty of creating an illegal vehicle.
God made beings capable of choice because he needed beings able to make free will decisions to fulfill His plans. He knew full well they could chose against Him. And being omnipotent He knew they would, but He still had to make us able to chose to fulfill our purpose.
Satan chose against God, Satan abused the freewill God has given him. God is not liable for Satan's deeds, Satan is.
You're stance would hold God accountable instead of the guilty party.
The comment that science is based on "faith" is a shameless false comparison. Only religious musings, originally created in the minds of ignorant men are based on magical thinking and erroneous assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience, to the utter dismay of the faith-based, has built a towering edifice... patiently and persistently, that looms as the best inter-subjective arbiter of truth humanity will ever have.
Anyone who would rely on "revelations" as the basis of reality versus testable hypotheses secured by experimental evidence and reliable observations is... well... moronic.
As to the repulsive god of ignorant late bronze age tribal jews (aka yahweh, the alleged omni-god), Epicurus, the great Athenean philosopher, (341-270 BCE) uncovered the logical fallacy of such an imagined, supernatural entity:
["Is god willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?"
Next!
at math.h
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod was describing the series of events such that any one who looked up in the sky, literate, knowledgeable or not they would understand what He meant. If he said he made many great lights and a small light to rule the day and a poor reflector to guide the night, most people through history would not have understood his meaning at all. We today would, but we also understand the meaning as God wrote it.
if you'll notice the creation story is told from our perspective, so we would understand it. from earth the sun and moon are the greatest lights in the sky.
That one ..."must choose either Darwin or God"... is a valid statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution means change, we can all accept that there is change over time within a species. Darwinism however, as I understand it, would have us "believe" that all current species of animals including man evolved over time from other lesser species; and we can follow that pattern back to the beginning when there were no species. Whereas at least Jewish-Christian
doctrines teach that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. At a later time he also created the animals and man.
So the two concepts are not coequal but are patently different in their claims. Both concepts require a degree of faith on behalf of their supporters. Neither concept in and of itself is religion but may affect one's perspective of and attitude toward an almighty God through worship and religion.
Mr. Ayala's toying with Christian believers may add to his debating skills and give color to his own positions on the matter but in the end will never resolve these differences; we must chose one or the other but not both.
Creation by God (ex nihilo) or evolution (ex nihilo). One is correct at the expense of the other.
@ rcbache
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell said!
"Smart people are being told their faith is incompatible with science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----------------------------------
Smart people don't have to be told this, they come to know it, as they learn about the world around them.
It is absurd, that in an otherwise advanced country, in the 21st century, scientists should still have to appease believers with a Bronze Age world view.
There is no fundamental difference between pledging obedience to a deity conjured up by the primitive minds of desert nomads, and praying to a non-existent "Son of God", and believing that martyrdom gets you "72 wives" and 80000 slaves, and believing that Santa Claus comes down you chimney with presents.
There is a fundamental distinction however, between the theory of evolution, and the baseless (and at their core, insane) beliefs that Man was made of mud, or a blood cloth, and Woman from his rib.
And that distinction should not be blurred.
I don't think Sarah Palin ever said that creationism should be taught along side evolution. She said that if it comes up in discussion, there is no reason it shouldn't be discussed in class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe intellectual analysis of the theologian and the theoretical physicist are not very different. The difference arises with the data involved: religion deals with religious experience, the physicist with reproducibly measured features of the natural world. The difficulty with religious experience is that it is unreliable, and can be reproduced by the ingestion of some substances, or by psychological manipulation, which makes it difficult to ascertain its reality. Religion avoids the question by taking refuge in faith that rejects any quest5ioning of the evidence. Science, on the other hand never ceases to question the evidence. Thus, the reality (or lack of it) of the experiences involved constitute the real difference between science and religion, astrology, parapsychology, etc..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect to Reverend Francisco J. Ayala, the answer to his question "how can a loving, all-knowing God allow evil and suffering?" is a three-letter word: SIN. We live in a fallen world, much different from the one God originally designed and built for us. God's perfect plan was rejected by man, allowing sin to enter the world. All of the negative results we see are the results of an all-loving God allowing man unrestricted free will -- including the free will to reject God's perfect plan and replace it with man's imperfect counterfeit. Perhaps Reverend Francisco J. Ayala should go back to the "Beginning" in Genesis 1:1 and become reacquainted with God. Even Darwin started there; he just lost his way as have so many of his disciples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me see if I understand the argument. At some point in the past, without any cause, "nothing" suddenly produced "something", including "time", which also has a beginning,...actually "nothing" must have instantly produced "everything" in our closed universe...and it did so without a source of energy, which it also produced at the same instant. Nothing existed before the "Big Bang", but magically....oooops, can't use that term when discussing "science" and "evolution" even if it provides the only explanation for what happened according to the synthetic theory of evolution...anyway, without explaining where the "stuff" came from that "banged" during the "Big Bang" or the origin of the energy that caused it to "bang", evolutionists can then disregard all the pithy questions THAT theory raises and use it as their starting point for explaining the origin and existence of everything else in the universe, including life...sounds more like a primative legend based on blind faith than a theory based on science and supported by observation or repeatability or evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, just "considering the possibility" that some yet to be defined entity existed prior to the "Big Bang" and was responsible for the formation of what to even the novice appears to be an extremely complicated, well "designed" universe that operates on very complicated laws, including an Earth with life forms that also appear to follow very complicated designs and plans, supported by millions of fossiles that organize nicely into groups made of molecules made of atoms that also organize into well-defined groups...well, that is "superstition" and "religion" and has no place in scientific discussions....got it.
It amazes me what you children yammer on about. You set up your straw men and knock them down, without even a rudimentary understanding of the principles you discuss. Neither the "theists" nor the "scientists" in this whole row have made any serious point. All of you who think you have dispensed with religious belief in one elegant masterstroke have done so largely through lack of understanding -- like the idiots who routinely send around their clever theories disproving Einstein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you consider that anything in the present state of the sciences has excluded Deity, you are woefully ignorant of the sciences. They have excluded certain VERY rudimentary theistic models, but has by no means dispensed with, for example, even Biblical Christianity (when properly understood and applied).
If any of you believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive, you have simply not considered the problem in enough depth. You have recognized neither the strengths nor the weaknesses inherent in the scientific method. Before you shoot your mouth (keyboard) off again on the topic, get some real understanding. You are emoting all over the place! Apply your rationality! Recognize the existing limits of your intellectual tools!
I have seen nobody here demonstrating even the feeblest understanding of the Good/Evil issue. None of the posts asserting anything about good or evil even comes close to examining the practical basis and implication of "sin" or "redemption". It's like reading Slashdot here, not SciAm.
Here's the deal. Genesis makes no provable assertions. It is not a scientific text. There is no indication of how much is allegorical and how much is literal. There is no discussion (internally) of whether its provenance is revelatory or traditional or inferred. Why would it even occur to you that it and science (as it stands) would even have anything to say to each other?
Science as it stands is no athlete -- it is in its infancy as far as describing even the building blocks of the Universe (see SM/GR, Hierarchy problem, collective systems, etc, etc). It has made great progress, but has a long way to go before really excluding anything as complex as Deity.
Religion (when properly practiced) is never a threat to science. Religion accepts Truth wherever it is found. Its practitioners fail it when they bury their heads in the sand. It focuses, however, on questions that are far out of science's reach.
I despair of finding a public voice that can get this right. Nobelists fail right and left. I'm filing a bug report on humanity here.
Memo to "PRUFrok": insted of blowing a whole lot of sophistical smoke, read Victor J Stenger's "GOD, THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS" and get back to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor others that may be curious about the Professor's tome, here is what the physicist -philosopher himself says:
"In this book, I go much further and argue that science makes a strong case against the existence a God with the traditional attributes of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God. My argument is not based simply on the gross absence of evidence for this God. Not only is there no evidence for God, I argue that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist.
Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God.
In a final chapter I show why it is preferable to live in a Godless universe."
Indeed. And do you have any idea of what your are asserting by "biblical christianity" in the context of SCIENCE? You are either terribly deluded or willfully ignorant. For starters, there is no credible evidence of a historical jesus as imagined by the various, unknown authors of the patchwork canonical bible, riddled with contradictions, interpolations and falacies too numerous to mention. The unimpeachable ALBERT SCHWEITZER could not find him despite over a decade of scholarship, and concluded he was mythic.
Some other commenter was simple-minded enough to actually reference the book of genesis! How laughable. Exactly which of the two bogus creation accounts are you willing to stake your case upon? They have about as much specificity and objective value as say palm reading or astrological charts.
Of course, IF there were some incredibly improbable, unfathomable and complex entity, before the singularity of the "big bang" (tossing aside the infinite of the big crunch and the multiverse posits), it would: 1. be totally beyond the ken of humans 2. have absolutely nothing in common with tri-lunacy god of bible and 3. be an enormous target for OCCAM's razor. OUCH!
Further, "evil" is neither a "supernatural" phenomena, personified by the childish demons or devils of the faith-based (which like angels and gods, clearly do not exist)... but is simply a facet of the unquestionably evolved human specie, in its most maladaptive aspects.
MEMO to the christian proslytizers mucking up the threads on SciAM: keep your personal religious contructs where they belong... in the echo-chambers of your indoctrinated brains.
NEXT.
My, my, Ms/Mr Spin-oza must have awakened on the wrong side of the bed today. First, quoting error-filled tomes such as Victor J Stenger's "GOD, THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS" as a "proof" that there is no God or whatever else you intended to show by citing it can be countered by thousands of original writings dating back to the first century and some prior to that which would lead thinking persons to quite the opposite conclusion. A cursory (or detailed) examination of the world around us would also lead one to the undeniable conclusion that it didn't "just happen by Brownian motion". There is more historical proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, including secular proof, than there is for the existence of Abraham Lincoln...but I digress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve what you wish, but I thought we were discussing "How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist", and so far they seem to be quite incompatible. Micro-evolution, formerly called "mutation", is quite real, and it follows the command from God for all species to "reproduce after their own kind" (dogs to wolves, cats to tigers, but no grasshoppers to giraffes). On the other hand, "molecules to man" or "mud to monsters" evolution is scientifically and statistically impossible, and that embarrassment to evolutionists is clearly demonstrated by the lack of evidence to support such a religious belief -- which is clearly what Atheists and Agnostics regard Darwin's theory.
If nothing existed before the "Big Bang", and everything began then, including "time", "Nature" must have also come into existence at the "Big Bang". Answer this question: How can one examine anything prior to that point using "Natural Science" if "Natural Science" could not have existed prior to the inception of "Nature" at the "Big Bang"? Will you concede that "Natural Science" is bounded, so some other "uncaused first cause" existed prior to the "Big Bang"...or must you concede that "Nature" is actually your "god"?
Hey, Spin. Thanks for the response. I see here a reference to authority, and some denigration, and a couple of straw men. These, of course, are duly knocked down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not read (and have no intention of reading) Stenger's work. It seems fairly simple to gut it from first principles, since his thesis is that we can conclude that the Universe is 100% God-free by observation, so I'll spend my reading time elsewhere.
I'm not sure why the "traditional attributes" of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God are (mostly because you can poll any number of subsects of such faiths and get a number of different answers), but you seem to be focused (as is common) on some particular attributes.
The Trinitarian conception of Deity is a common one -- three in one, infinite and unknowable, etc. That was a fairly late-breaking doctrine, though, and is not universally accepted. In fact, if someone can provide a good thermodynamics argument for why that is unlikely, I'll be happy to read it. That conception of a God that has any interest in humanity does, indeed, make little sense... but you're not the first person to spot that.
My point -- if Stenger (or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or whatever penny-ante philosopher that wants to take a careless swing at the problem) wants to demonstrate that Religion can be excluded by present observations, the first challenge to face is that they have to take down each religious theoretical construct individually. Some are easy -- if they assert that the Sun orbits the Earth, the disproof is done. Some are harder -- like those that have no particular dependence on God having created the Universe, or existing pre-Big Bang, or being omniscient in the sense of Laplace's Demon (violates all sorts of information theory), or being omnipotent in the strictest sense of "omni".
Any good scientist would know that to make such an assertion, each class of religious "theory" would have to be analyzed, tested against observables, and accepted or discarded individually. Has this systematic work been done by Stenger? Has he broken down the problem correctly? Since religious taxonomy is a major effort in and of itself, I have my doubts that any serious stab was made at the problem. Remember, if you want to make a scientific assertion, you are bound by the rules.
And as for the Schweitzer baloney -- there are many others of similar repute that have made the opposite assertion. This is why appeals to authority are so unsatisfying.
In part two, I'll discuss why the cavalier dismissal of others is such a bad idea.
Excellently stated. Science cannot explain religion and vice versa. I appreciate how your comment highlighted how the two really cannot clash because religion is based on faith and is therefore untestable. One does not negate the other; they comfortably coexist...until you get the fringe who NEED to cause a clash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace, love and light to all of my fellow SCIAM readers!
Now for part two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Spin-oza (still): Your assumption that the person on the other end is an "OMG CHRISTIANIST TROLL!!!!111eleven" is a bit careless. I am an active research scientist. I understand (to a non-specialist degree) the compelling WMAP results. I went to school, got my PhD, and know what I am talking about, more or less. Your appeals to authority make me think you might not be in the same situation, but that is a guess.
I'll clarify that the following is not an appeal to authority -- I'm sharing a perspective that many on this forum don't seem to have run across.
I grew up in a scientific family, and in a strong scientific community. I was constantly surrounded by PhDs in all sorts of fields, and many were near the top of their field. Many of these people I knew from church. In fact, there were a remarkable number of strongly religious folks there, who also had very impressive careers and knowledge.
I polled some of these people for their justifications and reasons, as I was quite skeptical and not real inclined to sign up for some of the "strictures" of religion, especially if it was all a shell game. The excellent discussions I had with them and within my family during my teenage years have stuck in my mind. Far from being credulous, brainwashed folk, they were thoughtful, challenging, and impatient with BS. They were not the stooges of some charismatic con man.
The point to take away from this? Your internal representation of the religious is cartoonish, and really needs to be reworked. Most of your problem comes from a deeply incomplete picture of the nature of religion and Deity. You are simply underinformed.
Here is where authority comes into play. I also spent many of my formative years and most of my adult ones actively learning about, teaching, analyzing, contemplating and discussing religion -- both mine and others. It's a real priority for me. Please forgive any assumption I might make when I say that the majority of the participants have probably not done the same.
It is therefore without rancor that I gently correct your assertion that I was referring to Good and Evil as some sort of supernatural gestalt. I am not -- in fact, that is an interpretation I militate against.
So calm down a bit. Do some reading of your own, if you feel to do so. There are others who comment here without a real grasp of the scientific principles at stake, but who do know a bit about the God angle -- it behooves you to be genteel and tolerant, even if you disagree. Find a good argument, and defend it on its merits.
NWarmsley, your cordiality is appreciated by all I'm sure. Can you explain how two diametrically opposed theories can both be true at the same time in the same manner? If one theory states that the universe slowly came into existence through random processes acting over time without design or control by an external force while the other states that the universe was intentionally created by design through measured acts by an external force, how can they both coexist in harmony as this article suggests?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch hubris.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall me a philistine, but I still have trouble getting my mind around precisely how unliving materials Randomly Mutated and Naturally Selected itself into a Living organism.
To me, t'would seem that the odds for such an alleged incident would be beyond astronomical in more than one respect. Two scenarios spring to mind, each as troubling as the other given what we know enough to ponder regarding Origin.
Firstly, we might suppose that "life" on this planet was somehow brought into being either in a reproductive-ready state or that it was 'immortal' (for lack of a better term) to the point that it survived long enough to develop that capacity. Be that either from the One presumptive living organism, or in contemplation that two or more organisms 'arose' more-or-less at once in proximity and then survived long enough to begin interacting with one another to begin the process.
Secondly, barring the aforementioned scenario, we would almost have to assume that 'Life" developed over and over and over again whole-cloth in some as-yet-undiscovered paradigm until, after so many incalculably fortunate occurences, one form of it finally was able to survive, adapt and reproduce, to consequently colonize the planet. We must then presume that such a prolific incubator just as Mysteriously ceased to operate, else the smoking gun of novel forms of Life would be evident, and would arguably still be springing into existence now.
Simplistic yes, but problematic.
I wonder, how much of the 'impossibility factor' towards Creation goes out the window when/if we find evidence of Life elsewhere in the Universe? How much evaporates when we, infantile as we are in the Cosmic blink-of-an-eye we've been around, manage to "Create" (synthesize) novel Life forms ourselves, and even discover that it is relatively easy to do so? When/if we terra-form another Planet? All we can possibly do by that is ipso facto enshrine such as a distinct possibility for our own Origin.
We are not 'apart' from this. Our very Existence, whether by chance or intent, does NOTHING if not Prove, that the Universe can, and HAS, manifested an Awareness of,,, "Itself",,, and a Will. To Act,, and to Choose.
We are the Free Radicals of the Cosmos, and even in the largest Scale, the Balance can tip to a grain of sand.
Ok, off to ponder the Mandelbrot Set, and contemplate a Quantum God that is as likely to Exist,,, as I am.
To say that the THEORY of evolution is anything but a belief system is to undermine what science is. Science it the OBSERVATION of fact. Let us take one aspect of macro evolution to explain what I mean. The beginning - where did everything come from? By the very nature of the universe there has to be a start to everything. The evolutionary genesis is the big bang, a single event from which all things were born. There was nothing and then nothing compressed and became mass and energy which exploded in the Big Bang. So the big bang assumes that all matter and energy was created in a single instant before which nothing existed. This is a direct contradiction to the laws of physics which have been proven and observed. I am not trying to refute or recommend evolution here I am just saying that a theory based upon ideas which seem contradict scientific laws that have been established and observed is not science until such time as those ideas have been reconciled to the truth which has already been established. I'm sure that there is some theory or hypothetical setting in which some very intelligent person could explain how everything was created from nothing but we are now stepping from observable laws to theory, and there in lies the reason evolution is in fact not proven science but rather a belief system. All that evolution clams would have to be observed multiple times by multiple individuals who could reproduce every aspect of their observations in a lab before evolution could be considered science. Therefor you would need those individuals to have existed before the creation of matter and energy, and well I am sure you can see the problems with that. I know I can be a little confusing and hard to follow, I'm not a scientist just someone who likes to keep myself grounded in reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@opaobie -- There is no contradiction that can really be drawn. The Genesis account says nothing about the creation of the Universe (really!) and deals only with the creation of the Earth -- at least, that is all that can be drawn from the text. The processes He used are not described, nor are we given a comprehensive list of species or features that were created. I think it's pretty clear from observing the Earth that He was not real specific about the timescale -- there is a lot that can be done with the translation of the word "day" that I won't go into here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific observation has a hard time working with these data. There is simply nothing measurable. That was not the point of Genesis, though. Like the rest of the scriptural canon, its intent is to illustrate mankind's relationship and obligations to God.
