Subscription Center
Sep 16, 2008 04:15 PM | 44
A spokesman for the Anglican Church says it should admit it wronged Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution is still considered anti-Christian in some circles, even as it's become a cornerstone of science.
"The Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still," Rev. Malcolm Brown writes on a church Web site marking next year's 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
"There is nothing here that contradicts Christian teaching," he says, adding that the church's "reaction now seems misjudged."
While the church didn't take an official stance against Darwin, its officials — in a widely publicized 1860 debate — made nasty arguments against his theory that species evolve through natural selection, the church says on its Web site. Today, some fundamentalist Christians argue that evolution can't co-exist with the biblical story of creation — a concept gaining new traction thanks to Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who believes creationism should be taught along with evolution in schools.
Brown's statement, posted yesterday, reflects the church's position on Darwin but isn’t an official apology, the Church of England told the Associated Press. Pope John Paul II said in 1992 that the Catholic Church should say it was sorry for putting Galileo on trial over his assertion that Earth revolves around the sun.
Darwin's great-great grandson, Andrew Darwin, told Britain's Daily Mail on Saturday that he was "bemused" by the apology, which he described as "pointless."
"Why bother?" he told the newspaper. "When an apology is made after 200 years, it’s not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organization making the apology feel better."
Updated 5:05 p.m. Sept. 16: The Vatican says Darwin's theories are compatible with the Bible, and doesn't plan any apology like the one a Church of England spokesman suggests the Anglican Church should offer, Reuters and DPA are reporting. "Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister. Darwin's theories, he said, were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned," according to Reuters.
(Photo by J. Cameron, 1869, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~ped/)
Tags:
creationism,
evolution,
Christian,
Palin,
Darwin,
church
More News Blog:
Next: Mathematicians predicted stock market volatility years ago
Previous: Big and bigger: New prime numbers claim top two spots
See what we're tweeting about
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 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
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.
44 Comments
Add CommentDear Sciam,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not convinced that the theory of eviolution is correct on the absolute scale. Natural selection leads to changes and improvements in individual species ( the variety of dogs is testiment to this ) but natural selection as a creator of new species has yet to be substantiated beyond doubt. I have discovered a law which will support this which I 'm not ready to discuss. It should be noted that most of the objections to natural selection were recognised by Darwin. In fact, 'The origin of Species' almost negates itself. If you read beyound the first chapters you will find that in chapter 6 Darwin puts forward and discusses many problems with his theory. He writes at length on each problem but doesn't offer any real scientific evidence to shed light on them. I think the theory works up to a point but it is not the absolute answer to the development of life on this planet
So why are you "not ready to discuss" this brilliant new rebuttal to Darwin's theories and their ongoing development. You do realize that this is one of the MAJOR redflags alerting skeptics to the presence of crap, right? "All will be revealed when..." Total baloney warning. Drop the pretense, professor, just lay it on us!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFriend, Darwin put forward and discussed problems with his theories because THAT'S WHAT A SCIENTIST DOES! Bubba, if you, as a scientist are not critical of your own theories, I can guaran-damn-tee you that SOMEBODY will be... more often than not a whole bunch of somebodys.
I'm giving 15 to 1 odds that it is nothing more than a repackaging of another of the old worn out fundamentalist, anti-evolution mantras.
So, let's have it, cough up the major, evolution refuting "law" that all of biological science has missed for all these many years. Give us the "scientific proof" that everything was created by an 'intelligent designer' and your limited version of evolution took over from there. Brother, pretty close to NOTHING is really EVER "substantiated beyond doubt." Try applying that rule to the idea of an intelligent designer and see how far it gets.
When you start talking about 'beyond doubt substantiation' and "absolute" answers you are no longer talking about science. Science is all about doubt, my friend. To speak of absolute and beyond doubt answers is to enter the fantasy worlds of creationism and creation science, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it.