Scientific endeavors are tightly limited. There are a large number of things that are presently out of our reach, scientifically. That doesn't make it wrong or useless, at all -- it just means that the precise, powerful statements that science can make depend on a set of very constraining conditions. The harder it is to meet those conditions, the less science can say about the topic at hand.
The Universe is a big place, which we understand poorly. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that either approach we are discussing here can supplant the other.
Folks, let's not rehash Big Bang here. It's on as firm a footing as anything science has done in a while. WMAP was a VERY nice result. No need to bash your head against a brick wall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really need God to have created the Universe ex nilho to believe in Him... it'll take some work to get that one going again.
RWUKOVICH@AOL.COM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrufrock, you make very solid points, but did you miss this part?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenesis 1:1 (New International Version)
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
...sounds to me like a reference to the universe...and there are others later, such as defining the three parts of the "heavens": 1) the air near the earth where birds fly, 2) the atmosphere much higher that extends to the edge of space, and 3) the great expanse beyond our atmosphere containing all the other heavenly bodies. These were well accepted by even the earliest people mentioned in the Bible... but I guess it all depends on what "universe" means and how well one is versed in Hebrew and Greek.
Several of the creation processes are actually described, and they are mentioned again in the New Testament. Some involve concepts that ancient man could not have comprehended and described by simply using his imagination; they had to be related to him or observed.
The word used for "Day" in Genesis is only used to mean a literal 24-hour day in every other place it is found in the Bible, but I really didn't intend to swerve this discussion off into "Creation" vs. "Evolution". Very bright scholars, even well respected Bible scholars and scientists, disagree on "Old Earth" vs. "Young Earth", but at least they agree that it was a product of intentional design and action, not an accident of fate...and that is one more reason why one can argue that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity and every other religion's view of origins.
...by the way, this just in: there is still disagreement in the scientific community about the Big Bang "theory"....details at 11:00.
the big bang is under attack by the big bounce, now. besides, there is NO darwinian, naturalistic, evolutionary mechanism that explains, either the origin of inorganic matter, or abiogenesis. natural selection does not operate until there is a self replicating LIVING cell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvariation among species (it is a misnomer to refer to it as microevolution), which is: limited to the gene pool; horizontal; and bi-directional, is ALL the empirical evidence the religion of naturalistic evolutionism has to offer concerning the origin of species, and it goes "nowhere" as far as darwinian, new and improved, up the ladder of complexity, evolutionism is concerned. everything else is purely imaginary! especially, when one considers that mutations are random, rare, and harmful and that natural selection is a conservative process; not an innovative one.
intelligent design IS scientific:
low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence->information X
design
it is the SAME as SETI science:
low prabability plus a specific objective pattern equals intelligence yielding information by design
Aha. Sorry, I missed addressing that one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution happens. Speciation probably happens (check out references to the eyeless gene, etc).
God has made no specific statements about how He did the whole creation thing. I will therefore not speculate on the mechanisms He used, and instead use the present understanding of the fossil record as my data source until that situation changes. What I know is that He is not constrained by my assumptions. :) For all I know, He used evolution from scratch to bring forth life. I can't even say if it was guided in detail vs. in general (boundary conditions vs. specific intervention).
As for "heavens" -- if the interpretive ambiguity exists, and reliable evidence from another quarter is available, a reasonable way to deal with the problem is to reduce the ambiguity using the reliable information. In this case, we can choose "heavens" to mean the local heavens, or the whole Universe. If observation suggests that the latter may be problematic, I'll go with the former. Especially since the verbiage is clearly not scientifically precise, and no textual doctrine requires the interpretation to go one way or the other.
Not a real issue, anyway, frankly. My belief in God does not spring from such arguments. :) On this one, I'm motivated by pure curiosity.
Oh, and... all scientific theories are always being debated when science is working right. That doesn't mean that something is not pretty well nailed down. I'm not worried about any of the Big Bang challengers right now -- they have no traction.
I'm open to anything, though -- I just want to see what's actually there, and I have no preference for the outcome. Actually, I do want some accessible variant of SUSY to be right, but that's an issue of convenience.
Actually, In all fairness I must digress in part. Some basic elements and aspects of Genesis do fit quite nicely with the Big Bang (or Big Bounce).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the [Quantum State] 'Singularity' and the Void, even to photons not appearing until some point after Order/the fundamental Laws of Physics in the temporal Universe were set/established.
Else those concepts sprang from some disturbingly lucky guesses for a bunch of hunter-gatherers & primitive agrarians wandering around out in the desert thousands of years ago.
Funny how we pigeon-hole ourselves sometimes, through the lens of our own meager understandings.
So much of "Science" (itself being a Method of finding answers, not AN Answer) is based on seeing further, deeper than the surface, on re-visiting and looking at old things in new ways. Science depends on being able to modify or toss out ANY Theory whenever new information or understanding comes to light. Lest we forget Spontaneous Generation was accepted 'Science' in the not-so-distant past.
[Our] Science is a work-in-progress, as are we, as is everything.
Simplifyx3 said Thoreau.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe primordeal alMighty energy alfa who will also be the omega, started the illusion by a dictat bigbang or any other, with just electromagnetic influences we term as "LIGHT".and this light has such a wide spectrum.and this creation EVOLVED with time into space onto helium and evolved and is evolving into life proteins. with the spark of the divine within you, animate and inanimate. with my IQ 100, this much i can perceive. The show satrted with CREATION, and is EVOLVING ........evolving ....until apostasis sets in to omega.
Simplify x 3 said Thoreau. From primordeal cosmic alfa,The illusion started with creation, of whatever however,.. and ever since, has and is continuing as evolution. to the end omega, back to the alfa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. ID was sure to come up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisID is understandably motivated intelligent folks hate being condescended to, so they try and package their faith in a container that the intelligentsia will approve. This happened, by the way, many times in early Christianity... and Judaism... and etc. Nicene creed, etc.
It's not science, though. ID comes down to the argument of irreducible complexity -- saying that there's no way this (cell/mitochondrion/molecule) could have come about spontaneously, so God did it.
That may be the case, but it's not science. Science can make no such statement and remain scientific -- that's the equivalent of saying "I give up". When a scientist says that, it simply leaves the door open for the next guy to come in and do the work. It may take a while, and the field may stagnate... but "I give up" is not a recognized part of the scientific method.
So, while I understand and sympathize with the motivations of ID (I also hate the condescension of less understanding colleagues, and have suffered at their hands), ID is not the right approach. Quiet and articulate defense of one's privilege to believe whatever one wishes and to articulate those beliefs is better sited to the world of research.
One of the fastest and most reliable methods of resolving the "ambiguities" in the Biblical account is to examine the original language...they all disappear. Detailed scientific examination of the abundant evidence from fossils to living organisms to heavenly bodies resolves them even further, and it refutes Darwinsim, but recognizing and accepting the results is completely dependent on one's worldview...the pity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as God's using Darwinian evolution as His process for creating the universe, by its very nature, that would be the most inefficient and cruel method imaginable...not in harmony with the All-knowing, All-loving Being described in the Bible.
The only time that the "cruelties" you refer to will not be a part of life on this earth is when the lion lies down peaceably with the lamb. Right now, it only works if you keep replacing the lamb. ;) (Kissinger)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world is as it is. God is as He is. The Bible makes a stab at describing aspects of both, but is not eternal or infallible (even when referring to the original text, which is sadly absent for the most part).
It's worth learning all one can about what's really there, in all realms of human knowledge. Science is not a threat to religion. Neither is religion a threat to science.
It's only scary when one starts acting like the ONLY source of knowledge -- or one starts trying to act like the other. Example 1: ID. Example 2: Global Warming.
;)
GOOD, GOOD, GOOD, GOD VIBRATIONS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe are materialized thought. YHWH "spoke" HIS thoughts into existence.
there are no such things as "hard" particles (all force fields-"vibrations") and all matter/energy weighs nothing is space. kinda like a thought that you can visualize in your mind and wish you could vocalize (vibrate) into reality!
opaobie: "Let me see if I understand the argument."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly, you don't.
Prufrock: " the first challenge to face is that they have to take down each religious theoretical construct individually."
Are you trying to tell us, that you have chosen your particular made-up deity, only after "taking down" each competing religious construct separately?
More to the point, religion has no place in the science classroom:
Since countless superstitions have accompanied humanity through the millennia, if we take one such superstition seriously, it can be only because we have examined and discarded all the other competing superstitions, as you noted, individually.
And if we don't have the time for all superstitious explanations of the world and its origins and workings, then we should stick to stuff which is testable, like evolution.
Mind you, I am not saying, that the Bible, for instance, is not testable. It is, and it generally miserably fails, not only in its explanations of what the world is and how it works, but also as a historical record.
And the sane among us all know, how well it predicts the future:-)
And even more to the point, religion really shouldn't be discussed seriously by a publication with "Scientific" in its title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Europe:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, when we hear your opinions (of a lot of american people) about religion against Darwinism, we only can think one thing: American people is more and more ignorant, and your country begin to be like an islamic fanatic religion republic. EEUU is in clear internal cultural decadence of society. What thing will be the next? Discuss if God maked the earth? Read the Bible in schools and study Nature like on the dark middle age? Discuss against relativity using religion?
Religion is an obsolete form of knowledge (and very dangerous, source of war, intolerance, fanatism ... you can see history and learn of it ...) .
We need science, and human ethic, and end all religions (using education, tolerance, and science).
(sorry for my poor english, but not all people are english speaker)
Dr. Ayala seems to have adopted the "twin-magesterium" approach famously recommended by the late Harvard biologist Stephen Gould. While it may allow religious people to skirt incompatibilities between faith and reason, Gould's rationale doesn't resolve these problem. Theodisy, for example - the contradiction between God's omnipotence and the presence of evil and suffering in the world - remains as intractable as ever. (In my opinion the idea of "free will" offers little help.) In the end one must essentially agree to put such insoluble paradoxes aside in order to deal with more practical issues, such as developing an acceptable ethics; but they do not disappear!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou realize, I trust, that these statements are meaningless drivel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never seen a problem with science and religion being compatible. Not everything is written in the bible. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Where are they at in the bible? Well the big bang was probably put into motion by the hand of God. They say they have it down to so much time within when the big bang happened. They still don't know the whole story. I believe God set it in motion. And as far as evolution I have often thought those few people they have found like lucy and such, were just god playing in the clay trying to find the shape he wanted. I think seven days of Gods time is different than our seven days. Perhaps his days are millions of years. True, I have not studied evolution much. But I do believe in people changing to adapt to their environment for survival. I think that is a blessing from God so we could stick around to perfect ourselves. Just my ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assumed that this thread - indeed the entire SciAm discussion forum - would be devoted to rational and objective discourse. Instead it's been overrun by religious zealots who treat the Christian Bible as an empirical source book. What a waste of time!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, is there no refuge on the Internet from this interminable and fruitless blather? Have you people no respect, no sense of intellectual propriety?
So, let me get this straight;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat most of you are saying is that humans created Deity out of thin air, and then concocted Religion round the concept. Essentially the same abstract as the other notable figments of the mass imagination known as "The State", or a "corporation" which are no more or less 'tangible' than say, the "Church". Only through belief/dedication of individuals within does the entity come to act and exhibit an 'independent' existence greater than the sum of its parts.
Then you are arguing that Humans obviously cant be trusted, and we should trust humans instead.
OeL,,, Power attracts people that are attracted to power, be that in government or in a religious establishment. You must realize so much of what you point to as indictments of 'religion' in war and bloodshed, by your own position are merely indictments on Humanity and the willingness of our species to exploit and eliminate one another for some perceived gain. Look to the cases of human politics controlling and abusing the Power of religion, rather than using religion itself as an 'excuse' as some of those within it have. You legitimize their actions when you blame 'religion', instead of blaming the ethical failures of those in control.
We have a wise Seperation of Church and State to try and keep either one from currupting the other. Or, rather, to keep any from using abusing the two together. We don't have a Theocracy, thankfully, and we will be just as lucky if we never suffer under any Atheocracy as you appear to advocate.
Secular, by definition, is "unconcerned" with religion and its tenets. Not actively 'opposed' to them. The examples one may look to for dim-witted governments active in fashioning Atheistic utopian societies, have all been miserable failures, poster children for bloodshed and oppression in their own right. Rarely lasting longer than break down of the pre-existing social cohesion they inevitably parasitized, as they have all been unable to foment without forced assimilation and exploitation of the unwilling. That is what ensures their eventual failure.
Same as with Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and all the other -isms,,, the master/slave relationship is essentially the same. They all look better on paper, than with a gun to your head and a hand in your pocket.
Any social system humans can 'create', humans can (and will) corrupt.
We cant be trusted.
@ajhil: This thread has been overrun by zealots, 'tis true. :) You may be the least interesting of them. When the topic is a colloquy about the intersection of science and religion, only the fatuous will be offended when both sides of the topic are addressed. It's as though you're offended that the holy corridors of the SciAm website have been invaded by blasphemers! EvolvingApe seems to be equally horrified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@EvolvingApe: It is not science's job to disprove religion.
If, however, a writer undertakes to exclude religion as a whole, then he must indeed dispense with every single one, or come up with an argument that puts paid to the whole set.
If the writer were arguing that, for example, supersymmetry is not valid, he could not just disprove the MSSM or mSUGRA and call it done, because there are hundreds of SUSY constructs left on which to measure limits. The same rules apply everywhere. That's why science has a much harder task in excluding theories than it does in discovery.
Both the biblical record and the fossil record share significant completeness issues, and as such are not gold standards of testability. The Bible has the additional disadvantage in that much of it is allegorical.
You are correct in your statement that religion has no place in the science classroom, though it is a fruitful field of study elsewhere. We also have no need to teach the humanities in the science classroom.
Why should I accept, a priori, that you are sane? Why are you sane and I am not? I suppose you also assume that anyone who disagrees with you politically is insane?
Is there anyone left who has mastered the art of not demonizing the Other? Who has the self-control to not lash out when confronted with something unfamiliar?
@OeL:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just spent a half-decade in France. I was appalled by some of the ethical degeneracy I observed firsthand, including rampant racism, dishonesty and familial neglect. Much more so that in the US.
I'm a bit of a student of history as well. Perhaps you can explain to me why religion is the source of "war, ignorance and fanaticism" from the historical record.
I'm fully aware of the abuses undertaken by some religious sects over history. In the Judeo-Christian era, most of those abuses were in direct contradiction to the tenets of the religions represented. We see that even today. In fact, an argument can be made that religious belief moderated or prevented further horrific actions by creating advanced ethical systems among its real practitioners.
In contrast, I'll draw your attention to the human rights records of self-declared "post-religious" societies. Please examine the French Revolution, the Great Leap Forward (and China's subsequent actions), the October Revolution and the subsequent Stalinist purges. And the lovely and enviable Eastern Bloc over much of the last century. The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Even good old Adolph and his supplanting religion with a belief in "the heroic spirit of the Arayan peoples". There are very few counter-examples.
Are you sure that science and human ethics will bring an end to these things? I would say that the evidence works against such a conclusion.
The conceit that "if religion were banned and done away, the world would suddenly sing in harmony" is farcical. Most war is not religious -- it is about dominance, a very human desire. In that sense, religion is a horse to ride like any other. And as for intolerance... I'm seeing here firsthand how well science does in creating polite discourse among its practitioners. ;)
Actually, most of Europe is closer to becoming literally an "Islamic fanatic religious republic" than the US will ever be, just by sheer numbers. Its societies are committing suicide by sterility, which is a tragedy.
For these reasons, I am therefore unconcerned with the general European opinion of Americans. I know better, is all.
Hi Prufrock,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with what you say. I do not believe an end to religion will make things peaceful. People will always find something to fight about or disagree about. Where there is disagreement there is usually conflict. In my opinion I think religion can actually make some people better, and more peaceful to be around. Yes there are people who say they are doing things in the higher powers name and yet they are horrendous things. Because of this people like to bunch all people of that category into horrible. It is like september 11th. It made a lot of people scared of all arabs. It is not their fault these things happened but people got violent toward them all. It would be like someone hating all germans because of adolf hitler. If someone belongs to a certain group, whether it be a race, religion, political party, etc and they do something bad it makes people think that is how they all are.
I would prefer to not mention the laureate in question. I am in my final year as a Ph.D. candidate in Comparative and experimental medicine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience is the search for the knowledge of the TRUTH, not the old pagan pantheistic false religion of naturalistic evolutionism!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissome of you are ignoring the TRUTH that our Creator did empirically show Himself to us in the flesh as YESHUA of nazareth 2,000 years ago "A.D."!
many gave their lives to pass this "eye witnessed" (observed) TRUTH on to us. how many of you would suffer tortuous treatment and death for something you know is a lie? anyone?
i do empathize with those of you who have not this knowlege; who don't know the TRUTH. you who BELIEVE that you are nothing more than cosmic, freak accidents with no REAL purpose, meaning, or point to your lives; nothing but pure selfish VANITY.
your inconsistencies are blatant and obvious. for example, to advocate "the struggle to survive", demands purpose, i.e.; TO SURVIVE! TO REPRODUCE!
WHY "DO" SCIENCE if you "know" it is meaningless and purposeless?
you should also ponder your position of being at the mercy of the state and whomever is in power at time; for you have NO INALIENABLE RIGHTS, but only what the state is pleased to grant to you or to take away from you.
may you all be blessed with "the knowledge of the TRUTH!"
LOVE YOU, MUTANTS AND ALL!
in the year of our LORD 2008,
paul
@jphipps -- I am sympathetic. Such challenges are misguided, and the challengers are not being good exemplars of rational discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, I wish I had been there. In my experience (not extensive, but also nonzero) with Nobelists, I have found them to be impressive in their field, and merely average in most other realms. Debating religion vs. science with most nonspecialists (as you have seen here) is a lot like debating politics with a Hollywood personality -- lots of verbiage, little depth.
When you have your tenure, feel free to fire back. I suspect you'll find there is little behind the bluster, if you answer with reason, calm, honesty and faith.
hey PRUFROCK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease explain S.E.T.I. science without I.D. science.
looking forward to it!
Prufrock 1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post begins with two ad hominems and a straw man argument all in one short paragraph. Clearly you’re a man of parts.
In fact, I did not object to inclusion of religion, but rather to the manner in which it was addressed in a number of posts on this thread. You seem to take the position that an internet forum which has no formal qualification for participation, can therefore have no standard, either express or implied, for the nature (not to mention the calibre) of debate. I disagree.
I maintain that there’s a distinct, non-trivial difference between treating the Bible as revealed “Truth” and regarding it as a useful, if sometimes unreliable, historical and literary document, and that the former interpretation is commonly adopted by those who don’t subscribe to what might be called an empirical worldview.
Is it inappropriate to expect that a Scientific American web forum reflect to some extent the standards of the parent magazine? I don’t think so. Is it “fatuous” to anticipate that matters of religious belief would be discussed objectively in that forum. Again, I don’t think so. You can accuse me of elitism, if you like, and adopt whatever egalitarian pose you like. We evidently agree on very little, including personal decorum, so this particular difference should distress neither of us.
Prufrock 2:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith that I turn to your second post.
It’s fashionable nowadays to cite “atheistic” totalitarian regimes from recent history as evidence that religion is a superior basis for human society, presumably by providing “advanced ethical systems.” Somewhat further along you observe that in these matters “religion is a horse to ride like any other.”
So which is it?
In putting forward your version of the conventional argument you make several errors. For example, you cite a number of “ ‘post religious’ societies” which committed atrocious acts, but that’s an inaccurate discription. Revolutionary France was predominantly Catholic. Russia under Stalin was largely Eastern Orthodox. “Nazi” Germany was unquestionably Christian. Even the Chinese, who practice non-theistic creeds such as Bhuddism can hardly be described as non-religious. In fact, all of your examples consist of basically religious societies which were taken over by non-religious despots or cabals.
Even admitting that caveat, do your examples demonstrate (if only by contrast) a peculiarly benign religious influence in recent history? Where was the evidence of an “advanced ethics” during the carpet bombing of Vietnam, Camodia, and Laos which killed more than 3 million civilians in the Vietnam War? What advanced ethical considerations were evident when U.S. imposed sanctions “on” Saddam Hussein led to the deaths of as many as a million Iraqi children? Etc., etc., etc, …
These and other historical arguments demonstrate, in my opinion, only that nations and their rulers generally do as they please, regardless of religion. As for counterexamples, what society or ruling class has ever genuinely subscribed to secular humanism, arguably the best approximation to the obverse of religion? I suggest that history offers no valid test of the hypothesis and may never do so, more's the pity.
"What's next, the church of Darwin"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe it is called Biology class
EvolvingApe, since you clearly "understand the argument" but have no sense of humor and don't recognize satire...and cavalierly discount everyone else's points..., would you mind citing examples of how the Bible has been tested and failed and how Darwinism has been tested and succeeded? There is no evidence to support the synthetic theory of evolution as Darwin postulated it or even as it has been distorted and rewritten again and again and again to try to catch up with the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArchaeological digs have corrected errors in history texts by finding evidence substantiating statements and validating the accounts of people and even the location and existence of extinct places claimed in the Bible...just as one example. Can you cite some examples of tests conducted on the Bible that failed? Written translations of the Bible may well contain typos and even mistranslations or varying translations of some words, but considering the entire body of works that comprise the Bible, it is not "error prone" and it does not contradict itself. Darwinism contradicts itself, is rewritten, and fails, so it continues to "evolve" and frustrated its devotees. Considering that the Bible was written by scores of people over thousands of years and its last entries were made nearly 2000 years ago and remains unchanged except for findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that reinforce its original text, it is a remarkably consistent document. There is no way to reconstruct and observe the origin of the universe, so both Creation (and ID) and Darwinism must only postulate and look for evidence to support their hypotheses. The theories are diametrically opposed and cannot coexist. So far, the Bible is 100% in explaining the universe around us dating back to the "Beginning"; Darwinism is Zero...but don't give up becaues it keeps "evolving", and some day it may even align with the Bible...where Darwin started.
OeL, what would you suggest as the new source of morality, law, science, and knowlege to replace the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which Western civilization was built?
ajhil, how would you expect Christians and Jews and other thinking religious people to respond to an article titled "The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist" if they are trying to refute the premise?
hey PRUFROCK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo you believe any history books or writings about historic figures of any kind; like rulers, scientists, and philosophers of old? do you believe that THEY existed? do you believe and accept anything that has been written in any record; textbook; or scientific discourse that YOU haven't personally winessed and experimentally tested yourself? are you a moral relativist; no reason for believing what anyone says; not even yourself, and are indeed "LOST IN SPACE"?
just because CHRISTIANITY is a "religion" founded on scientific, empirical TRUTH doesn't disqualify it from the scientific realm. shouldn't true religion be based on the TRUTH? TRUE SCIENCE IS THE TRUTH!
will we not teach our children the TRUTH because our religion is based upon it? how absurd! ATHEISM is an unscientific religion which has supplanted the TRUTH which used to be taught in our public schools. they accomplished it by deceit - telling LOUD LIES over and over.
nature and the supernatural cannot and should not be separated. it is "ABOVE AND BEYOND" natural forces to create the universe and life; therefore, all of the cosmos and nature itself is of "SUPER"natural origin! this has been proven experimentally, many, many, many, times!
both sides of the "origins" coin should be presented fairly and honestly; leaving it up to the students to reach their own intelligent conclusions.
NO MORE BRAIN-WASHING, MIND-CONTROLLING INDOCTRINATING IN ONE RELIGION (atheistic, naturalistic evolutionism) ALLOWED!
In general, catholic church does acept the theory of evolution, and the big bang, although they insist it was all a plan of god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe good part is that next year they are going to celebrate the 150 aniversary of Darwin with a big event. The question is how to convince the fundamentalist right
The bible claims that pi=3, not 3.1415927.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bible has no scientific claims. Even the story part that may have been true, is false.
There was no exodus, no Cannan taken by the force, no conquest of Jericho, No King David, nor Salommon.
Archeology has show us all this was false. And jews and catholics have no problem with that.
Simply the bible is a tale losely based on a little true facts, but no more.
HEY AJHIL,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanyone's world view is their "RELIGION" no matter what it may be!
there is no escape!
based on the empirical evidence which we currently have, we should be stating: it appears that living systems have been designed by an intelligent source.
based on the first law of thermodynamics (the most basic), we should be stating: matter (the universe) cannot and did not create itself.
opaobie:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcording to the genesis. Adan and Eve did not know good from evil, until they ate the three of knowglede. So how could they have sinned?.
For mileania theologians have been discusing this point, adn almost each christian denomination has it´s particular view on this. Ayala has a very good question for thos that believe in yaveh.
toothfull: "some of you are ignoring the TRUTH that our Creator did empirically show Himself to us in the flesh as YESHUA of nazareth 2,000 years ago "A.D."! ... many gave their lives to pass this "eye witnessed" (observed) TRUTH on to us...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you are seem a little murky about the history of the Abrahamic religions.
Second, you seem even murkier on scientific subjects.
Third, why are there so many of the faithful clogging up the forums of Scientific American with their gibberish?
@ajhil -- Then we agree. :) My point to OeL was that his assertion that religion was directly implicated in the atrocities and excesses common to mankind was not supported by history. You have made the same point admirably.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy whole comment was:
"Most war is not religious -- it is about dominance, a very human desire. In that sense, religion is a horse to ride like any other."
There are those who are willing to trample the tenets of their faith in a headlong rush to dominion. Genuine practitioners of these same faiths would recognize such actions as reprehensible, because of the 'advanced ethical systems' they have been given (and which are by no means the sole province of one or any religion).
As to treating the biblical record as empirical -- the whole premise of the parent article is inextricable from the question of whether the Bible's account of Creation has some descriptive power. You will have to accept that people in such a discussion will come at you with their real point of view. Some of them (as we've seen) consider the Bible's account of everything to be literally true. If such a challenge is to you a "waste of time", "interminable and fruitless blather" and displays "no respect, no sense of intellectual propriety", then perhaps you're in the wrong discussion. And it's cute, you accusing me of ad hominem comments. :)
What standards do you propose for this discussion? If we are to limit the set of participants to those who agree with you about most of the fundamentals, it might be more pleasant for you. Goodness knows that science should never be challenging or require discussion of points of view we consider wrong. ;)
It is sad to see a "science" magazine stoop to promoting superstition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. It's been fun, all. I have a proposal to write, and I have put far too much time into this discussion. Summary of my points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- Religion and science are separate and usually orthogonal. No threat from one to the other.
-- Disproof of religion via science has not yet been done for any but the most trivial cases.
-- Just because you're skeptical of the other guy's side of things does not make him an idiot, or dishonest, or a zealot, or crazy.
-- There are a lot of religious "straw men" floating around (omni* issues, good and evil arguments, Nicene creed, Biblical infallibility, sun worship, etc) that are easy to knock down, but do not represent the whole of religious understanding.
-- Religion is not the source of human misery
-- Religiosity and scientific competence are often found in the same person.
Take what you want, of course. Note that none of the points here are designed to convince anyone of religion's usefulness and correctness -- they are just to calm some of the noise on this thread from reactionaries who seem to consider belief to be the equivalent of mental AIDS. Undoubtedly many of you still do. Keep those minds open.
amen. no pun intended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrufrock: "...Some ... consider the Bible's account of everything to be literally true. If such a challenge is to you a "waste of time", "interminable and fruitless blather"...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly it is a waste of time, at least in a science-related forum.
Just as it would be a waste of time to engage in a serious debate about the existence and physical characteristic of gnomes and witches, or whether Osiris resides under Australia, or under Antarctica. Zeus and Yahweh fall in the same category.
I would grant you, that something like the historicity of the person of Jesus, sans the divine gibberish, may still be a subject of a reasoned discussion (although most historical evidence would suggest a negative conclusion.)
hey PRUFROCK,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease come back and explain S.E.T.I. science without I.D. science.
i will appreciate ya' and bet you a "crow" sandwich that YOU CAN'T!
hey EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are welcome to try to explain S.E.T.I. science without I.D. science, too!
Nanahuatzin, you answered your own question. Sin (basically rejection of God's perfect plan for mankind) entered the scene when Adam and Eve disobeyed the command to stay away from the tree of the knowledge of good (personal relationship with God) and evil (the absence of that personal relationship with God and His presence).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the purests, whether it was a real tree with real fruit or not is irrelevant. The point of that illustration is that man exercised the free will given to him by God and chose to explore the realm traditionally called "evil" but more properly defined as the realm of the absense of God. The result was that man's relationship with God was damaged, and man began to suffer the effects of the natural laws and has been going in the opposite direction from that which Darwinism would predict. Lifetimes went from hundreds of years to an average of "four score" as Lincoln put it...and much less during periods of disease and violence. With all the advances in knowledge, science, medicine, and technology, we still average around the "four score" point with little promise of ever reachieving the old numbers.
I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey opaobie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease explain how a "good" tree can bring forth "corrupt" fruit apart from it being corrupted first by some outside entity?
Hey Prufrock!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothfull at 12:44 PM on 10/22/08
toothfull at 02:03 PM on 10/22/08
You haven’t responded to Toothfull yet, but I’m sure you will, and in a thoughtful, open-minded way no matter how hectoring or doctrinaire his posts are.
Indeed, I look forward to a long, edifying exchange of ideas – a colloquy! - between the two of you.
While you’re at it, maybe you’ll be good enough to explain to him how the Universe could have begun without violating the First Law.
toothfull at 02:48 PM on 10/22/08
I understand it, but I’ll bet I’d learn something anyway. How receptive do you think he’ll be?
"hey opaobie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease explain how a "good" tree can bring forth "corrupt" fruit apart from it being corrupted first by some outside entity?"
Easy. You need to read the entire explanation as I stated it. The "tree" represents only one part of the "free will" of man. Man can choose to fellowship with God or he can choose to reject God. Adam and Eve fellowshipped at first (chose "good") and then chose to reject that personal relationship (chose "evil"). In order to be God, He had to allow that choice in the mix; otherwise, He would have created only robots or slaves. Only a God who loved mankind enough to allow that choice is worthy of the title "God".
HEY TOOTHFULL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck this out: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
Not that I expect you to grasp the reasoning, but hopefully it will keep you occupied for a while, so we are spared another "HEY ..."
hey EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi knew you couldn't do it. that's alright, no one else can either.
I'm not TOOTHFUL, but I read the giberish double-talk excuse-making at the S.E.T.I link posted by EvolvingApe and it boils down to this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."
In other words, we don't know what constitutes "intelligence", but if we find something that doesn't appear to originate from anything in the limited body of sources we know about, we will call it "alien intelligence"...but those IDers examining specimens with demonstrated complexity orders of magnitude more convincing than anything we expect to find are just a bunch of superstitious idiots...yeah, right.
hey opaobie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is only one YHWH, the absolute sovereign. just because you would like to be one (as lucifer did), doesn't mean that you are.
YHWH gives no excuses for being GOD! we are "clay pots" of HIS design to do with whatsoever HE pleases. HE can make a disposable spittoon or an elegant, ornate vessel overlaid with silver and gold. we are completely at HIS mercy and when you find yourself there, you are in the right place!
sin is evil disobedience or rebellion against YHWH. evil will not proceed from good until it is corrupted/overcome by evil (the power possessed by satan); and in turn good will not proceed from evil until evil is conquered by good. this is what YESHUA the MESSIAH accomplished on the cross.
OPAOBIE/TOOTHFUL: "... but I read the giberish double-talk excuse-making at the S.E.T.I link ...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I expected, this part went way over your head.
"... but those IDers ... are just a bunch of superstitious idiots...."
However, this part you got right.
Reading the first webpage of Mr Ayala on if GOD is an abortionist...i think he doesn't read the bible on this. If scientist can take mice to a lab, toy with it with test, disecting it, then you also destroy life? Only the creator can do on what he creates. Since he have read too many books on evolution, I suggest he read the bible scripts and find that the Lord GOD is a merciful God. Yes HE has the right to end ones life but it doesn't make HIM a bad God. Mr Ayala and other scientist must read the scripts. Also, darwin evolution is still a theory, making is a fiction in practice. And I don't believe I came with primates. If scientist insist they came from apes, then its your opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks
Tristan G.
Philippines
Prufrock -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've encountered some pretentious folk on the Internet, but you may be in a class by yourself. You refer portentiously to poorly defined terms, like “Deity”, “Good”, and “Evil” (even capitalizing them for pity’s sake!) and then declare that science “has a long way to go before excluding anything as complex as Deity.” Complex? You mean like quantum chromodynamics? Or string theory? Or exactly what?
You cavalierly dismiss an entire book that you haven’t read and evidently know nothing about, as well as the thoughts of a number of people that we (poor children) have accorded too much respect, and you disparage Albert Schweitzer’s religious erudition as “baloney.” The good Doctor’s not alone, however, as you ever so gently inform us: we too are “underinformed.” How on Earth can we presume to pass judgment on the great mysteries that you’ve mastered.
Fortunately for us lesser intellects, science provides a convenient touchstone, nicely described by Victor Stenger, whose book you blew off. Does the universe show any tangible evidence for God (or Deity, or whatever mystery you like), or does it instead look and behave exactly as we’d expect with no such entity. In the latter case Occam’s admirable principle encourages us to ignore it.
Now my point and that of Evolving Ape and perhaps a couple of others is that the natural realm offers more than enough intellectual challenge without stretching it to accommodate superstitious malarkey (no matter how glibly presented.) The publishers of Scientific American seem to agree with us. Thus it’s not unreasonable to anticipate (or even to request) that the web forum associated with the magazine reflect the same boring focus on things that actually matter. If you can persuade SciAm to publish a review of “Good” and “Evil” or the thermodynamic implications of the Trinity or the number of species of dragons inhabiting the Black Forest, then by all means let’s discuss it here. Otherwise, let’s not! There are plenty of other websites devoted to such matters.
I am a Christian an evangelical to be excat. I love science. However I do view natural section and evoultion as the "best fit" to explain that workings of this world. Both my faith and my views of science live in harmony when you relaize that "real" science is as one person sated is discover . You see something and then try to explain what that "something " is . Religions explaination is valid as any others but if you realy wish to get to the truth all explainations are valid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a Religious person this is someways is hurtful if they feel they are a random process with no creator agent. However if you do belive as I do in a creater then imgine how much more "he" care for each any every one of us.
Lasly I have seen both sides of the debate and I get very ; very worried about how some fringe elements wish to push thier "ideas" like creative desin which is not science as what I stated above and scientists who wish to discount how we are created. Like Einstien said it is hard to find the clestial gardener so something to that effect. God somethings likes to be hidden but is truly closer than we would imgaine.
c'mon EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet's here or see, rather, YOUR explanation of S.E.T.I. science without I.D. science!
it's probably so simple, a monkey could do it.
hey EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbelieve it or not, EVEN YOUR POSTINGS are empirical proof of Intelligent Design!
or would you argue this point.
Nanahuatzin ;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the issue of sin they did not know the had "sinned" until they were tempted by Satan in the form of a snake . Thus they were innocent. If you are a beliver you believe that we are all decended from the fist "adam" and were born in sin bacause of the act in creating the next generation is part of the orignal sin. Adam & Eve were a direct creation of God and thus had no sin untial they ate of the apple and knew good and evil. Kind of strang logic.
I have some last comments. Especialy about science. If we are a product of random events what about good and evil? If were are a bag of elements star dust whats the point in morality? No god no judgement no correct for ones actions in ones life . Nothing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever if god exists is ominscient then there is judgement were are created for a purpose. There is joy if know it. Shame on those who trangress and they fact it is never too late to change in this life.
It is just this science explains things (both physical procees of this world and the universe). Religion tells us where we have been and where we might go. God leaves us in charge and loves us so much and does not desire people to live or die in Sin. It is just not my place whose sin is better or worse but say "all have sinned and fallen short". It is up to me to state this .
WELL,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi guess, this is "WHERE THE TWAIN (darwinism and faith) SHALL MEET!
the irreducible complexity of and in living cells denoting intelligent design places I.D. as an irrefutable part of the empirical "scientific" evidence in microbiology.
students being informed of this "truth" can continue on and attempt to falsify this conclusion with experiments of their own which may or may not reinforce it. this is acedemic freedom and good science!
BEYOND THE CLASSROOM:
who do you BELIEVE the intelligent designer to be? for what purpose was life designed?
THIS is the QUEST for TRUTH!
apart from YHWH's revelation in HIS "WORD", you will be ever learning but never coming to a full knowledge of the "TRUTH"!
Here is something to chew on. Complex things are dependent on simple things. Humans are dependent on carbon, not the other way around. Water, dirt and other simple life can exist with out us but we can't without out them. That's the observation. So if we're made of parts and are dependent on those parts, what is god made of?. If he/she/it/whatever exists it has to be made of something. So even a complex god would be dependent on the energy or simple parts that it is made of. Point being simplicity or simpleness of the universe doesn't come about from complexity. But complexity is supported by simpleness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClown Soldier, God is "non corporeal". He is a Spirit, and He is not constrained by a physical body or by time or space. Since you apparently don't know who He is, you might want to learn about Him by reading a really popular book He wrote. It's called "The Bible". You can still find it just about anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... you might want to learn about Him by reading a really popular book He wrote. It's called "The Bible" ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWOW! Religion is born from ignorance, and it's amazing just how ignorant the faithful can be, including of the origins of their religion, and their "really popular book."