"To speak of absolute and beyond doubt answers is to enter the fantasy worlds of creationism and creation science, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like to call it Flintstoninsm. :)
I'll believe that 'the church' owes Darwin an apology when I believe it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw the title of this piece and thought it might be someone substantial in religious circles that actually was familiar with sound biblical theology. Turns out this isn't the case at all. Once again the religion of Darwinism tries to validate themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChrisJones: Thank you for yet another venomous tyraid from the Darwinism side. Now how about addressing the one clear point made by Lenedwin? Natural selection (adaptation) is beyond doubt within a species. The evidence for adaptation crossing species is tenuous at the very generous best. It always has been and is why you hard core Darwinists are a religion. You accept it on faith and have not one shred of anything beyond a supposition to support Evolution.
For nearly one and a half century believers were told by their churches resp. their clergysmen that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin�s well founded Theory On the Origin of Species was a fake.The believers were deceived.
So the churches owe a post mortem apology not only the famous Darwin, but also the people, they
have misled for so long a time.
First of all, certainly, you are very welcome. It WAS a nice, if slightly short, tirade. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, what was it we were saying about things like "beyond doubt?" You people really do need to stop that business. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry, you really don't understand HOW it really works do you. Let me help you out a little bit. Not a single word that Darwin put on paper is, has been or ever will be accepted on faith by the scientific community. That is the sole prerogative of the religious. To the significantly contrary, EVERY word he wrote has been subjected to every kind of questioning and testing we can come up with. It is the very goal of the scientific community to PROVE DARWIN WRONG!
I am deeply sorry that you don't, nay, CAN'T understand this. Your mind is so completely muddled by absolutes and beyond doubts and, yes, faith, that you are incapable of understanding anything that doesn't follow that paradigm? You, perforce, must couch EVERYTHING in those simplistic and backward terms.
You will never, can never understand the scientific concepts and methods that you so easily dismiss as religion. Im sorry, but if you want simplistic and absolute answers, then faith is your man! Faith is easy. Faith takes no effort what so ever. Science is work. Tireless, often thankless and sometimes even dangerous (idiots even made death threats against CERN researchers) WORK. Faith certainly didnt get your uninspired, limp, religiously typical response from your computer to mine. And it hasnt been faith that has been questioning and validating and refining& and even refuting& the work of Charles Darwin. Darwin was not a god or a savior or a messiah, nobody worships his words as gospel. The very first thing that was done with Darwins work is it was subjected to withering questioning. The theories have been visited and revisited and tested and most of the fundamentals have held up, to the point that they represent some of the basics of biology as we currently understand it. Do you do that with what is written in your collection of holy fairy stories? Think they would fare as well? I dont.
So, before you start insulting my by calling me "religious" because, based on what we have learned so far, Darwinian evolution is a better at explaining life on this planet than a collection of creation fairy tales. Right, "so far." You are right about one and only one thing, we don't yet fully understant the creation of new species. We will eventually. Then where will YOUR silly faith be?
Lenedwin, I think you may be discussing a subject - evolution by natural selection - without first having studied it extensively. To understand the large step, i.e. the evolution of species, it is best if you first understand the vast array of underlying small-step mechanisms, i.e. natural selection operating at the genetic level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwin was not privy to the world of genes and thus had to speculate on how all that he observed was occurring. That he created this remarkable scientific structure without knowledge of genetics is testimony to his insights, his powers of observation, his tenacity, and his steadfast belief in the rationality of science.
I recommend a book, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution by Sean B. Carroll. Even before you finish the book, you will come to appreciate the power of natural selection operating at the molecular level, and it will be much easier to fit the large step, the origin of species, into the large picture.