By the sound of it, the only difference between the desert nomad sitting by the fire, being wowed by a tale of a burning bush, and a modern day faithful, is that the modern day guy enjoys the benefits of science, to live longer, watch mega-church sermons from the comfort of his Laz-e-Boy, and type gibberish into cyberspace. And clog up the Scientific American forums.
I guess it takes more than a couple of thousand years, for the thinking abilities of some to evolve....
hey EvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe don't even begin to approach the life spans of the ancients. life expectancies have digressed greatly from what they once were. things are deteriorating as our gene pool becomes more and more corrupted. four score years is pretty much it, even with the advantages of our medical technology.
what would WE do without our computers? even our intellects are deteriorating when compared with those of the 15th and 16th centuries. look at how polluted our language has become compared with the sophistication of the old english we used to speak.
there is even speculation that the neaderthal were more intelligent that us; due to there larger cranium and brain!
consider just being kicked out of eden and having to develop technology and figure everything out from scratch without the aid of computers and previously collected and handed down information! PURDY SMART DUDES!
"... there is even speculation that the neaderthal were more intelligent that us...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot more intelligent than most of us, only than those who believe in imaginary "gods" and primitive fairy-tales.
"This richly illustrated tome not only attacks evolution but also links Darwins theory to horrors, including fascism and even Satan himself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm assuming some of what Mr. Oktar is referring to is Darwin's self-fulfilling prophecy (in _The Descent of Man_) that the most evolved races of humans (in his mind, white Europeans) would eventually kill off those less evolved, like Arabs, Africans, Asians, et al.
Doesn't that sound even a little like Hitler? Isn't that where we get the term "Social Darwinism"?
"This richly illustrated tome not only attacks evolution but also links Darwin’s theory to horrors, including fascism and even Satan himself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm assuming some of what Mr. Oktar is referring to is Darwin's assertion (in _The Descent of Man_) that the more highly evolved races of man (i.e. white Europeans) will eventually kill off less developed races like Arabs, Africans, Asians, etc.
Doesn't that sound even a little like Hitler? Isn't that where we get the term "Social Darwinism"?
Darwin was sadly a man shaped largely by his time, despite what the scientific community's hagiographies say about him. His racial notions were far from unique among his contemporaries; he simply found ways to buttress them that seemed plausible at the time.
As despicable as Darwin's latent racism was, how can we stand idly by and consent to it? As Edmund Burke said, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
As an engineer I was taught to think logically and practically and look purely at the formulas and what they tell me. That is kind of an essential part of engineering if you want your building to stay standing. It works pretty much the same with evolution I think. Having all of that drilled into my brain has not, however, convinced me to rethink my religious beliefs. I don't think that one has much of anything to do with the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is by its very nature rooted in fact, it is what it is because research has proven it. There is no research that can prove or disprove religion. The Bible says that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. The Bible also says that Jonah was eated by a whale and survived. Seeing as how this is highly unlikely I think it is entirely possible that part of the Bible is story instead of fact. No one can prove that Jonah was actually eaten by a whale, maybe it was just a story to make his whole journey that much harder for him. Likewise, how to we know that God's 6 days are our 144 hours? 6 days to God could be a million years to us.
The point is that we will never know for sure, there is no way to prove whether Creation or Evolution is ultimately the right choice.
I see no problem in believing in God and evolution at the same time.
Creationists can choose to shun Darwin's ideas and Evolutionists can choose to shun Creation if they want but neither group can prove their position completely.
So why not believe in both?
That's why it's called faith. You simply have to believe, without the proof.
If I'm not mistaken, despite what convictions Darwin may or may not have held personally, much of the "Social Darwinism" you speak of came from others such as Herbert Spencer, who took Darwin's ball and ran with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, Darwin's work was a ready vehicle for quackery such as Eugenics and Behaviorism and a midden-heap of other shallow-minded notions that masqueraded & were accepted as "Science" at the time. Sadder still, some things haven't changed all that much since.
I think it's a good thing that Ayala accepts empirical evidence and reality despite his religious belief. Even if I don't agree his belief in god, it is better than the paradigms of other christians who are less inclined to accept scientific facts because it doesn't fit their world view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, there are many other religions in the world which are much more accepting of scientific inquiry and discovery. If it were up to the paradigms within these belief systems and the content of their holy scriptures (the ones who have them and/or use them extensively), science would *never* fit in at all. However, many people make the effort to fit science into their religious beliefs once they understand what science is and how it works.
As an immigrant, I see that many Americans christians don't and can't make this concession. It is either the literal word of their church and belief system or nothing. My observation is that this is because the American religious experience is much more strongly community based and enforced. My memories of catholicism are that it is hugely based on rites and traditions, not community terribly much narrative and consensus.
Some people find the support from a community essential to deal with their problems and life issues. However, when they agree in an ideology that is ultimately damaging and invasive to the rest of society, then it becomes our problem.
I see a great deal of confusion and misinformation posted about what Christianity in particular "believes" or "rejects", sadly by those who do not know much about it, and I see outright distortions such as what Ms/Mr EvolvingApe posts, perhaps sarcastically since even a cursory review of the Bible and a number of excellent concordances refutes most of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJonah was swallowed by "a great fish", not a whale as has been commonly misunderstood throughout history. A God Who could create the entire universe and all that is in it could certainly accomplish that minor feat, but its purpose was to foreshadow the death and resurection of Jesus Christ. The same holds for the various sacrifices called for in Hebrew law. There are types and shadows throughout the Old Testament or Torah that point to the coming Messiah. The story of Jonah's disobedience, disaster, and recovery are just one. I'll leave it at that; no sermons.
I ask again how two diametrically opposed theories, Darwin's synthetic theory of macro evolution and the completely opposite "Creation" account can BOTH be correct at the same time in the same manner. The same situation holds for those who think all religions are basically the same and all are true. Two opposing hypotheses cannot both be true at the same time in the same way. They can both be false and a third unknown hypothesis could be true, but two opposing hypotheses cannot. Darwinism and Christianity are incompatible. Of all the ways God could have created the universe and all that is in it, using random processes acting on matter producing creatures whose sole driving motivation is "survival of the fittest" is THE most inefficient and cruel possible. Satan might use that method, but God would not.
Darwin, his Theory of Evolution, speaks to the origin of species, NOT the Origin of Life itself. As far 'back' as you may go with it, there is still a brick wall that the Theory cannot pass, and does not even pretend to. It is a Theory about what happened/happens AFTER there were/are things for it to happen to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBOTH 'sides' seem to miss this repeatedly if not utterly. The one being offended in their chosen Beliefs in a Creator of some kind and wildly defending that, as the other keeps dancing around with data and assertions as if the basic question of [ultimate] Origin has in fact been answered by implication and inference, when it has not.
I constantly see unsubstantiated claims, leaps-of-faith, and more than a little closed-minded ideological zealotry on both sides of the aisle.
Presumptive, to judge the Mind and Methods of God, who is explicitly unknowable. Beyond our capacity to comprehension, and certainly beyond our 'moral' constraints.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig Medicine there, chief
EB, if we accept your assertion that "Darwin, his Theory of Evolution, speaks to the origin of species, NOT the Origin of Life itself", and recognizing that his theory of the origin of species has been soundly disproved by the fossil evidence and advances in every field of science from basic chemistry and biology to microbiology to physics to (pick a field), why is it being forced on everyone from students in school to scientists doing research as FACT, and all other explanations excluded...even criticism of Darwin's theory disallowed under threat of losing standing, funding, prestige, and livelihood?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo other theory so discredited and debunked in the history of science has been given as much life support and its own legal and academic protection from so much as a single word of criticism. What are Darwinists afraid of, the truth?
I wouldn't say that Darmin's Theory has been 'disproved' for what it is and what its worth. It's been rhetorically "swift-boated" ad nauseum, certainly. However that is not in any wise the same as actually debunking it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, I think that its been terribly used and abused, and pulled down paths that it was never meant to tread, and cannot abide for purely ideological purposes.
I tend to agree with a few of the ther posters here who have said in so many words that "Evolution" seems completely within the scope of power & Will of an Omnipotent God and I am fine with it. It would seem less likely to me, personally, that God would make a world and Life upon it in such static rigidity that a few degree change in temperature or other calamity would virtually wipe out the whole Endeavor.
To my mind, "Adam & Eve" (Or rather Adam & Lilith & then Eve) NOT looking like pale-skinned Westerners painted on a wall in the Dark Ages, or even necessarily modern homo-sapiens, is not an insurmountable challenge to my Faith.
As for schools,,, I've been having my kids ask their teachers for years where in the fossil record they may find flying reindeer, egg-laying rabbits, and supernatural imps who know the minds and deeds of every child and travel the globe in a single night bestowing rewards and inducements. Obviously to no avail.
Want to see some REAL intolerance and oppression against those who don't follow the [very much] organized, commercial, occult Belief systems allowed & taught by the State in Public Schools? Have your second-grader stand up and proclaim there is no such thing as Santa Claus...
They can make altars to and effigies of pagan deities, and can even be given assignments to compose Prayers to them. They can sing about them in school programs,,, Yet, they cannot mention or deal with the wisdom and message of a carpenter who actually lived a couple thousand years ago and changed the face of Western Culture,,, even though they CAN devote most of a month each school year to the words of a Baptist Minister who lived a few decades ago,,, Yet more, they can learn all about Peter Cottontail and "Easter" (itself being the very name of a pagan Fertility Goddess),,, but the quiite secular Brer Rabbit is now off-limits.....
Lot of Doublethink and Duckspeak in state-sponsored "Acedemia", as well as the culture-at-large,,, thats no secret.
EB, you make very good points, and you have an excellent dry wit. May I correct a misconception that is somewhat off topic but deserves clarification since you used the term "swiftboated"? I happen to know a bit about that term and members of the Naval unit who operated those boats in the Mekong Delta region of South Vietnam during the Vietnam war...and the political involvement of some 250 of them in the 2004 Presidential election. The squadron I flew with during the war gathered and passed intelligence to them and to army units...but back to my point. This is the actual definition of "Swiftboating", so your point may be more valid than you intended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwiftboating: Exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for public office who exaggerate their military service by lying about feats of heroism or combat wounds.
I would agree that "micro-evolution" within species is quite compatible with the Creation model, in fact it was demanded by God for all creation to reproduce "after its own kind" (no horizontal transitions), but "molecules to man" is not only incompatible, it is impossible, as even statisticians have proven even allowing billions more years than the most generous measure of time since the process began. Evidence shows that the Darwinian evolutionary theory fails the simplest tests and it stands in direct opposition to the Creation model, so I will have to agree to disagree with both the author of this interesting article and the principled posters who believe otherwise. Not that anyone cares (right, EvolvingApe?) nor am I trying to start a credentials food-fight, but I received my undergraduate degree in Physics in 1968, and I have studied both Darwinian evolution and Creation for more than 40 years. The theory was bogus when I first began studying it then, and it is even more bogus today.
opaobie: Ughm, I am still trying to understand how them scientists can claim that the Moon is made of rock, when it so obviously lights up at night..., just like the Bible says, God made two big lights, duh....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEB: Duh-uh, I keep telling my really smart little ones to ask in class, if the Moon is just hanging there in nothing, how come it doesn't fall to Earth, huh? It clearly says in the Bible, God set them in the firmament of the heaven, yeah. Hallelujah!
---------------------------------------------
Amazing you guys managed to spell www.sciam.com:-)
It would be hilarious, if it wasn't actually scary.
I used 'swiftboating' in the colloquial, derogatory sense, I admit. Not to conjure up spilled political milk. (Though actually having war-time experiences TO exagerate must count for more than having had,,, none whatsoever) I did not intend or utilize it as an insult upon the people involved in the particular drama that thrust the term into common usage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point was, that the [Darwinian] Theory of Evolution makes no claim of 'molecules to man' as you put it, and that concept is beyond both the reach and the grasp of the Theory. No question millions upon millions of people have extrapolated that it does, and extolled it as if it were a foregone conclusion.
Fact is, even if a Time Machine is built and it is proven that Life here came to be, and became exactly as it is, by sheer happenstance with no 'outside' intervention, absolutely nothing in the Theory of Evolution can be made to come into the picture until AFTER that point, micro or macro. We would have to radically change the very definition of "Life" to include,,, damn near anything (if not everything), in order to consider it otherwise. Not that I don't think our definition of what Life is and what is capable of it does not need to undergo a great deal of revision. To the contrary, I firmly believe that it must, and further, that it must come to include the possibility of Sentience(s) in the Cosmos far beyond "us", tiny little short-lived specks upon a tiny little short-lived speck in a tiny corner of the Universe.
To pre-suppose that "we" are the ultimate individually conscious life form and that nothing else out there could be Aware of us, does seem the more likely absurdity.
EvolvingApe- I gather you are one of the self-appointed [not so-] swiftboaters of these boards?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, we are neither bible-thumpers nor manifesto-thumpers, and do not engage in purile duckspeak of any stripe, religious, political or social. My children are well above average, and I have tried to teach them from an early age to be independent, open-minded and inquisitive, as well as fair & honest. Not to blindly accept anything, and to be vigilant against hypocrisy and injustice.
No clue where your mon example came from or what exactly you meant by it. What you teach your children privately is not so much my concern unless it violates our social compact and infringes upon the Rights of others. You can may claim to proof positive that you & they descended from muck, or you may sacrifice toilet paper totems to the spirits of the septic system in your Privacy and amongst those of like mind and Free Will.
Public School is no more your vehicle to proseletize/mainstream your personal convictions and opinions, your beliefs or disbeliefs than it is mine or anyone else's. Neither is it a place for the State to instil fundamental incongruities and its own chosen doublethink, socio-political consumerist bi-polarism. I do see harm in teaching Evolution right alongside singing about a snowman with a jolly soul, Proclaiming tolerence and personal choices in culture, belief and lifestyle, while in the same breath ignoring, undermining, diminishing, thwarting and castigating the basic tenets of the Majority of people in this country.
I personally have no problem with Evolution, as a Theory and within the confines of the Theory itself.
My problem is with it being weaponized for ideological turf-warfare, and having to deal with the unenlightened, knee-jerk reactionary drivel from the pawns on both sides.
For good measure, I will add that I have the same 'problem' with weaponized religions, philosophies, socio-political positions and economic systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Though actually having war-time experiences TO exagerate must count for more than having had,,, none whatsoever)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....not really unless you respect liars and slanders and those who steal the valor from better men who earned them...which I sincerely doubt you do. Actually, falsifying one's military record in any manner is a crime.
As I said, no real desire to re-hash spilled political milk on that. We were left with a choice between the evil of two lessers in that election, any way you cut it. Pinky and the Brain or the Ambiguously Gay Duo. As for military records, assuming everything I think you'd attribute to Kerry on that were true, it would be a pot-kettle-black exercise at best. At least he was there, in the line of fire, unlike the chickenhawks who have told many more lies, that cost many more lives, wasted more money and obfuscated & obliterated more of our Freedoms and generally done much more damage since, by any stretch of the imagination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didnt vote for either of them then, and I doubt I will join the herd to perpetuate either the Left or Right clay feet of the political duopoly this time around either, or ever will again. Its a zero-sum-gain, an exercise in futility. Paddle on the left a bit,,, paddle to the right a bit,,, the boat is still headed towards the rocks downstream, and the rats are jumping ship with all the cheese.
WOW! This thread has turned into an echo-chamber of the faith-based creationists. How strage the delusional & magical thinking 'god-squad' stalk the halls of science and reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the one hand we have unassailble Evolutionary Theory, the bedrock of the biological sciences which all evidence favors and its predictions fulfilled... the slam dunk being GENETICS. On the other, we have a cacophony of religiously-biased-bloggers who actually do no real science and publish no peer-reviewed articles... and the totally discredited pseudo-scientific Discovery Institute, which has been exposed in the Dover DE school board trial as dressing up nonsensical creationist propaganda as formerly 'irreducible complexity' and more recently, 'intelligent design'.
OKAY, those of you clinging to some unfathomable beyond the Natural Universe entity, please describe IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS, the characteristics of your god, the mechanism how it supervenes on the world about us in testable and measureable ways, and the clear evidence we have to prove your god's existence and presence.
YOU should also explain how all of the biological, fossil, geologic and genetic evidence does not clearly support evolution as 99.9% of the scientific community claims (a vast conspiracy?), but is somehow evidence of your god instead. Why did god take about 13 billion years to evolve a universe to support human life on planet earth in one nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions, each with billions of 'suns' and planets?
OH... and be sure and pray to your god about the Apollo Class asteroids whose paths cross ours. It's not "if" but when... and it won't be pretty. Don't you folks ever wonder about all previous mass-extinction events here? Do you clowns ever wonder about flightless birds, snakes with pelvic bones... functionless "eyes"... the lack of purpose of body hair in humans, the appendix, fifth toe and men with teats? Explain the Platypus!
SURE, insert your god-construct as the "first cause"... who cares? It is meaningless and either leads to an infinite regress (how did your god arise?) or is a huge target for Occam's very sharp razor.
Our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to keep church (religion) and State at a very long arms length... and the same should be true of religion and science... and religion and medicine!
Keep your personal religious musings on a short leesh... in your indoctrinated brain. Thanks.
Well stated, EB, and all the more proof that the human species is not EVOLVING into some higher life form, we are DEvolving back into apes and slime pit inhabitors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpin-oza, your assertions are so full of holes, there is no point in addressing them. You might try going back to the beginning of this topic string and finding the answers already posted that refute your assertions before repeating them over again to see if anyone will refute them again...reminds me of Ground Hog Day the movie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stand corrected. Spin-oza is the missing link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember Darwinism was perverted by the Nazis as race selection . Communisim as the state is God. For captalism social Darwinism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn religion the inquision if you draw conculsions based on faulty premises you can believe in anything.
Real science says you can believe in what you wish because God can't be put into a bottle any proven imperialy. It requirs faith . Simple belief nothing more nothing less.
God is also not a comisc Genie you rub a lamp and all is given to you. Not is God like the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where we have a box that has a direct line to God.
As a evengelic Christian you have to understand the belief that Sin can be forgiven .As I last stated that Adam & Eve sinned and caused us to be born into sin. God stated if you eat of this tree you will surly die. God is true to his word we are born spirtulay dead. It took Christs sacrifice of the cross who is the second Adam to take away the curse of sin and to make us alive. He was the second Adam and those who belive can be and are reborn.
God is there he cannot be proven but must be found by your self. What makes religion and science or any belife system wrog is when you "force" your beliefs and cease to respect other values as uplifting showing our uniqe common hertige as human.
obviously,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLamarkian and Darwinism go hand in hand. There is also social evolution, if it's not derailed by undamped capitalism.
When one looks at differential equations, the predator-prey relationship, the harmonics of a spring or pendulum......one sees _the_ MAJOR player of the metaphysics of this reality. An undamped response oscillates/reacts to nearly the same amplitude for the same time...
Damping can be an awareness response. The buddhist "being empty," points towards the obviousness of this...
I am talking "class of interaction," and general solution....specific solution can be filled in by "description of the specific problem to solve."
.
.
the evolutionary theory, isn't unassailable....it occurs to quickly to be simply natural selection...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishowever adding in Larmarkian Evolution, fills the riddle out quite nicely....god is a scientist, not an all knowing creator.
how would I know this?
well, think about it....what is everything made of?
listen closely, if you're a theologian with no knowledge of the world you exist within....you don't have a clue...
which came first the bible or the world? you don't know guess....
if the world doesn't back up the bible, guess what that means? It's BS, that 's what it means....
it's a tool to control.
which do you think is "the truth"
if you can't look at the world and see the discrepancies in your "power over," distortion of the original essene/gnostic christianity by Constantine at the council of Nicea....
to control the christians....that was the END OF CHRISTIANTY
and the beginning of the flaggelation of the masses by a fear inspired voice saying...
WE OWN GOD!!!!
sorry silly rabbits tricks are for twigs...if reality doesn't verify the bible, some made up stories of control
really don't matter.
anyone who has worked with awareness, cognitive psychology, read a little William James
knows that religion is all about control and not at all about truth. dogma is not what reality is composed of...infact one staple of biology is that CHANGE IS NECESSARY in order for life to survive.
I would love to talk to the head religious guy in public.
thanks so much.
.
.
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian evolution) is the once (nearly 200 years ago) widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). While enormously popular during the early 19th century as an explanation for the complexity observed in living systems, the relevance of soft inheritance within the scientific community dwindled following the theories of August Weismann and the formation of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisafraid of me? Naw, but the other kids in your 5th grade class might be.
ayaom-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people understand what happened as Constantine converted Christianity to Rome, what the "Cross" actually stands for, and what the Crusades were about, the gnosis obscuram from the Qaballah that found its way to the West in that and the various Societies built around it,, quite well.
There are those who understand the some of the gibberish people like John Darby have thrown into the mix in the recent past as well.
There is so much thats been added in, and so much more thats been taken away over the centuries, and so many misconceptions and mis-iunterpretations that have resulted from it.
Most of the "Literalists" I encounter can't seem to even grasp, or handle, what it actually says in the fragments of the Tradition they rely on, and the outlandish claims they make only fuel the opposition and make it easier and easier for people to reject the whole Concept.
Sad, very sad.
The Literalists, and those who believe everything there is and was meant for us to know is contained utterly in their little KJV, should pay more attention to Passages such as Jeremiah 33:3. The Book they thump refutes their position, explicitly.
Please excuse some of my glaring typos. Too bad this Board doesn't utilize a self-editing function, or a spyll chekkir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEB, how does your passage:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJeremiah 33:3 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.
refute these (and hundreds more just like them)? Not only are they not just "Bible thumping", they blend in perfect harmony, they produce an angelic symphony, and they certainly refute any notion that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible.
This passage warns of such false teachings as Darwinism, secular humanism, and a host of other dangerous ideologies.
Colossians 2:8 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
...and this one is a bit more explicit.
Hosea 4:6 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
...of course, there is still time to correct the situation.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
...and you might want to learn more about this Person. All roads DO NOT lead to Heaven.
John 14:5-7 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
EB, Mozilla actually provides a spell check function when posting in blogs. It highlights questionable words and will correct spelling if you right click on them. Another method some use is to type their post into Wordpad or another editor that has spell checker, correct the spelling, and then copy and paste into the blog. I hope no one here is nitpicking spelling and grammar. In the world of message texting, I seldom even see a capital letter, and I see poor grammar and punctuation all the time. I assume everyone is more interested in reading the content of the posts than grading them on spelling and grammar...and with no "Preview", once it is posted, WYSIWYG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces" - Malachi 2:3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------
I have it on good authority, that this is what the Lord will do to religious simpletons, who pollute science-relating forums with inane ranting, or who disrupt science classes with stupid and/or insane questions.
EvolvingApe, He meant it, too, so watch yourself and stop "polluting science-relating forums with inane ranting, or disrupting science classes with stupid and/or insane questions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a Roman Catholic, I have never had any trouble accepting any scientific finding, including evolution theory. St. Augustine of Hippo, whom the Catholic church honors as a "Doctor of the Church" wrote about the year 400 that when science and scripture conflict, scripture should yield to science. This was his conclusion when the pagans, who considered themselves supporters of science, ridiculed the Christians for accepting the account in Genesis that God created the earth in 6 days. The pagans said that this was unscientific, since every educated person knew that the earth is round, as Eratosthenes had proven. How could God have created the earth during 6 "days," when 1/2 of the world was in darkness, at night. At that time, the "day" was from 6 AM to 6 PM - dawn to sunset. The concept of a 24 hour "day" did not take hold until the Middle Ages, due to the need of the monks and nuns to pray at specific hours. Augustine agreed with the pagans, that the "days" had to be figurative, not literal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaurent, you must be thinking about a different god from the God of the universe, the "Three Persons in One" worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church. That Trinity would have no problem creating the entire universe in the blink of an eye, so dragging it out over six days to illustrate specific principles would be child's play. Which was created first, light or the sun and moon? That confuses lots of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen "science" claims that dinosaurs suddenly hatched birds one day and other dinosaurs ran along the ground faster and faster until their scales began to form feathers and eventually they developed wings and transformed into birds (with no fossil evidence ever foung of such a transition in the billions of fossils examined), should believers abandon the Creation model to accept THAT nonsense? If you think I am joking, search for "punctuated equillibrium" and some of the other hair brain evolutionary hypotheses or just do some research on evolution. No, believers AND scientists should look at evidence and then decide whether it supports whatever hypothesis they choose, not blindly accept evolution because the god they subscribe is too tiny to accomplish what the true God did.
testing - as I've found some of my earlier comments disappearing into the ether. --- gsc
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat continuingly amazes (and amuses) me about the "religionists" is how they presume to know the mind of God (or the minds of "the gods" if it's a multiplicity) - a Being they postulate as being beyond all human understanding! they know what He (She/It/They) has/have commended human beings and other animals to do and believe. They know that He (She/It/They) has/have given human beings the position of the "Master of the Universe" (i.e., everything that exists in the hierarchy below God Himself). They know that God has commanded man to sacrifice beasts or sons and daughters in praise of the Lord. They know that God has commanded man to rest on the Seventh Day. And so on and so forth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience works in a slightly different way. Observe a little. Put together the observations. Understand patterns if possible. If those patterns amount to an explanation, observe deeper, go to the next level. If those patterns do not properly explain, then try and check out the errors if any in your observations... and so on and so forth, more or less ad infinitum...
At the same time, I do agree with Francisco Ayala that 'aggressive Darwinism' (such as proclaimed by Dawkins and others) may not be the best way to get science and scientific thinking into religious heads. I personally prefer the agnostic attitude of "About God, I do know know, but I'm willing to look at your evidence - though I do warn you that I shall be sceptical about your miracles and your 'God-given' rules" to aggressive atheism that may turn off many who may be brought around to a scientific viewpoint. (I do believe a kind of relaxed, sceptical agnosticism is more properly scientific than hard atheism).
GSC
The passage in Jeremiah, points to the fact that there IS MORE. No matter if you are one who devotes your entire waking existence to study of the KJV, if you memorize every syllable and can transcribe it in your sleep, if you have heard every sermon and every interpretation, read every book written about it, had studied the History, examined the artifacts,,, if you knew everything there was to know about what it written in the KJV,,, There are not only things, but Great and Mighty things, still available to you, which you know not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat, does not in any way take from the passages you offered up, or from any other. There being so much more,,, IS very much in Harmony.
The KJV, in that wonderful English prose thanks to William Tyndale (which got him exiled for his trouble), is an interpretation of a compilation of Books spanning thousands of years from a myriad of Authors from several original languages and cultural backgrounds, that were selected by committee at the behest and under the direction of a [still-] pagan Roman Emperor (who did not personally Convert until upon his death-bed) searching for a means to control through hearts and minds what he could not keep together at the point of a sword for much longer.
Early Christians were complete pacifists who took Thou Shalt Not Kill and Turn the Other Cheek seriously, that met under the signs of the Anchor and the Fish, never under the cross which was THE symbol of terror and oppression to them, as it represented Rome's claim to the Right of infallible earthly judgment of all mankind. Just as Constantine and his predecessors saw it, just as the heads of the still living Empire sitting on Cybil's Hill have seen it since, just as it remains to this day. Much knowledge was rejected because it did not bolster the Official line, and much was hidden because it was deemed too much for the common folk to handle and too powerful to trust them with. The KJV is a product of that Legacy.
Dangerous ideologies indeed. The [modern] "Church" is replete with them, but those who reject open-mindedness and deeper understanding, who dismiss loads of valuable source material out-of-hand, who cling to their carefully groomed Images, only perpetuate and exacerbate that.
We are indeed lucky that a few passages such as the one in Jeremiah, were overlooked by the censors. There is more, and I have little doubt that on some level, you know its true.
TO: apaobie (your suggestion to Clown Soldier to read "The Bible".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've studied the Bible pretty thoroughly.
I find it to be mainly a bunch of adulterated hogwash.
GSC
Question to the self-styled evolutionists;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you manage to get your liberal minds around the continuing natural process of Human speciationapparent in the different 'races' and the eventual Divergence demanded by Darwin's Theory? Have you decided to call a halt to it now, and draw an arbitrary line-in-the-sand here?
What is your 'scientific' rationalle for declaring all of Humanity, across all the earth, shall move forward on the evolutionary tree as One, rather than in relative geographic/genetic isolation adapting to local environmental variables and exploiting local niches? Has human technology replaced the Natural Order of perpetual evolution you espouse? are we ready to take hands-on control of the genetic future of of Life on this planet? To what end?
Just wondering what the cold, hard, scientific objective perspectives on that are, free of the "correct" moral, social, cultural and political concerns.
Its a legitimate inquiry.
I use the term 'liberal',,, loosely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTO EB:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"O, what big words you use (mostly wrongly), and what big yellow teeth you have, Grandmother!" said Goldilocks.
"The first are to bludgeon you to death with, the second are to eat you up with!" snarled the wolf.
-- GSC
GSC-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice answer,
A talking wolf in an old woman's clothes from a fairy tale...
Actually, you lent support to a Model with your response, albeit a loose one. Dead center of predictability. Ad hominem, off topic, and utterly out of sync with prior assertion.
Its ok, a knee-jerk is considered a more-or-less involuntary response.
I tossed out a few tough questions to deal with, that generally exposes some deep divisions amongst those who seem to be in agreement about Evolution from the moment it ostensibly began up until yesterday. Fifteen minutes hence and beyond, becomes another matter altogether.
AS I commented earlier, this thread has taken a predictable tack... with the god-squad out to vainly attempt to undermine the edifice of Evolutionary Theory, the proverbial bedrock... the lynchpin... the organizing principle of the biological sciences worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sad. They cling to their religious beliefs and strike out like spoiled children at the inexorable searchlight of science, exposing their Wizard of Oz (bible-sky-god) as... well... irrelevant to Natural Inquiry and reality as we know it.
They are reduced to posting trite bible-verses, that they have become adept at cherry-picking and interpreting to suit their present needs. These same versus were used in the past to demonstrate that man and earth were the "center of creation" with the static, unchanging "heavens" above... or "creation" was accomplished in 6 earth days... or the earth is 6 thousand years old, etc..
Speaking of bible verses, I would encourage all who THINK they know the bible to spend a few hours web searching: 1. "bible errors" and 2. "bible atrocities".
This alone should convince any sane individual who still posseses the means to think clearly and critically that:
1. the bible was written by ignorant men with an agenda
2. it cannot be "the word" of a super-natural "all knowing" entity
3. god cannot be a moral agent
4. a god-man never roamed our planet nor was "resurrected" beyond the known Universe
5. "god" and the desparate longing for a messiah, were the creations of a historical late iron age desert tribe, the jews.... whose imaginged god clearly abandoned them and left them defeated, dispersed and tormented.
BTW, how exactly did that "Y" chomosome appear during the "virgin birth"?
HAPPY READING!
AS I commented earlier, this thread has taken a predictable tack... with the god-squad out to vainly attempt to undermine the edifice of Evolutionary Theory, the proverbial bedrock... the lynchpin... the organizing principle of the biological sciences worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow sad. They cling to their religious beliefs and strike out like spoiled children at the inexorable searchlight of science, exposing their Wizard of Oz (bible-sky-god) as... well... irrelevant to Natural Inquiry and reality as we know it.
They are reduced to posting trite bible-verses, that they have become adept at cherry-picking and interpreting to suit their present needs. These same versus were used in the past to demonstrate that man and earth were the "center of creation" with the static, unchanging "heavens" above... or "creation" was accomplished in 6 earth days... or the earth is 6 thousand years old, etc..
Speaking of bible verses, I would encourage all who THINK they know the bible to spend a few hours web searching: 1. "bible errors" and 2. "bible atrocities".
This alone should convince any sane individual who still posseses the means to think clearly and critically that:
1. the bible was written by ignorant men with an agenda
2. it cannot be "the word" of a super-natural "all knowing" entity
3. god cannot be a moral agent
4. a god-man never roamed our planet nor was "resurrected" beyond the known Universe
5. "god" and the desparate longing for a messiah, were the creations of a historical late iron age desert tribe, the jews.... whose imaginged god clearly abandoned them and left them defeated, dispersed and tormented.
BTW, how exactly did that "Y" chomosome appear during the "virgin birth"?
HAPPY READING!
Do you give equal weight to the errors and atrocities of, say, the Humanist Manifesto (which depicts itself as a religion) and the Communist Manifesto? Or, do you really face the obvious deduction in what you write, and categorize them all as very-much Human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn estimated 180,000 people a year DIE in the US alone from PREVENTABLE medical mistakes... Big pharma, bid agri, big oil, big industry, exploitation and pollution, monetization, for that matter much of what are called 'religious' atrocities can be attributed to financial inducements for the ones in Power.
So, where is the scientific animosity towards COMMERCIAL errors and atrocities? Or, does that all boil down to a matter of who butters who's bread, and who gives you sparkly new toys to play with?
MEMO TO EB:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary, supernatural claims... which would be the lemmings parroting bible nonsense... and would require extraordinary proof, which is clearly lacking, to say the very least.
Secondly, their is no "humanist manifesto" except in the warped brains of the bible-cultists, who think others must be similarly infected with dogma. Fortunately, most who are atheistic, agnostic,... Naturalists, Humanists, and skeptics did not check their rationality and critical thinking at the door (to the church of the imagined "almighty).
Thirdly, atheism is not in any way a religion. It is simply the acknowledgement that all religions described thus far do not comport with the world... the universe, as revealed by our best scientific inquirey. Being a Naturalist, both scientifically and spiritually, I humbly accept the reality afforded to me by rationality and the inter-subjectivity of scientific inquiry.
Errors and atrocities that humans make are just a reflection of our true natures, we are like all other organisms, evolved animals. Wonderfully complex... but animals nonetheless. Mental illness, maladaptive and aggresive behaviors are not "evil" in a super-natural, religious sense, but completely explainable by Natural causal, biochemical and psycho-social processes.
Religions have long sought to deny the blatant evolutionary link which disproves, beyond doubt, the bogus notion of "special creation". I once asked a fundamentalist christian what percent of our genes he thought we shared with Pan Troglodytes (er... chimps). Before answering, he said he knew evolution was false because if we evolved from apes, then apes wouldn't be here now. After I attempted to explain the very basic concepts of evolution to this home-school dolt, he finally speculated we couldn't share more than 50% of our DNA with such primitive jungle dwellers.
Imagine his surprise when I produced a copy of the relatively new research findings at that time. I'll never forget his puzzlement. I almost felt guilty, as if I had revealed to a trusting child what a wretch her father was.
Here's another thought for the faith-biased: if your god is so powerful and the bible represents "his word", then why is prayer so impotent? Isn't every doctor's office, clinic and hospital a glaring monument to the delusional nature of prayer? How many "christians" have, in moments of sheer terror and panic, have had their desparately urgent pleas to bible-god, go unanswered? Billions.
'Secondly, their is no "humanist manifesto" except in the warped brains of...'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
Actually there are several,,, the 'first' during the height of Eugenics and the state-sponsored push for ubermenschen & sterilization of 'undesirables' that infected so many "modern" nations, including the US. What year was it our headlines were complaining about Nazi Germany 'beating us at our own game' ?
I do like that tidbit about 'unguided evolution' in the latest incarnation. It goes right to the questions I posed earlier.
gs_chandy -- "I've studied the Bible pretty thoroughly. I find it to be mainly a bunch of adulterated hogwash."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...having read your posts, I'm not surprised. You might try opening it the next you "study it".
EB -- I did not mean to imply that the Bible (any translation) is "all there is". Quite the contrary is true, as you so eloquently reminded us. Sadly, unless one knows what God and His prophets have already said, placing one's ear to the ground or cupping a hand around it and aiming it at the stars will be an exercise in futility, as the Darwinists are finding out. As Thomas Aquinas put it, "Natural Theology (the study of Nature and all that is around us) clearly points to a Supreme Designer and Creator and is sufficient to convince even the most obstinate doubter, but it is incomplete in knowing Who that Supreme Being is. Natural Theology provides the proof of Creation, but it does not sufficiently reveal the true depth and identity of the Creator. That must be learned through a personal relationship with Him."
EB:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCONVENIENTLY, you cannot address of rebut 95% of what I have posted. But back to your obsession with some alleged global, conspiratorial Huamnist Mainfesto introduced in the 1930's... and your conflating it with "errors and atrocities", especially on the massive scale of those genocidal acts in the bible... and those carried out in various god's names for various religions hence.
The Inquisitions alone are perhaps the most heinous acts ever committed by the human species... and they were done expressly for religion's sake... not to mention the utter extermination of the Cathars under Pope "Innocent " (how ironic, eh?) and wars too numerous to mention by religious faction, continuing to this day.
The point I was making is that there is no POLITICAL vehicle to implement a 'humanist manifesto' and even if there were, there is nothing threatening in the Tenets proposed... unless Enlightment and Reason scare you.