I am surprised to see that some creationists actually read this page at all. Good first step, but you people really have to WORK things out. Darwin's work is reviewed constantly, and guess what...we now know MORE than what Darwin wrote. Because Science grows when knowledge is confronted with knew ideas, opposite to religious ideas that must remain unchallenged or they crumble. So go ahead, open a dangerous book like a biology textbook, and learn and challenge whatever you find in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting to read the comment from Telrunya- it is frequently said that science, or in this case Darwinism, is a religion. While I guess this is supposed to (ironically, considering the source) disparage science, there are key distinctions: a religion is not tolerant of examination or being questioned, whereas that's the basis of scientific inquiry. In religion, all is known (by those leading the religions hierarchy), and dissent is not tolerated (see Galileo, etc). The very reason science exists is because of the process of questioning and investigation of what is not known or fully understood. When a scientific principle is upset, we gain more knowledge (and scientists earn their reputations). The other key distinction is that religions give adherents permanent survival (life doesn't end with death) - and survival is our most powerful motivator. Science doesnt promise anyone heaven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the bible is completely contradictory of Darwin's theories. This is another attempt for the church to try to cover their asses when proven wrong. They fear their inevitable collapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me the point of the article or blog is that one can still be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist etc and still be a scientist and still accept Darwinism, you do not have to be an atheist. The all or nothing approach of some fundementalist sects is absurd, to quote or paraphrase someone more learned then myself "I do not believe God would give us a mind and intellect and then not expect us to use it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Lendwin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are correct when you cited that Darwin himslef recognized the many problems with his theory as expounded in the "On The Origin of Species". You must understand that scientific decipline is a series of methods or procedures that proposes to explain or discribe how some observed phenomenon becomes what can be observe with respect to the passage of time in generalized situation. For example Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravitation as applied to trajectory of objects on earth as well as the obital paths of the planets and the stars within a galaxy. These theories are subjected to constant testing and revisions as our knowledge is improved or expanded in time. But alas the Theory of Universal gravitation did not remain absolute.
Albert Einstein was able to advanced a theory to explain the observes anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity carried Newton's Univeral Gravitation to a more accurate approximation of our understanding of gravity. Science does not propose that its theories are absolute and is beyond refute. Astronomers and physicist are working at expalining the observed expansion of the galaxies from each other at a speed proportional to the distance of the separeation of galaxies A new theory will need to emerge to take this observed phenomena in to account. Our knowledge of gravitation will certainly be enhance further more.
The Theory of Evolution have also been through similar history. The book "Origin of Species" was publish 150 years ago. Our accummulated knowledge on Biology, Life Sciences and Genetics have improved many fold during these times and will continue to improve exponentially into the future. So The Theory of Evolution will not remain absolute but rather continue to evolve as all theories base on scientific principles.
The Church of England has publicly but unofficially admit it wronged Charles Darwin and apologize for misunderstanding him. Although the apology is untimely overdue and blatantly pointless. It is an unofficial admission that te Anglican Church position with regard to evolution over a century ago was flawed. However the Angilcan Church did not issue any statement as to what it's position is with regards to evolution.
What bothers me about natural selection is that I cannot understand how the cell or group of cells identify where it/they are in relation to the rest of the 'body' & how does it realise what alteration will bring the solution & in which way it/they must adapt/grow/change & how do/does it/they know what the problem is they want to solve
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat bothers me about natural selection is that I cannot understand how the cell or group of cells identify where it/they are in relation to the rest of the 'body' & how does it realise what alteration will bring the solution & in which way it/they must adapt/grow/change & how do/does it/they know what the problem is they want to solve
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way people, Darwin started as a clergyman who was disillusioned by his religion after the deaths of his children. I like to mention that when people keep stating that he is such a genius for coming up with his explanation of how we got here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Church should do more than apologize: it should admit that it's man who made God, and not the other way round as the Church had been preaching all along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Church should do more than apologize: it should admit that it's man who made God, and not the other way round as the Church had been preaching all along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Church should do more than apologize: it should admit that it's man who made God, and not the other way round as the Church had been preaching all along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do religious people think that if they assume there is a weak spot in the fact of evolution, creationism or ID becomes the winning theory by default?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the peer review on the scriptures in the Bible?
If God created man completely from scratch, who created God?
Why do religious people think that if they assume there is a weak spot in the fact of evolution, creationism or ID becomes the winning theory by default?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the peer review on the scriptures in the Bible?
If God created man completely from scratch, who created God?