Here's the closing from the original, published in 1933:
"FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: There were 34 signers of this document, including Anton J. Carlson, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Charles Francis Potter, Curtis W. Reese, and Edwin H. Wilson.]"
WOW, EB... scary huh? And 34 signers... quite a powerful movement, eh?
Oh, and you mentioned Nazi Germany I recall: "GOTT MIT UNS"!
Next.
Spin-oza, the total number of cases processed by the Inquisition throughout its entire history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560-1700--about 2%--the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Arguably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompare that to the number of people murdered in Chicago annually and extrapolate that for four decades,....better yet, compare that number to the hundreds of millions of people killed by Darwinist devotees in Communist and Socialist and Fascist and other Atheist regimes, and their numbers dwarf your attempt to paint even the most despicible acts in all of recorded history of so-called "Christians" (not acting in accordance with Christ's commands by any stretch of the imagination). Pol Pot killed over 3,000,000 Cambodians. Once more your argument is laughable and immature. Why are you so intent on slandering Christianity instead of trying to learn about it so you can at least be intellectually honest with your points? Are you an adult or a child?...seriously. If you lack the wisdom that comes with age and education, that's understandable and can be corrected over time as you grow up. If you are an adult and really believe the nonsense you post,.....
My my... OB1Canobie is soooo predictibable in his simplistic, confused and ever so worn out lame allegations, which demonstrate a total lack of understanding of 1. the definition of atheist and 2. marxist-communist regimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, none of this gets around the Gorilla in your pew... the fact that atrocities have and continue to be committed wholesale, in the name of god and religion.
First of all Stalin, Pol Pot and any other leaders of that ilk you wish to mention were clearly NOT motivated in any political sense by a lack of belief in a supernatural entity. Repeat this slowly... until you understand it: atheism is NOT a religion... again... again... again... good!
Atheism is simply the obvious conclusion of fact and reason that denies a supernatural entity somehow supervening, by an unknown means, in the Universe, naturalized by scientific observation.
Yes obiedoobie, they both wore uniforms... but I doubt that had anything to do with their repressive regimes, eh? Further, Pol Pot was Buddhist as I recall and Stalin attended seminary for several years!!!! Their power was the result of forces having absolutely nothing to do with an atheistic ontological view... but ideology completely foreign to secular humanists.
Communism and "collectiveism" has much more in common with religious fundamentalism, to say the very least.
Speaking of communism, the tenets of christianity.... especially early christianity versus the mega-church buffoonery of american televangelical excesses, easily translates into such dogmatic principles. The alleged jesus-god-man was an itinerant, ascetic, apocalyptic preacher of very limited education with utter disdain for personal wealth.
BTW, when was it again that jesus boldly proclaimed the triumphant "kingdom of god" would be established with his lordship at the helm??? During the lifetime on his alleged disciples???? What??? When???? Just how many times have deluded christians predicted the "end of the world".... dozens????
The fact of the matter is that educated, atheistic men and women were a threat to Pot, Stalin... and Hitler, and if they did not betray their principles and fawn over the Cult of Personaltiy in power, they would have been fodder for the firing-squad like any one else.
Glad you didn't mention the Aryan Christian Hitler... along with his decidedly Catholic Inner Cirlce of henchmen... and the overwhelmingly German Christian Nation. Like Stalin, Hitler entertained PRIESTLY aspirations. Jew hating was perfected by Martin Luther.
Sheesh!
A few more examples for the historically challenged, like OPIEdupie, with citations:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeneral Religious Mayhem:
From Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897)
7,000,000 during the Saracen slaughters in Spain.
2,000,000 Saxons and Scandinavians lost their lives opposing the introduction of Christianity.
1,000,000 in the Holy Wars against the Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and Huguenots.
Witch Hunts (1400-1800)
Wertham: 20,000
Jenny Gibbons [http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/fmuntean/POM5a1.html] cites:
Levack: 60,000
Hutton: 40,000
Barstow: 100,000, "but her reasoning was flawed" (i.e. too high.)
Davies, Norman, Europe A History: 50,000
Rummel: 100,000
Bethancourt: The Killings of Witches, lists 628 named and 268,331 unnamed witches killed as of Dec. 2000, and estimates that between 20,000 and 500,000 people were killed as witches. [http://www.illusions.com/burning/burnwitc.htm?]
M. D. Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual (1897): 9,000,000 burned for witchcraft.
5 Jan. 1999 Deutsche Presse-Agentur: review of Wolfgang Behringer's Hexen: Glaube - Verfolgung - Vermarktung:
estimates cited favorably
Thomas Brady: 40-50,000
Merry Wiesner: 50-100,000
Behringer, at lowest: 30,000
estimates cited unfavorably
Gottfried Christian Voigt (1740-1791) extrapolated from his section of Germany to calculate 9,442,994 witches killed throughout Europe. From this came the common estimate of 9M.
Mathilde Ludendorff (1877-1966): 9M
Friederike Mueller-Reimerdes (1935): 9-10M
Erika Wisselinck: 6-13 Million
MEDIAN: Of the 15 estimate listed here, the median is 100,000. If we limit it to just the ten estimates that are cited favorably, the median falls between 50,000 and 60,000.
Hmmm.... seems liked you missed a few, eh Opine. Remember OpieDoo, there were fewer people for the church to slaughter and repress "back then" with less efficient means to kill... "thank god"!
THE organized church has always excelled at one thing: POWER... and they have been ruthless to acquire and hold it... in the name o' god.
OH... and regarding OPIEdoole's towing the church's party-line on deaths during the Spanish Inquisition alone... he/she is once again, predictably off the mark:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490. An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
PGtH: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedländer)
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
Britannica: 2,000
Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 35,534 burned.
Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 32,000 burned
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 32,000 k. by burning; 20,226 k. before 1540
Wertham: 250,000
Rummel: 350,000 deaths overall.
MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torq.; 32,000 all told.
Punished by all means, not death.
Fox: 309,000
P. Johnson: 341,000
Motley: 114,401
OOPs Opie... missed a few more.
Would you next like to try the slaughter of the Albingensians, the Crusades or The Thirty Years War?
Perhaps the tincture o' time... aging and wisdom, will correct your warped perspective and deprogramming will remove the meme-virus o' the supernatural infecting your blantantly apologistic brain. (May Allah guide Opie's way toward enlightenment.... heh, heh.)
HAPPY LIVING in the LAND OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE... balancing religion with reality.
Spin-oza, I don't know why anyone even bothers to respond to your childish gibberish, but your citations are all speculative "estimates" and wild exagerations, and ALL of those totals have been challenged by experts who actually researched the facts. Most laughable is your link to the "witchcraft, illusions, card tricks, and magic tricks" site. Copy and paste it into your browser, and it redirects to the main page containing links to the list of topics I just cited. The numbers I cited have been validated and are accepted by historians worldwide, even contrarians, who have researched the entire period from the so called "Dark Ages" to the present. Multiply it by a factor of 100, and it still pales in comparison to the numbers generated by Atheists following Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideology. Hitler and the other despots you keep painting as "Christians" were anything but Christians during their lifetimes; hower, all of them became believers in God a nanosecond after they died and stood face to face with Him, preparing for their final judgment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease try to be intellectually honest, and please try to stick to the topic, which is the debate concerning the compatibility (or lack thereof) between Darwinism and Christianity.
Spin-oza
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bulk of what you say is not worth responding to.
Its like me matter-of-factly stating "Scientists cause cancer in laboratory animals."
Something valuable is lost betwixt 'correct' and 'true' that leaves it being entirely neither.
Now, if you wanted to give some statistics on how many people have been exploited, oppressed, murdered, starved, tortured, and generally dis-abused IN THE NAME OF POWER AND PROFIT,,,, that would be great, as it would end up including a lot (if not all) of what you lay at the feet of religion.
That people can and will corrupt and abuse any system, be it religious, economic, political, legal, acedemic, etc, for their own purposes, is beyond refute. They always have, and yes, nothing there has changed, and they always will. Just as they will always come up with some sort of justification, something to blame it on.
Religion doesnt kill people, people kill people. Any "Humanist" would not only know that, but accept it.
I think the assertion that "evolution has no need of religion" is probably false and certainly misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot depends on the definition of religion, but since this board is about Christianity and its theistic concept of religion, it would be better to say something like "evolution has no need of God." (I point out that science is sometimes compared to a religion, in that certain things, such as the dependability of objective observation or of the general validity of the human reasoning process, are largely of a faith nature--"faith" = "trust").
If one limits oneself to whether or not evolution needs a God, as opposed to whether or not evolution needs religion, the evidence seems against the idea, but we cannot, at least with our present level of knowledge, say assuredly that it does not. Who knows--unlikely as it seems, it may be that one day it will become clear that a divine intervention somewhere in the process was necessary to produce a necessary or desired result.
Comparing the evils of religious wars to the evils of political wars is rather pointless. They are both bad. That modern people are able to kill larger numbers only reflects greater population and advanced technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know that it is fair to denounce religion because some religions do bad things, especially when badness itself is a subjective conclusion.
Science is simply another narrative we create to describe reality, no more (or less) true than any other. Or that's what some nut tried to teach me in college. Still, when I get sick, I go to an MD. And similarly when I experience spiritual longing, I turn to those who work in long traditions that have been proven over time -- for me, the Christian tradition -- as well as to those inspirational figures who seem to be filled with holiness: my grandmother, certain people I've met at church or elsewhere, and the great saints over the centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has not, will not, and cannot stifle the spiritual longing that all of us feel. Science tells us about the created order of the world; but it does not answer questions beyond that (like why the study of science is worth pursuing).
Professor Francisco J. Ayala prefers seating on the fence than finding advocacy for lifes real design. Here, Professor Ayala in terms of Life and Living, the core component of Evolution, can only find a multiple choice solution, though Evolution can only be one thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Lifes Responsive Design
773-933-9275
Professor Ayala’s inference that nature is poorly design is quite mistaken, showing his own misunderstanding or lack of understanding for life and living and how and why it works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, life fronts its protocol form follows function where the main function is fueling under a pleasure/reward principle in a fuel tank mentality at all levels of cellular life. Life can only add
Darwin solved nothing. In fact, Darwin is quite clueless.
As Darwinian Evolutionists, Ayala finds Natural Selection a typical cliché for everything, saying nothing.
Here, the Darwinian Evolutionists will have a crash landing in their continual effort to support Natural Selection, and other questionable ideas like common ancestral issues like common ancestors versus the immediate predecessor.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life”s Responsive Design
Professor Ayala raises the stake on how Religion and Science can possibly co-exist, when science can show Life and its existence by other causes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, Evolution and diversity of species is an unmitigated fact.
Religion and the idea God has been created out of man”s own insecurity of who is and what is, hybrid Pan Chimpanzee. It is the most effective Strategic of Life (SOL) in its specie Specific Environmental Evolvement (SEE), how species sees and responds to reality.
The problem with the Darwinian Evolutionists they cannot get beyond 1859, the Origin of Species, and 1871, The Descent of Man. They are stuck in the 19th Century.
The Creationists have no case, other than their own ignorance.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
Edward Humes, Monkey Girl, is quite correct in hoping the combatants be armed with facts concerning Evolution, and not fiction. His portrayal of the players is right on the money, even to his conclusion, “facts have nothing to do with it.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntitled, The Great Debate, between the Intelligent Design and the Existence of God, where respective camps are basically one and same is to be staged in Forth Worth, Texas, maybe the next battle ground fight.
The events of November 7 and 8 should be looked upon with a skeptical eye of concern.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
In a sense, we're all atheists. The difference is that atheists believe in one less god than do believers. If believers will search their minds for the reasons they don't believe in all those thousands of other gods, they'll understand why we atheists don't believe in theirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism and evolution are incompatible because the irrational and rational are incompatible. If you're looking at the universe through a scientific lens using the valid logic and scientific method, you're not going to see god in that viewing window. And why would you want to?
In a sense, we're all atheists. The difference is that atheists believe in one less god than do believers. If believers will search their minds for the reasons they don't believe in all those thousands of other gods, they'll understand why we atheists don't believe in theirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism and evolution are incompatible because the irrational and rational are incompatible. If you're looking at the universe through a scientific lens using valid logic and scientific method, you're not going to see god in that viewing window. And why would you want to?
he evolutionary theory, isn't unassailable....it occurs too quickly to be simply natural selection...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishowever adding in Larmarkian Evolution, fills the riddle out quite nicely, however the information of "what has happened," is propagated I don't care what you call it, scholars are as useless as tits on a boar hog when it comes to reality...they deal in others work, not in reality....god is a scientist, not an all knowing creator...
how would I know this?
well, think about it....what is everything made of?
listen closely, if you're a theologian with no knowledge of the world you exist within....you don't have a clue...
which came first the bible or the world? you don't know guess....
if the world doesn't back up the bible, guess what that means? It's BS, that 's what it means....
it's a tool to control.
which do you think is "the truth"
if you can't look at the world and see the discrepancies in your "power over," distortion of the original essene/gnostic christianity by Constantine at the council of Nicea....
to control the christians....that was the END OF CHRISTIANTY
and the beginning of the flaggelation of the masses by a fear inspired voice saying...
WE OWN GOD!!!!
sorry silly rabbits tricks are for twigs...if reality doesn't verify the bible, some made up stories of control
really don't matter.
anyone who has worked with awareness, cognitive psychology, read a little William James
knows that religion is all about control and not at all about truth. dogma is not what reality is composed of...infact one staple of biology is that CHANGE IS NECESSARY in order for life to survive.
I would love to talk to the head religious guy in public.
thanks so much.
.
.
Blogs that dare to question the existence of god should have a psychotherapist in the wings, as the topic seems to push the loony button of the unhinged. Could rabies shots be made available online?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Loony button of the unhinged." LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, it's true, and unfortunately, there are a lot of them. 82% of Americans believe in God, which is right up there with the most illiterate regions of the Third World.
Only 42% of Americans believe in evolution, while 41% believe in ghosts.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=838
To boot, American religiosity appears to be on the increase. In this respect, we have a lot more in common with Nigeria, than with the Netherlands.
We are all influenced by beliefs . Even scientists but if you are studing the world you do based om imperical evidence. That whicih is proven "QED".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor Religion it is faith belief nothing more nothing less . All people have faith we belive the sun will raise in the east don't we? But as a scientist you take the local time when the sun comes up compare it withsome one hundres thousand of miles away . Then you build on the evidence of when the sun comes up at relieable time and you discove the world is round you then disconver there is a inclination of the earth and is responsible for seasons. After a while you build space ships and see the sunset from orbit and see sunrises every 45 minuties. If you are even more lucky you might eaven see the earth fro mthe moon and see sun rise and sunset fro ma creasent earth.
As far as religion goes it is all parts of god's creation perfect in form and function. By the grace of god.
It is man who fights man and is imperfect .
For those who wish to see the depressing effects of religion in the US, compared with other developed (and some not all that developed) countries, take a look at this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://richarddawkins.net/article,706,Public-Acceptance-of-Evolution,Science-Magazine-Jon-D-Miller-Eugenie-C-Scott-Shinji-Okamoto
Not sure why.... Either the mentally-challenged in the US are engaging in rapid procreation and sicking the resulting army of dimwitted offsprings to disrupt science classes, so nobody else can learn, or George W. is a really effective role model.
Either way, it makes me want to cry.
I usually self-identify as an "atheist," although I also think I am a religious ("spiritual") type. My atheism comes from the fact that I don't think "God" exists, nor any ill-defined "Tao." My religion comes from the fact that I nevertheless think materialism (better, "physicalism") is inadequate for the phenomena of sentience (let alone the more "advanced" phenomena of consciousness and sapience).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow and when sentience (the experience of existence rather than life by reflexive hard-wiring) evolved is to me the most important unresolved--and, in fact, generally unaddressed--problem out there. Obviously it would be associated with the evolution of instincts directed by desire and other emotions rather than more "primitive" reflexive mechanisms, and I think probably serotonin pathways would be a good clue.
However, this is problematic to me, since an association between chemical pathways in the brain and our experiences does not even begin to explain the nature of the experience. Recourse to natural selection tapping into some non-physical aspect of existence seems arbitrary and perhaps a form of the God-of-the-gaps, but also seems unavoidable.
I wouldn't mind hearing from someone informed on the subject about these issues: particularly someone who thinks there is good reason to think that physicalist mechanisms are adequate to "explain" the experiences we have of existence, of sensations and emotions.
Your mind appears to me to be too closed to religious ways of thinking for you to even begin to appreciate the nature of what is going on. Rather than reacting emotionally to people believing in ways alien to your thinking, I think you would be more effective if you tried to understand, and understanding requires a more open mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThistlin, I think you are wasting your time. Look at the way Richard Dawkins, the "High Priest" of Evolution sloppily tries to prove his case. He had two hours of prime-time television on the UK's Channel 4 network in January 2006. In these programs (entitled The Root of All Evil?), Dawkins sought to persuade his audience of the importance of his case -- that not only should his audience not believe in God, but they should actively oppose any form of religion. Writing in The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper not noted for its support of creationists, Madeleine Bunting described the documentaries as "intellectually lazy polemic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the publication of his new book, "The God Delusion", we now have an expanded version of his atheist manifesto. One would have hoped that he would have taken the opportunity to present a more intellectually rigorous case. Indeed, some may have been afraid of opening the book, in case the sheer weight of evidence might have destroyed their faith. Most people were looking forward to encountering an intellectual challenge -- but sadly they were to be disappointed. The book suffers from the same intellectual laziness as the television programs.
Dawkins' arguments, far from having intellectual clout, mostly fall back on, "The argument will be so familiar, I needn't document it further." Dawkins' paucity of argument is best illustrated by his ignorance of Scripture and by his faulty logic. An important element in the use of logic is to recognize logical fallacies. Dawkins has committed several of these in his writings, most recently his very poorly written "The God Delusion". He is almost insulting and childish in his use of "Circular Reasoning". As you know, this fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish to prove. Look at this example from his book:
"Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it." (p. 31)
The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in order to prove that evolution is true rather than intelligent design: "creative intelligences, being evolved -- ." It is Dawkins' presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an idea not supported by, for example, information science.
So far, I have found nothing in evolutionary science to validate in any way the notion "that physicalist mechanisms are adequate to "explain" the experiences we have of existence, of sensations and emotions." Creation does a fine job of explaining h
Faith does indeed seem to be an element in most religion, but I don't think it is all religion is, nor even that it is a necessary element in religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey thought Neitszche had 'killed god' at one time, but I guess turning out to be a bovine, sister-lusting lunatic that heavily inspired the [National Socialist-] Nazis, added a wee bit too much stank to his stench.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can imagine a Room X, behind the doors of Blackburn College’s new Mahan Lab, a group of students along with several TAs under the guidance of their biology professor sifting through data, and out-of-the-box thinking to solve the secrets of Life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheir research is focusing on the permeable cellular wall.
Here, the protocol of life, form follows function resides, maintaining shape along with providing the functionality of the cell.
Life’s chemistry is simple, you have oxygen which is a fixed given, you have water representing life’s initial fuel tank, and not least your have carbohydrates, the eating of food, picking up the carbon for the carbon dioxide that is exhaled.
Oxidation is producing the ATP, the energy needed for life’s maintenance.
Another group of students is looking at Strategies of Life (SOLs), the collective will and success of species against basic needs, minimizing risks and dangers, formulating the species Specific Environmental Evolvement (SEE), how species sees and responds to reality.
Another group of students monitoring what is being said in the world at large, what confrontations need to be handled against the same old dogmas of the world.
Each day is more exciting than the previous; finding greater insights and dramas of life for each of the students are awe struck, the consistency of cause and effect.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
There is no reason why a person who believes that Jesus existed should not believe in God. (Translators of the Bible are unsure whether Jesus rose up to heaven on a cloud or disappeared into the multitude of the crowd). So it is possible to be an admittedly unorthodox Christian and accept the proven Facts of evolution. This is of course not being the same as a Christian Scientist..., but poses no problem to humanistic philosophy generally adopted by scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you that the approach of people like Dawkins, who, from my perspective, rely more on the authority of science than on actual argument, and who engage more in sarcasm and ridicule than in positive discussion, are ineffective and off-putting. Still, I also think that evolutionary theory is an accurate description of how life on the Earth developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say something like, "So far, I have found nothing in evolutionary science to validate in any way the notion "that physicalist mechanisms are adequate to "explain" the experiences we have of existence, of sensations and emotions." Creation does a fine job of explaining [this]."
That physicalism does not explain sensate experience was my point, not the evolution fails. That natural selection in its blind way would land upon such a phenomenon, if it is real, seems a natural. Using desire and other emotions to motivate compliance with genetic instruction (instinct) seems far more flexible and adaptive than using hard-wired reflex. Where this is possible, then, we would expect natural selection to use it.
I am not sure that we can say that creationist views would succeed here any better, if as well, as evolution. All a creationist can say is that God made us that way. This provides no particular explanation--no insight--no help--in what sensate experience might really be.
So I end up in a Limbo between religious thinking (that physicalism is inadequate and that something spiritual or mystical is real) and atheism (since I see no reason to posit the existence of God).
When a geneticist sees God in Homeobox motif versus functionality of the gene identifier and expressional qualifier is pushing reasonability to its very limits, inserting God’s hand against life’s own ability to do. We are dazzle by such magic of our Professor. He sees what he wants to see!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf fueling is the major function of life, then the very first gene of our organic layout for instance in the Fruit Fly should represent the case in point as it does, representing the mandibles. The last is wasting, the anus. Here, the Homeobox motif doesn’t disappoint us in our observable facts.
Change can be had over time, but life’s target is being persuasively stable as life’s fronts, looking upon the world at large. The stability is obtain through replication, nurturing, and established way for all by the population at large in doing and acting, where identified fueling is to be had and dangers to be avoided.
Professor Ayala is right to indicate the teaching of Evolution is to heat up. The topic is the hottest subject around. Everybody is getting on the bandwagon, taking up there particular side on the issue.
It is shown by this blog by Scientific American and by the number of responses. The spectrum of argumentation is from left to right, and of course there are those in the middle, hoping it would all disappear and we can get back to Life and Living.
Dangerous Ideas are those that impair reality and its truth against the laws of the universe. Here, the idea of God on the one side, and Evolution through Natural Selection on the other. Both are flawed, where reality is much more dynamic.
The creationists try to escape reality and truth through propaganda and brainwashing. The Darwinian Evolutionists can only find an impossibility of life against its design.
Both provide the personal impairment of man and his place in nature.
Roy D. Schickedanz
Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design
I have always suspected that Christians who have trouble with evolutionary theory are using the Bible's mythic story of creation as an excuse for deeper misgivings. Evolution demonstrates the seemingly obvious but Christian-denied fact that human beings are animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the Christian a human being is a special creation, even one specifically given dominion over all the other animals. To Buddhists and others of Eastern religions, there is no such distinction, and the sensate and conscious and even intelligent nature of many animals is readily accepted. Hence these non-Christian religions have no particular problem.
If one of the central concepts of a religious tradition is that there is a qualitative difference between mankind and animals, then there will be a natural tendency to want to reject thinking that asserts the difference is only quantitative. Religions that have no such kernel are not going to have such a problem.
it is the emotionally challenged, that are sticking with an "Angwy Gawd"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet's face it, when the early christians started finding gawd within them, the Romans needed something to get them to listen up.
Constantine, is John McCain....finding that owning the "label" gives him the ability to "change the product,"
Roman CONTROL, is what is behind the dogmatism of the Rcc
with priests as toll booth agents of the Roman Empire.....the intent remains the same.
.even if the televangelists look pretty.
.money is the game.
pretty good writing, thatguy...as well as highly functioning thoughtforms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisopaobie seems to be all reference, or appeal to authority and no thought processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.at least that's my observation.
.
Funny, how the same Intelligent Design drivel comes across a number of semi-literate posts, each under a different moniker, but each hitting the most predictable, Topeka-spawned, idiotic, talking points....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see..., these posts invariably go something like this: "I consider myself an "atheist," or "I am a biology grad student," or "I am an accomplished scientist who rubs shoulders with Nobel laureates," and I kind of admit that the universe must be a bit older than 6,000 years --- BUT, I don't understand how my puny brain works, or what this DNA stuff is, and therefore the only logical to me (LOL) conclusion must be, that there is THE LORD lurking "in the gaps." So I set up a faux argument, where I place the obviously nutty Creationists are at one extreme, and the real scientific community at the other extreme, while I and my puny "Intelligently Designed" brain, sit smugly in the middle, and demand "open-mindedness" for the only "reasonable" alternative - ID."
Phew!
I dunno for sure if you aimed any of that at me, but I can assure you I post under only one identity, that I am an atheist (in the sense that I don't think there is any God), and I know no Noble Laureates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther than your letting off steam, your message seems to me to have been little better informed than those of the most fundamentalist Christians, and every bit as close-minded. I come from a Buddhist tradition, so the wonder of experiential existence is part of the culture. That Western philosophers and scientists seem largely unaware of the issue (to my knowledge, and except for some who have recognized something similar under the name of "qualia"--without seeming to realize that this expresses hoary Asian ideas).
It has always seemed to me reasonable that the phenomena that we call sentience--the "qualia" I spoke of--the arising of sensation and emotion (two forms of the same thing) serves natural selection well, and that the desire and suffering when desire is frustrated that we experience would serve natural selection in enforcing selectively favorable behavior.
However, that would only explain the presence of sensate phenomena in living beings, not where it comes from nor what its real nature might be. I don't offer an answer either--and my tradition has always refused to sponsor speculation on the subject--except to point out that it seems fundamental.
Thistlin: "...However, that would only explain the presence of sensate phenomena in living beings, not where it comes from nor what its real nature might be. ... my tradition has always refused to sponsor speculation on the subject--except to point out that it seems fundamental."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------------
I am not as knowledgeable about the tenets of your religion, as I am about the Abrahamic strains. But you are essentially "deifying" complex cognitive processes, about which researchers have learned a lot during the last few decades, with much more to be learned in the future. Ascribing some sort of supra-physical qualities to any gaps of current knowledge, is akin to a primitive ascribing a solar eclipse to an angered spirit.
Your claim of "God in the gaps," is as firmly based on lack of, or limited, understanding of something (in your case, "sensate phenomena,") as is the ID claim of "specified complexity." Slightly different spin on the same idiotic on its face argument.
Demanding "open-mindedness" with regard to this drivel is the same as demanding open-mindedness with regard to existence of Santa Claus - just not as cute.
eco-steve -- (Translators of the Bible are unsure whether Jesus rose up to heaven on a cloud or disappeared into the multitude of the crowd). ???????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName one legitimate Bible translator who believes that...Richard Dawkins doesn't count.
"So it is possible to be an admittedly unorthodox Christian and accept the ---> proven <----??? Facts of evolution." (emphasis mine)
PROVEN? Cite some proof. Oh, I forgot, EvolvingApe has been identified as the "missing link". Look up "logical fallicies", in particular Circular Reason...or just scroll back and read what I said about Dawkins clumbsy attempt at the same sleight of hand.
======
Thistlin -- "Still, I also think that evolutionary theory is an accurate description of how life on the Earth developed."
How can that be when, as has been hammered home in this topic string, Darwin himself did not make any assertions about that subject? He came in after the first intermission, having missed the part about where life first originated, and began to postulate how one existing species magically produced an entirely different one (not realizing that his error could be easily detected by comparing DNA of the various species a century and a half later).
"All a creationist can say is that God made us that way"
Are you serious? The evidence of design permeates everything in existence. Much of the design can be examined and analyzed using every known scientific method you wish to apply from the tiniest object so far discovered to the largest of stars and every living creature known -- and all to the Nth degree. If evidence doesn't convince you, I doubt anything will. Do you contend that "well, it just happened totally without design or purpose or guidance employing Brownian motion and somehow figuring out along the way it needed to develop something called 'survival of the fittest' yet all in the absense of any intelligence or 'reasoning' processes" is a more plausible explanation than CONSIDEING that some unknown intelligent force had a hand in it? Since we are using Kindergarten logic, if man evolved from Apes, why do we still have Apes?
===============
afraid of me? -- opaobie seems to be all reference, or appeal to authority and no thought processes..at least that's my observation.
Having read your posts, I'm not surprised you don't recognize "thought processes". Be thankful I cite irrefutable authorities recognized worldwide to lend credence to my posts instead of citing my own published works, or you would REALLY cry foul. When you get to Middle School, the librarian may even allow you to check some of them out...if you promise not to let your dog eat them along with your homework....OK, I apologize...I love dogs.
opaobie: "... The evidence of design permeates everything in existence...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------------
What, everything in your trailer, including the tube where you get your information about the world every Sunday morning?
Is this where you got "...if man evolved from Apes, why do we still have Apes?" Now you got not only Dawkins, but the whole scientific community stumped.... :-)))
EvolvingApe, there may be hope for you yet. At least you are starting to develop a sense of humor and not just throwing primordial slime against the wall to see if any of it sticks...and at least it's MY trailer...are you still living in your parent's basement? :)>>>>>>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisopaobie, it's funny to hear a devout Creationist use the term "primordial slime."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do know that it is generally use to describe stuff like cyanobacteria, which just about 3 billion years ago was the pinnacle of evolution on our planet. So, technically, you are descendant of such "primordial slime."
Unless, of course, by "primordial slime" you mean the mud your imaginary deity supposedly made you less than 7,000 years ago. Or was it from a blood-clot (oops, this is another cult:-)
EvolvingApe, yes I know what it is. I used it as a play on words specifically for your benefit. If you will be honest about it, you don't really believe life "spontaneously evolved" -- not from primordial slime or from the hand of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's been fun. I think we have run the string on fresh ideas. Best to all.....
People would be more accomodating if they realize that any event can be grasped from many different viewpoints (frames of reference). It would be a person with a very superficial worldview who would argue that his way of looking at the universe is more real than that of Salvador Dali.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen looking at Dali's painting from the scientists view point we would be perfectly justified in considering it to be a polymer of glucose covered by dabs of chemicals reflecting lights of varying frequencies but from an Dali's viewpoint it would be equally realistic to view it as a real representation of the universe.
Plato had very wisely explained our predicament as that of persons chained to the ground in a dark cave who can only guess of the nature of things from their shadows falling on the walls of the cave.
A fundamental tenet of Islam is that whatever a person thinks of as God is "not God". God can only be conceived by negation.The shadows thrown on the walls of Platos cave are not real but are not separate from reality either.
If we realize that reality can be grasped in many different ways we will be more tolerant and not insist that Salvador Dali should see a watch in the same way as a watchmaker .
[Quote]Demanding "open-mindedness" with regard to this drivel is the same as demanding open-mindedness with regard to existence of Santa Claus - just not as cute.[Close quote]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour words (quoted above) are an admission of closed-mindedness and nonobjective arrogance. It is hard for me, seeing the use of such unscientific and emotional language, to respond seriously.
You quite misunderstood my reference to the God of the gaps. The point is that I am aware of the possibility that I am merely replacing one just-so story (God did it) with another (some mysterious force did it). It is perhaps something you should consider that you do something very much the same--electro-mechanical-chemical forces did it). The fact is that at the present level of our knowledge, none of these ideas can really be tested.
We can, however, look at the subject from a philosophical, reasoning, perspective. The experience of sentience is something that I find many people of my acquaintance just seem unable to recognize--they are surrounded by trees and cannot see them, (although I must admit that I too could not see them until long sessions with people more advanced than I caused understanding to finally arrive).
We can build machines that "see" in the sense that they detect and respond according to their program to external objects. However, when a sentient being "sees," it experiences a world that it invents--the key word is not "invents," but "experiences."
We "feel" pain--we do not feel "there is something damaging our body tissues." It is what we call a sensation, in the case of pain linked in our brains to negative emotions. This sort of thing, from a philosophical perspective, is not "explainable" through the interaction of chemicals--even though one does not doubt that chemicals are what are involved at the physical level.
Don't assume people you have not met are ignorant of modern progress on the subject. It may be that their knowledge goes further than yours and you only broadcast your own personal ignorance. There is at present a lively debate among those really informed on this subject on this very topic (that is to say, the matter is not nearly as resolved in scientific circles as you seem to think, and this in spite of the natural and inculcated--through education--bias in science against non-physical approaches).
I really wish the input box we have for preparing messages could be enlarged. I have difficulty editing what I want to post.
If there is random selection, how come there are invariant among animal kingdoms. This creates a hole in the evolutionary theory. Invariants among all species is a sign for intelligence in the system. After all, random mutations without some order would result in chaos in the system; and that is not adaptive in the survival theory of evolution. There are adaptive significances that resemble chaos. But then again that has order too. Consider the rhythmic movement shared among all species. That rhythmic movement can serve a random search behavior and yet the invariant lies in the rhythmicity shared among all species! The stock market may go into Chaos at Brazil and yet share holders may still keep them.. By Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to wonder what you mean by "invariants." Certainly if something works well, then natural selection has no reason to select for something different. Even if something doesn't work really well, natural selection can do nothing about it unless something different appears (mutations cannot be called up on demand).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a stable environment, a large population would be expected to change little. The species is successful and there are a large number of interbreeding members, so that even random change tends to get swamped by the large numbers. Real change would come when there is selective stress, reducing population and creating a "receptive" environment for any changes that appear.
Thistlin: one can test one's theory involving physical forces. One makes predictions based upon it, if these pen out, then one is onto something real. Not at all like believing in Santa Claus, or God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to your "experiencing" argument - I kind of generally agree with your description of how a centient being interacts with the "world," and I am aware of stuff like the Mary arguments (which are not exactly seriously debated in scientific circles, IMO,) and this is why I responded, that you are deifying cognitive processes of relatively great complexity.
But most living things exhibit similarly complex cognitive abilities, many not unlike those of humans, and if it is "simply" a matter of complexity, there is no particular reason why "machines" could not attain this (or even some unknown yet, greater) ability in the future.
We've come a long way in a little more than half a century of "computing," and if we don't overpopulate with religious half-wits, and enter a new Dark Age, we'll get much further in the next half a century:-)
I remember the heyday of the AI fad in IT. We were told that "expert systems" could be written that would replace people like medical diagnosticians, insurance underwriters, and even military strategists. It didn't happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe were further told that systems that were effectively human were to be expected within the generation (this was thirty years ago)--that all we lacked were powerful enough machines. Now it is dawning on people that even if quantum computers arrive, it will not do the trick. To be sure systems that mimic human behavior in restricted circumstances exist, but they are not sentient.
There is, the evidence indicates, something markedly different between how biological minds work and how mechanical constructs that we program work. No one has any idea what this may be. It may be merely some insight in how to organize systems that no one has yet thought of, but, as time passes, this comes to seem less and less likely.
I think modern thinkers are still stuck in a mechanistic, deterministic frame that officially was abandoned in the 1930s. This blinds them, in my opinion, to the reality that our computer progress has not even begun to do what living things do. (Of course computers do a lot of things living things cannot do, but they do not experience existence.)
Since Darwin physical evolution is well known. Today it is realized that spiritual evolution is going on and necessary then is experiencing good and bad, otherwise we would become dummies or zombies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe story of the Good Shepherd is well understood although nobody doubts that a good shepherd is out for the coat and meat of the sheep.
The author of Genesis 1 explains that at Creation no human was present to see even only a finger of God moving. But like a powerful king speaks a few words and things happen accordingly thousand miles away........The task was too complicated for one day, but no one else but God can do it in six. So the Bible gives a description which technically can be called informing exactly on the initiative while not having available present scientific research on preceeding.
Reverend Ayala and other participants in this thread emphasize evolution vs creation as a question that separates believers from non-believers. But the Reverend is not just a believer, he is a Christian. What about all the other, extraordinary claims Christianity makes? Can those be reconciled with science? Anybody know of any attempts to this effect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThistlin: "I remember the heyday of the AI fad in IT...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----------------------
Bleh.... This is just pointless. What part of "complexity" do you have problems understanding? Or are you simply determined to find Intelligent Design in whatever knowledge gaps you may have?
It took our predecessors millions of years to get up on their hind legs. It took humans millennia to begin using fire, or to figure out the wheel (in the Americas they never did on their own.) Took even longer to get to electricity, or to making flying machines. We just started using computers and discovered atoms and DNA.
There is no evidence that there is one or more Gods lurking in the gaps, nor is there any reason for a deity to be. There are simply gaps in our current knowledge.
And the stupid rush to fill them with superstition.
It has taken me time to read through many, many complicted arguments to finally find this simple point ... There is/was something before it all began or it simpy would not have begun. Well said ... Is it so hard to see all that had to happen was the start and let the rest take care of itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe words that seem to be the obstacle in many of the arguments were written by men. They may have gotten the timing wrong or tripped over the symbolism. Do not let the words get in the way of the obvious .. It started with something which turned into to our scentific realty.
Dear "Evolving Ape,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry to see that your inability to see beyond your nose is only surpassed by your arrogance and unwillingness to even try to understand those whose views differ from yours.
Maybe someday you will grow up, maybe not.
You say, "There is/was something before it all began or it simply would not have begun."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis reflects the illusion we live under that everything that happens has a prior "cause." We think that one event causes another, and so on in an infinite chain.