I dont call darwinism a religion to disparage those who hold that belief but rather to point out the similarities between faith in God and faith in the lack of God's hand in our creation. As I pointed out the fossile record is schetchy at best and while adaptation is a given, speciesazation or Evolution is not. There is no clear or even muddied evidence for speciesazation. That part of Darwinism is pure conjecture. My previous post was also aimed at drawing out someone like ChrisJones to make a point. The rabid adherants to Darwinism are no less inflexable than the Monolithic religions you and others point too. His reply to me was filled with nothing but schoolyard taunts and completely lacking in any form of substance. Now I agree that monolithic religions, or as we of the God believing kind call them, denominations, have done far more to restrict the advancement of science than anything. Well a news flash for all of you who lump believers into the same basket. I have no more in common with them that I do a Muslim or Buddist. I and the fastest growing segment of american believers dont follow the dogmatic teachings of a church, but call ourselves non denominational to indicate we follow the bible alone which teaches in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things and hold on to the good. I have admonished and pleaded in my replies for an open discussion free of acrimony and hate which is so prevelant in Darwinist posts. You call yourselves scientists? Fine, act like it. Lets take a close look at what we KNOW from the fossile record. Lets apply our best conjecture to what we suspect and then lets admit that we could possibly be wrong and that another interpretation may be valid. You dont want to believe in God, I can accept that. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist because I have never in my life met a person who hasn't been wrong atleast once in thier life. Only an idiot believes that they know better than the rest of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTelrunya- I appreciate the moderate tone of your discussion. You are absolutely right that arguments that resort to name-calling and emotion should be beneath us. Sadly, often emotionally-charged argument is more compelling than logic (because as a species, weve behaved instinctively longer than we have behaved logically). Ironically the tendency to resort to negativity is a powerful bit of circumstantial evidence in the discussion. For good evolutionary reasons (keeping in mind that evolution has no ability to care what is moral), we are negatively-biased. We respond to the negative rather than the positive in life (even though for most of us, our lives are overwhelmingly positive). Had a benevolent supernatural creature created us, would we not be biased to the positive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does there seem to be such certainty that the bible is literal truth despite the bible's inconsistencies (such as the order of creation, gen 1&2) and peer-reviewed science? The answer seems to be that "certainty" is an evolutionarily-wired emotion that has no relationship to truth (see On Being Certain by neurologist Robert Burton), and logical argument can do nothing in the face of the emotion of certainty- whether one believes that a tin-foil hat will keep out voices, that trickle-down economics is viable, or that a supernatural power condemns "sin" while using "sin" to help assure survival. Again, if we were created by a benevolent supernatural creature, would our feeling of certainty have no relationship to truth?
Finally, I am struck by the last point: "only an idiot believes they know better than the rest of the world . The rest of the modern Christian world does not take the bible literally- evangelical Americans "are certain" that they do indeed know better than the rest of the world (in fact there is no evidence that the Council of Nicaea ever intended that the bible be taken literally).
This reply is for Telrunya who commented
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The evidence for adaptation crossing species is tenuous at the very generous best."
I'm no scientist but I respect the scientific method. Inviting review and criticism as others have expressed here allows for the evolution of knowledge. Evolution actually happens in religion too. The evolution of Christian thought is the reason why there are liberal variations of Christianity. Most liberal Christians accept Darwin's explanations.
So what probably happened just before the transition which took place when chimps remained chimps and primitive humans became more human?
When you think about it, adaptation had to be the prime mover. Otherwise there had to be a miracle. Which is more probable? A miracle requires faith. Adaptation requires only explanation. And if you'll look you'll find many insightful suggestions as to how the leap from one species to another might happen.
Evolution is the understandable and well-supported explanation for the development of life on this planet. Faith is not needed or asked for or wanted. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen." Science is the evidence of things seen.
Good point from Sounder. Even God has evolved in the bible, from one of many gods to the only god; from a tribal god to a global god; from a vindictive, jealous god to benevolent god; from a primitive god who is visible in his garden and molds humans from the clays of the Earth to a god who is invisible and just thinks things into being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is "Evolution" it seems Darwin's 'Natural Selection' has been called evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn defense of creationists I read "Science is the seen"? Read about CERN and tell me if you are 'seeing' these particles...