The reality is otherwise. The reality is that the illusion of cause and effect is really a statistical outcome of the fact that we live in a plane of existence composed of gazilllions of atoms and other "particles," all of which behave randomly (but not chaotically--probabilities can be discerned). These probabilities become virtual certainties when gazillions of occurrences are involved.
Remember that there is no "before" the beginning of time, and therefore no cause that is "before."
At the age of 4, I was in kindergarten. I was infatuated with my delectable and delightfully endowed teacher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI played in the sandbox and watched.
I contemplated her demeanor. Her ease and confidence as she interacted with these other squirrely creatures we refer to as human.
I reflected on my position in that food chain,
Then I established my boundaries early.
Being raised as a Christian , with a lot of, Hell Fire and Damnation , I did try to keep my natural youthful exuberance suppressed.
It laid a foundation for self restraint and patience which to this day some would argue hasnt manifested.
I checked out ten books every other day as a child and felt somewhat guilty. The librarian began to believe I actually read them.
I dont need to name the philosophers.
I scan your magazine for useful articles and enjoy the theories on Bubble universes, Holographic Universes. The millions of hair on geckos feet. Alzheimers and blah, blah.
Ive to often seen religious zealots defend their faith with the same tired lines.
Ive to often heard intellectuals and pseudo intellectuals with just as much ignorance and small mindedness spew commonly accepted hypothesis as factual.
Some day, perhaps man will have the knowledge and technology to break the barriers, the veils that separate us from absolute truth. Hallafreakingluia.
The challenges we as men face with decease, climate, hunger, clean water and asshole men who take advantage, are the essential focus now.
Everyone is a man of faith..
We have faith in different concepts.
If the truth is that you are born and live for a time, responsible for yourself only, then die never to be considered again. Who cares.
If you are going to walk on some annoying streets of gold in some city of light. Then get buried with some damn good sunglasses.
The focus of good science should be to encourage knowledge, support healthy co-existence and be beneficial to our fellow man.
The focus of religion is to encourage responsibility for ones actions and teach accountability. To support and encourage Right Thinking .
However we arrived here on this planet, it is essential that we remember to play nicely in the sandbox.
Someday we may be required to skip our cookies and milk. To stand with our faces in the corner.
I don’t know what a gazillion is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ve read all this mass was the size of a golf ball, then the size of a dime.
“Christians accept on faith that “Mass” was God.
Science accepts on faith that someone had some bad relish on that hotdog at the ballpark.
Most don’t argue about the origin of the cosmos.
Who the hell knows? Here we are.
Join the Peacecore.
Go to school and research cures for:
AIDS
Stupid
Hunger
Stupid
Bad attitudes
Enough food
Greed
Lack of self esteem
On and on.
Go to school to learn how to slap your arm around a hungry man and convince him that he is showing a lack of faith by worrying about his next meal. God is in control.
Go to school so you can prescribe the drugs peddled by drug companies so a worried man can forget why he’s worried. “Drugs waiting for a disease”.
Roll up your sleeves and do something good for those you love. And learn to love more.
Here Here !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know what a 'gazillion' is."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep forgetting that many people are too dense to understand anything in the least subtle. So, I will help you. A "gazillion" is a make-up word to represent an undefined but extremely large number.
That a couple dollars worth of dust and water with some electrical activity could get up and walk around, replicate, have a Mind & be Aware of itself and others, think Abstractly, to adapt, to have a Will of its own,,,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis an impossibility that defies all logic and beggers the imagination.
Were you not such a thing, had you not seen it with your own eyes, you would never believe it existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEB: "...a couple dollars worth of dust and water with some electrical activity could get up and walk around ... is an impossibility that defies all logic and beggers the imagination...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this__________________
Yep, particularly if your dull, gullible mind, doesn't cope well with logic to begin with, has never been schooled beyond Sunday school or a madrasa, and lacks imagination..., beyond believing in a self-combusting bush in the desert, or a zombie Saviour, that is.
rofl, you just keep right on tellng yourself all that, Ape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have a working ad hominem hypothesis? Or, does your 8-bit brain-wiki operate on rhetorical preponderance alone?
You sound just like one of the Limphibian wing-nuts on AM radio, you may be duck-speaking from the opposite pit, but you are putting it out in almost exactly the same way. You have no more credibility than they do as a result, like a Franken-Hannity.
I probably have more respect for Evolutionary Theory than you do. I actually understand what it says and what has been observed, as opposed to what it doesn't say, and doesn't even pretend to predict.
There is no Chicken-v-Egg dilemma, son. Life came first, Evolution afterwards.
Hmm ... In my limited scope I seem to remember a very respected scientist saying .. "God doesn't play dice with the universe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe of a deeper understanding then most.
To which another well-respected scientist said, "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat Einstein quote is brought out by the half-informed way too often, since it is rather out of context and Einstein later changed his mind on the topic in question (quantum randomness).
I have to agree with you here, although the invective is not necessary. When someone says that they can't "see how that could be possible," what they are trying to say is that they don't think it is possible, but what they are really saying is that they lack the imagination or information needed to see it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat we can't see how something could be tells us little if anything about what is really possible or not. I dare say most religions tell us the same sort of thing when talking about their beliefs, which often contradict logic far more than scientific conclusions contradict our common sense (preconceived notions).
Whats the old adage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Some things must be seen to be believed, others must be believed to be seen'
The atelic argument reveals that as the weight of evidence [Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Paul Draper and Richard Carrier] that there is no cosmic teleology, no God shows Himself at work. Furthermore, as mindless natural selection has no goals and has only natural masters [ William Provine], it contradicts a supernatural force that has purpose for it. So theistic evolution is an oxymoron!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the side of religion, yes, one can indeed have theistic evolution, yet from the side of science, nay, as the effect can have no purpose and have a purpose : that would be the new Omphalos argument that He does indeed deceive us in order to achieve epistemic distance so that He does not overwhelm us with His presence [ John HIck]. John L. Schellenberg notes that thereby there is the hiddenness problem : He hides Himself so well that He cannot be!
Dr. Ayala would do to stay out of the philosophical debate! Dr. Kitcher in his book on the Darwinian Revolution notes no need for the supernatural.
We ignostics find that God is fatuous, nebulous, specious, and vacuous: He adds nothing as an explanation, contrary to Richard Swinburne and Alister McGrath.
German journalist, Alexander Smoltczyk, states that He is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation, yet if not an entity nor a person, He can exert nothing in Existence!
The First Cause [ Ultimate Explanation] begs the question in various aspects.
So Paul Kurtz, Will Provine, Keith Schafersman, Draper and Carrier are right in recognizing that evolution does indeed support atheism! Yet, let Dr.Eugenie C. Scott and Michael Ruse, naturalists, and Ayala and Russell Stannard, theists can certainly affirm the feasability of theistic evolution from the religious viewpoint. I suggest both approaches: the first for the sake of the truth; the second for the sake of keeping others from being anti-science.
And Ayala makes the unfounded claim that we all need Him to overcome dread and find an ultimate purpose. Nay, one can get counseling for the former and our own purposes are ultimate, our human loves and this Sally Field live suffice. To argue otherwise is to bray at nature as Dr. Ellis Albert would have stated.
Selah.
The atelic argument that as the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology [ any purposes ] behind natural forces, then no god to tweak any natural forces. So Ayala is so wrong! Theistic evolution reveals itself then as an oxymoron; it would be the new Omphalos argument to try to reconcile the no teleology of natural selection with teleological God: scientists find no preordained plans behind selection perood!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Paul Kurtz, Ernst Mayr, Richard Carrier, Paul Draper, William Provine and George Gaylord Simpson speak the truth while Eugenie C. Scott Michael Ruse Ayala and Russell Scott merely are trying to keep beieivers in line to accept evolution. From the side of religion, fine; from the sides of philosophy and science, nay!
If indeed evolution is true. #1 Why aren't we still seeing new species and 2 why are creationists treated with such animosity? If evolution is true you should welcome an opposing belief. It takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it does Creation or ID. If it all started with matter or on the backs of crystals then where did those things come from. There must be some element of faith in evolution, thus seeming to indicate a religion in and of itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSally Lehrman in Scientific American November 2008 reports that Francisco J. Ayala believes that Christians may accept Darwinian evolution as the source of biological complexity on Earth. I am sure many do but it seems to me that only by redefining their Christianity into a kind of Neo-Deism may this be achieved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat Ayala is an esteemed evolutionary biologist is unquestioned but is he a Christian? How would he explain human parthenogenesis which produces a male child. From whence cometh the SRY gene? If he is a Christian he must reply by means of a miracle so we are back to supernatural intervention in the physical universe. This seems to undermine the hands off engagement (whatever that means) of the supernatural in biology, a position which he espouses.
Sally Lehrman in Scientific American November 2008 reports that Francisco J. Ayala believes that Christians may accept Darwinian evolution as the source of biological complexity on Earth. I am sure many do but it seems to me that only by redefining their Christianity into a kind of Neo-Deism may this be achieved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat Ayala is an “esteemed evolutionary biologist” is unquestioned but is he a Christian? How would he explain human parthenogenesis which produces a male child. From whence cometh the SRY gene? If he is a Christian he must reply “by means of a miracle” so we are back to supernatural intervention in the physical universe. This seems to undermine the “hands off” engagement (whatever that means) of the supernatural in biology, a position which he espouses.
KWhXf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evolution of humans was not pre-ordained. The theory is that random mutations drive evolution. If a mutation happens to provide survival benefits, then it becomes incorporated into the population's genome at some non-zero frequency. Many men have faith that a god exists. But humans exist purely from chance mutations that enabled our ancestors to survive. When we became "man," did God suddenly notice our existence? Of course, God is omniscient, so he knew we were on our way. But evolution does not allow for omniscience. So how could God know? What's more, our species is not (I hope) at a dead end. We are still evolving. In a million years will we still be interesting to God? Will another species exist that God decides to give dominion to? I wonder what Ayala would say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a body of science. It is a branch of biology. It is a set of theories, laws, experiments, opinions, beliefs, etc., like any other science. Why aren't we seeing new species? In fact, we do see new species. New is just realtive. For example, corn is a new species. It did not exisit 10,000 years ago. Humans are a new species. We did not exist 1,000,000 years ago. T. rex (now extinct) is a new species. It did not exist 200,000,000 years ago. So, I've only covered .0571% of the time that life has existed and already we can infer that lots of new species have come and gone and more will come and go. Humans, too, may someday vanish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I may interject on a comment;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the question posed was more in the deeper vein of why aren't we finding any completely new life forms, or seeing any evidence of independent Origin from different Periods, rather than simply inquiring as to new 'species' per se.
I didn't interpret the statement of daretochallenge
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If indeed evolution is true. #1 Why aren't we still seeing new species"
in the same way you did. I still think it's a simple question about why new species don't show up. There doesn't seem to be anything in that statement to suggest anything deeper. Are you referring to earlier comments made by daretochallenge?
No, not referring to specific comments by that particular poster, but rather to the phrasing. Appeared to me as an attempt to delve into deeper territory, but had limited itself with colloquial use of terminology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response to the question posed was accurate and well expressed.
I agree that the problem of evil is a central paradoxe of Chirstianity (see the article). But explaining it with natural selection does not explain anything. Instead it just replaces one problem with another: Why has the supposedly almighty God decided to use natural selection as the main "engine" of evolutionary process? Couldn't he choose anything less cruel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be careful to say religions are fiction. Clearly, they are there. Someone is praying or achieving a state of mind that you may not have considered trying yourself. Healing takes place through a chemical change in those that practice faith, maybe even those who fantasize (as long as they get to the point where they believe).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf not for the whole seperation of church and state, science would probably find more use for religion.
Now that has probably annoyed you enough, so I will just say one more thing. To avoid bias, we have to look at everything over and over as if we had not seen the last one. It's annoying. But the one hundredth time, we find out something that we wouldn't have if we automatically assume a bias toward the same thing happening as the last time we looked at (almost) the same object/person/situation.
You can stumble upon articles that exclaim, "it'll never happen, it's not possible, there's no way" and they seem silly because there is new information or more acceptance.
There will be some "silly" discovery that causes science and religion to shake hands and then there will be a whole new argument also I'm sure.
Science still can't get to the fine details with almost a cheat sheet of information on their laps. And they laugh at someone who thinks there might be a god who may not have anything to go on except that he is not confined by the details. I say if you feel strongly about something, don't let go of it. Wait, that's what everyone is already doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists agree upon the fundamental laws which govern the universe. Has there ever been a law where there is no law giver? Why then do so many scientists deny any supernatural intervention could take place yet they agree there are laws governing matter, space and time? Aren't they limiting exploration of the truth by making a priori assumptions which exclude some very important possibilities? Isn't this approach fundamentally unscientific?
Much current scientific investigation is undermining prior assumptions and confusing past prognostications about what is and what should be expected. Read about it daily at:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm
God did not create a world where miscarriages occur, as you used in your example. He did not create a world that had any flaws at all it. The world- or certainly the Garden on Eden within the world was perfect until sin entered the world. So there is no need for your strange idea that Darwinian evolution "helps" the "problem" of a perfect God creating an imperfect world. God created a perfect world, but He did not create toys or puppets. He created life. Living things, by nature of being alive, have choice. Unfortunately, one of the angels chose evil (and became Satan) and then Eve, with Adam right beside her in the garden, sinned too. The world WAS perfectly created by a perfect God and would have stayed that way for however long Adam and Eve could have avoided sin. The Bible has several predictions about people being willingly ignorant of creation. See 1st/2nd Peter, for just one example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm so glad that I am not the only Christian who feels this way. To hear that Dr. Ayala has become an active link between science and religion gives me hope that the two reconcile. After all, without communication between people, how can one be heard?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Alexandre, I am curious to know what basis you use for your morality. I, as a Christian, use the Bible. To me, it seems that if people are free to choose their own morality, then people are capable of choosing murder, rape, abuse, drug dealership, support of genocide, theft, arson, etc. as proper and moral actions in certain situations. Freedom, if we are free to sin and commit crimes, can become evil. Or do you not believe in evil? I hope I don't come across as belligerent, but I really don't understand how one can attempt to have a civilized world without having a common basis for what is right, regardless of whether that basis is Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, or any of the other prophets and wise ones of the human races. Religion provides a basis for right and wrong, and in doing so, a basis for civilized humanity. Is that so false?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion provides a common basis of what is right and wrong. If people are free to choose their own morality, they are free to choose murder, rape, theft, abuse, etc. as moral actions in a certain situation. Science/Evolution certainly helps the material lives of individuals more than religion, but it is religion that bonds people together every time Christians gather for the communion meal, every time Jews sing psalms to God, every time Muslims gather to pray, and every time Hindus burn incense to the Gods. The common base of morality religion provides makes it a vital part of civilization, and I would say that the two are of equal importance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Christian and I do neither reject nor accept Darwinism. Whether we began as monkeys or not does not say we were not created by God. We may have resembled monkeys but God called these "monkeys" men. I do not disagree with evolution entirely, but I believe it should double check with not only the bible but God Himself, He answers and listens. I assure you I would never compromise my faith for the theory. Read the Bible in a spiritual sense and much will be revealed to all!!! I know GOd is all loving because I love everyone whether they hurt me or not because GOd told me to, And I'll obey! Everyone be blessed, some things God did not want us to know, let's stop arguing and trying to prove things and just believe. Hope is hope in things not seen!!! -Thats Scripture...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow yet the image he made changes and has changed at infinitude from monkeys and salamanders and fish? "They exchanged the incorruptible image of God for corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdam was made from clay/dust, and Eve was made from a fully mature rib of said man, with in an morning and evening. That is three claims scriptures make. Scripture and evolution are explicitly incompatible. The whole gospel falls apart if not all men came from one man, Romans clearly points salvation by the death of one man Jesus to equate for one original man's sin. It goes further to say by genealogy that Adam had no father but God himself. Now you can make up a bunch of reasons why its allegory, or metaphorical, but if you scrutinize all these explaining away people do it boils down to unbelief and trusting the knowledge of man vs the word of God.
You are right "It is good to read the bible in a spiritual sense", but consider these statements from Jesus: "how can you love a god who you cannot see if you do not love a brother you do see?" and "if you do not believe me when I speak of things of this earth, how can you believe me about heavenly things?". God does not give us the option to separate between the physical and the spiritual. again scripture says "only God can discern soul from spirit as marrow from bone"
I have watched debates with Francisco Ayala. To me he seems like a kind man, and an intelligent man. If he loves Christ, he is my brother. However, he seems to be theologically wanting for a person with is education. I would exhort him to read his bible more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“If God explicitly designed the human reproductive system, is God the biggest abortionist of them all?”
-if he read the read two chapters of Genesis he would have his explanation of why Eve has so much trouble bearing child. and he is ignoring a critical thing: Abortion is bad because it is putting man in the role that only God is competent in. God robs no one of life because God gave them life, if we murder we take what belongs NOT to us. Also, we can trust from numerous passages that God takes care of the little children, -especially those "who's blood calls to us from the ground" like Abel's.
Most of the content I have read from Francisco is pretty weak and disappointing as an argument. He sees similarity's in animals and arranges them in an order and then assumes that the order mandates origin. Order mandates an organizer, it is existence what mandates origin IMO.
Science and religion are not antithetical. False science and false religion blended into either are the problems. Common decent is a paradigm from which interpretation comes out, NOT a fact which interpretation leads to. Dont look at a color wheel, see blue and yellow and assume the common ancestor is green.
Inherent incompatibility between common decent and common designer is not a scientific issue. Science cannot observe the undocumented past, only infer -and to an unknown accuracy. This is a purely DOCTOURNAL issue. I know more people who are as dogmatic, doctrinal, zealous, and even evangelical about common decent as I do religious folk. This Journal is not innocent of pushing its ideology either. The proud west fails to see the similarities with old world ancestor worshiping, nature based pagan cults.
Google: Francisco J. Ayala vs William Lane Craig debate
ps. "how can a loving, all-knowing God allow evil and suffering?" is well addressed in the bible and not a central paradox. Suffering is the result of a choice, we suffer for our choices, we suffer because of choices of others, nature suffers because man introduced death and toil to it, and God Jesus chose to suffer to bring back man to a place of no suffering.
Darwin's concept of "natural selection" (per the first paragraph of Chapter 4 of Origin) was intended to be applicable at the intra-specietal scale (so that it does not refer to predation), and was a speculation based on Rev. Malthus's "law" of geometric increase in population. Unfortunately, "natural selection" played little or no role in human evolution (environmental change, predation, and sexual selection having been the decisive factors), so that the Social Darwinism that developed in Darwin's name (and was espoused by Episcopalian William G. Sumner) lacked a scientific basis. Not only was Darwin's "natural selection" a concept without empirical support (with humans at least), it was a pernicious concept in that it provided a "scientific" basis for Social Darwinism, among other evils.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this