I have a problem with 'read a biology textbook' also... there is NO science in a biology textbook, read a "Cell Biology" textbook and start to believe that the randomness of atoms can form handed molecules and enzymes to reproduce itself (as in "I Robot" somebody had to make the robot)..I also notice the evolutionists like to compare the earth to the cosmos, "THere are billions of planets circling stars that can support life". Learn cosmology and gamma ray burst and that these palnets are gaseous and you'll see that the eart is very unique, just in the 'fact' that we are a single starred solar system and that the 'typical yellow-white'sun isn't so typical and larger than most....Now to talk about the quark theory of matter before you can claim how molecules randomly formed is totally ridiculous and unbased in science, the way I see it the evolutionist are obviously the fanatics (especially from these responses!) Show me a mechanism that DNA is changed in the parent's gametes before the offspring is created to help it adapt to the environment and I'll push your bandwagon!
What is "Evolution" it seems Darwin's 'Natural Selection' has been called evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn defense of creationists I read "Science is the seen"? Read about CERN and tell me if you are 'seeing' these particles...
I have a problem with 'read a biology textbook' also... there is NO science in a biology textbook, read a "Cell Biology" textbook and start to believe that the randomness of atoms can form handed molecules and enzymes to reproduce itself (as in "I Robot" somebody had to make the robot)..I also notice the evolutionists like to compare the earth to the cosmos, "THere are billions of planets circling stars that can support life". Learn cosmology and gamma ray burst and that these palnets are gaseous and you'll see that the eart is very unique, just in the 'fact' that we are a single starred solar system and that the 'typical yellow-white'sun isn't so typical and larger than most....Now to talk about the quark theory of matter before you can claim how molecules randomly formed is totally ridiculous and unbased in science, the way I see it the evolutionist are obviously the fanatics (especially from these responses!) Show me a mechanism that DNA is changed in the parent's gametes before the offspring is created to help it adapt to the environment and I'll push your bandwagon!
What is "Evolution" it seems Darwin's 'Natural Selection' has been called evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn defense of creationists I read "Science is the seen"? Read about CERN and tell me if you are 'seeing' these particles...
I have a problem with 'read a biology textbook' also... there is NO science in a biology textbook and the requirments for hard science like mathematics is minimal for a biology degree so to make such scienctific conclusions by 'soft-science' specialists has ALWAYS bothered me and I can tell from the tone of the reponses to creationism that these aren't very scientifically literate arguments! Read a "Cell Biology" textbook and start to believe that the randomness of atoms can form handed molecules and enzymes to reproduce itself (as in "I Robot" somebody had to make the robot)..I also notice the evolutionists like to compare the earth to the cosmos, "THere are billions of planets circling stars that can support life". Learn cosmology and gamma ray burst and that these palnets are gaseous and you'll see that the eart is very unique, just in the 'fact' that we are a single starred solar system and that the 'typical yellow-white'sun isn't so typical and larger than most....Now to talk about the quark theory of matter before you can claim how molecules randomly formed is totally ridiculous and unbased in science, the way I see it the evolutionist are obviously the fanatics (especially from these responses!) Show me a mechanism that DNA is changed in the parent's gametes before the offspring is created to help it adapt to the environment and I'll push your bandwagon!
Ask a pysicists that believes in intelligent design and you'lll be swayed not the popes of five hundred years ago...but they're too busy working hard science to waste time on this I guess...
II might miss the point of RandyRibose's comment, but perhaps there is a misunderstanding how the process of evolution works. It is not that a DNA is changed in a child is some guided way, rather minor variations give offspring enough advantage in their environment to be more successful in reproduction. These advantages tend to be carried by more prolific offspring. While it might be difficult to understand how subtle differences can translate into substantial advantage in the modern world (where most reach reproductive age despite frailty and successful people opt to use birth control), we must remember that evolution makes its most dramatic impact when the population is on the brink (70,000 years ago, it appears the human population dwindled to about 2000 individuals- an environment in which evolutionary advantage can have a tremendous impact).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks alohajohnson and Sounder for actual intelligent responses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlohajohnson: "Had a benevolent supernatural creature created us, would we not be biased to the positive?" Not necessarily. In this area you get into psycology and theology. In the biblical version God created man with free will. He didn't want automitons running around. The choice to love someone is what makes love meaningful. If you had no choice in the matter then it would be meaningless. Like little children, we focus on the self rather than others. Not sharing, taking from others what we want ect. The whole negative focus thing you point out isn't necessarily indicitive of an evolution mechanism. It's possible, from a biblical perspective, that thats just how we were made.
"Why does there seem to be such certainty that the bible is literal truth despite the bible's inconsistencies (such as the order of creation, gen 1&2) and peer-reviewed science?" The sad truth is many christians dont know what thier own holy book teaches. That does not invalidate the holy book. Let me play the stereotype card here for just a moment to illistrate my point. Have you ever met a Jew who doesn't use metaphores? The first half of the bible was written to and mostly for the Jews and much of it is filled with metaphores, parables, ect. The way to study the bible isn't to look for what you want to find and leave it at that, as sadly many christians do, but to look for everything the bible has on the subject and recopncile it. "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth" and "When someone strikes you, turn the other cheek" seem like inconsistancies until you look at all the surrounding scripture and realize one is meant for social justice and one is meant for personal interactions. By the same token even early jewish scholars admit they can't say for certain that Job ever really existed or if it was just a story to make a point. The entirety of the bible isn't meant to be taken word for word. Even Jesus taught in parables.
Lastly I never said idiocy was limited to evolutionists. There are plenty of numbskulls on both sides.
Sounder: "When you think about it, adaptation had to be the prime mover. Otherwise there had to be a miracle. Which is more probable? A miracle requires faith. Adaptation requires only explanation. And if you'll look you'll find many insightful suggestions as to how the leap from one species to another might happen." I'll highlight insightful SUGGESTIONS as to how the leap from one species to another MIGHT happen. I have stated from the begining that I have no problem with adaptation and made that point in my statement right before the part you quote. I have likened evolutionst to religion because they dont know how any species s\transformed into another. There are far too many pieces missing from the puzzle on any species you look at. They dont KNOW how it happened but they believe it did which is why they use suggestions and fill those suggestions with "Might have" ect. That too is faith. I dont have space here to go into a full teaching of how I came to my faith, but suffice it to say I was once an adamant evolutionist myself. I was until I was challenged to give the other side a fair review. In my estimation it takes far less faith to believe in God, wether he guided evolution through ID or created the world in 7 literal days than it does to believe in the astonomical random chance of pure evolution through simple adaptation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral things that natural selection doesn't adequately explain bug me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. How can we trust our reasoning? if our cognitive faculties are selected for their survival value, rather than their truth value, then our reasoning about naturalism and natural selection are undermined because they are not the product of truth detecting mechanisms.
2. How did self-directed, reproductive purposes emerge from inert matter that has no reproductive purposes? Natural selection doesn't adequately explain the means by which reproduction arose, naturally, from non-reproducing matter.
3. Why are nearly all amino acids "left handed" and almost all carbohydrates are "right handed?" Shouldn't chirlaity be evenly distributed?
4. What are the exact chemical steps that caused DNA to form from inanimate matter that contains no chemicals or DNA?
It seems to me, any compelling orgin of life theory should provide strong explanations for genetic development. I need more than phenotype similarities.
RoyClem- you raise some good questions. I'm unsure if youre are expressing an opinion with these questions, or looking for answers to complete your understanding of a subject you already know well. If the latter is the case, then I will defer to biologists and chemists for a specific technical answer. I do have a couple of comments on your questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1. "How can we trust our reasoning?" The answer is that we can't individually. As you suggest- our individual ability to detect truth is compromised by the emotion of certainty . The "feeling of certainty" is independent of truth. There are many examples of smart people being "certain" of illogical conclusions, such as being absolutely positive that a piece of furniture in one's house had been replaced by an exact duplicate, no matter the logistical impossibility (see On Being Certain by neurologist Robert Burton). Fortunately this effect is mitigated in the science community by the peer review process and the system that favors upsetting prior conclusions with sufficient objective evidence (a scientist who can successfully upset gravitational theory would have his/her reputation made). Religions, on the other hand, do not tolerate this process of questioning doctrine.
#2. This is a question on life origin, which is different from life adaption and sustainment, I think. Life origin is less understood than the process of evolution and adaptation that we can observe around us, but is addressed in several other blogs and articles (perhaps http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html).
#3.&4. Based on what I read in books and articles, I think progress is being made in answering questions of these sorts. There are similar questions in cosmology with "missing" symmetry. I think most would agree, however, that not having an answer to a question while the question is being investigated should not provide an opportunity for an irrational explanation (to do so gives rise to the horror of witch trials and murder of possessed epileptics).
Saying this, in the face of someones certainty of a truth , such as the infallibility of Christianity or the literal accuracy of the bible, no amount of logical argument or contrary proof can upset that conviction (some other neurological event must occur). This is especially the case with religion, since upsetting the religions world-view would shut the door to infinite survival in a mythical afterlife. One of the greatest challenges of the Catholic Church was the scientific confirmation that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as described in the bible (this is why the Church is compelled to embrace science today). Despite this and other biblical inconsistencies, certainty in a literal bible persists.
Thank you Telrunya for your comments. I am responding to the following portion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have likened evolutionst to religion because they dont know how any species transformed into another. There are far too many pieces missing from the puzzle on any species you look at. They dont KNOW how it happened but they believe it did which is why they use suggestions and fill those suggestions with "Might have" ect. That too is faith. I dont have space here to go into a full teaching of how I came to my faith, but suffice it to say I was once an adamant evolutionist myself. I was until I was challenged to give the other side a fair review. In my estimation it takes far less faith to believe in God, wether he guided evolution through ID or created the world in 7 literal days than it does to believe in the astonomical random chance of pure evolution through simple adaptation."
"They dont KNOW how it happened but they believe it did [happen]"
This is your idea or belief of what is happening in another's mind. It's conjecture because those who "suggest" what might have caused the beginning of a new species have looked at maybe 5 other suggestions and are adding their own to the mix. This is not belief but rational participation. If you want the best photo possible you don't take but one photo but as many as you can then choose the ones that best explain the content and the context. It's a rational process not one founded on miracles.
Thank you for your short explanation of how you came from atheism to a convert to Christianity. We have in common the transition but mine came from fundamental and evangelical Christianity to not atheism but to a not knowing for sure about things which were not rational.
I was a missionary working to convert others (even Roman Catholic Christians) to believe what I grew up believing. I don't know why but one day I asked myself the question: Why do I believe what I believe?
Then the question: If I had been born in India, would I have different religious beliefs? Would I sincerely feel that they were just as correct as I feel about my beliefs?
My answer was "yes". So I had a problem. The problem was with all of the religious belief systems in the world, what were the odds that my belief system was the correct one? 10 to 1; 20 to 1; 30 to 1; etc.?
To make a long story short I resigned my position and returned to the USA without knowing for sure about anything.
Several years later, the book The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins was recommended to me. I bought it and read it. Explanation. (I'm out of space.)
Really interesting point from Sounder. I think that individuals who go from the ability to believe in the supernatural to non-belief are an intriguing segment of the population. There is evidence that the ability to believe in the supernatural is a function of brain physiology, so going from belief to non-belief (or vice versa) is a rarity in the absence of some traumatic event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to discuss one of Sounder's points as he awaits a response from Telrunya. All religions believe that they are correct over all others (this attribute of religions is called 'exclusive authority'). So the odds of a particular religious view being correct are 1: to the number of religions that are, have been or will be- say 1: 200,000(?). Based on those very long odds, it is unlikely that any religion is correct. With this in mind, what is it about human nature that makes us willing to suspend logic and reality for the sake of a particular viewpoint that cannot meet objective observational criteria as scientific postulates are required to do?
God is the one that created Adam. The supporting verse is Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan was formed directly by God by means of using dust from the ground instead of transforming from ape to man. The supporting verse is: Genesis 2:7, "..the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; & man became a soul."
Woman was formed by means of using a rib from Adam: Genesis 2:21-22, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, & he slept: & he took one of his ribs, & closed up the flesh...And the ribs, which the Lord God had taken from made, made he a woman".
From the biblical verses above, Darwin's theory on evolution could not stand.
God is the one that created Adam. The supporting verse is Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan was formed directly by God by means of using dust from the ground instead of transforming from ape to man. The supporting verse is: Genesis 2:7, "..the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; & man became a soul."
Woman was formed by means of using a rib from Adam: Genesis 2:21-22, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, & he slept: & he took one of his ribs, & closed up the flesh...And the ribs, which the Lord God had taken from made, made he a woman".
From the biblical verses above, Darwin's theory on evolution could not stand.
It sounds like to me you guy's and i am refering to all of you that believe evolution and that write on this columare out of your frickin minds.Do you know that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in the bible.You people that say not all things in the bible are wrong or right ,shouldn't even have an opinion on the bible because the only way to trust in GOD'S word is to just believe by faith what it say's so you can't even try to see whether it's right or wrong by even saying that youv'e tried it and it does'nt work.Because true faith is when you find something the bible says and you stand on it and believe it till it comes to pass no matter how long it takes.The scientists who really try to prove the bible to be false are the ones who prove the bible to be true and they are the ones fighting the evolutionist't,because in my opinion you have to be stupid to believe we stasrted as a speck of dust on some distant planet .That is just pure stupidity! If we evolved from monkeies then why are there still monkies and if we evolve to better ourselves why are we evolving to diseises that man can not find a cure for.Some of you reading might not know what a billion might look like so here is a exsample if you took 1 second represents 1 year would take just about 32 years of seconds to make 1 billion .Jesus came to give life to set the captives free and to heal the broken hearted the miracles that happen every day around the world are what Jesus walked the earth doing and he said even greater works than this you will do .But you have to give your life to him and follow his example and his plan for your life GOD said for i know the works i have for you to live a long and prosporus life to be a blessing to others ,you can only do this with a pure heart,not one that is trying to see whether this works or not. That is why the religions of the world don't see the manifestation of the spirit of GOD in there church because it is religion that put JESUS on the cross,we are the hands and feet of JESUS we're the one to do his work it's his power that does it it's our obidience to step out in faith and do it,and the religions of tthis day and age will never see it because of that reason.I have seen frist hand the miracles of GOD .you evolutionist are wasting your life on things that don't even matter to most people anyway.The devils got you right where he wants you and your letting it happen.It's time you started to find out who GOD really is and how much he loves us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you throw six balls of yarn into a wind storm, how long will it take to come out with a sweater? That would be far more simplistic than a single cell, which is more advanced than any machine we have on Earth, just happening. Evolution is a theory. It violates the first and second LAWS of thermodynamics. Matter can niether be created nor destroyed. The second law simply states everything tends toward disorder. Adding energy does not create order. If truck carrying bricks hits a bump they will not fall off in their previously ordered state. Time is not a solution to the laws. Even if you hit the bump over and over the bricks would still fall ramdom, and they certainly would not become a house. Where did matter come from? How did it get so perfectly organized? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce itself? That would be more mouths to feed and decrease its chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive or does the species? Did the ability to reproduce or the urge to reproduce come first and why? What did whales evolve from? Which system evolved first, and how long did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juice, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move bones? The immune system or the need for it? How does evolution explain symbiosis. How would evolution explain mimicry, was it just by chance, or their own intellegent choice? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, ect. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve?What kind of evolutionist are you, Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What is so scientific about hydrogen gas becoming human? Do you honestly believe everything came from nothing? What about the law of conservation of angular momentum, shouldn't all of the planets in our universe be spinning in the same direction. What about equilibrium? If everything is billions of years old why does Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive? Why are the silt level in the oceans and the dust layer on the moon so thin, a little embarassing fact that only allows for a few thousand years of deposits. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat..Evolution will be the next big punch line in history. Ouch! www.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you throw six balls of yarn into a wind storm, how long will it take to come out with a sweater? That would be far more simplistic than a single cell, which is more advanced than any machine we have on Earth, just happening. Evolution is a theory. It violates the first and second LAWS of thermodynamics. Matter can niether be created nor destroyed. The second law simply states everything tends toward disorder. Adding energy does not create order. If truck carrying bricks hits a bump they will not fall off in their previously ordered state. Time is not a solution to the laws. Even if you hit the bump over and over the bricks would still fall ramdom, and they certainly would not become a house. Where did matter come from? How did it get so perfectly organized? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce itself? That would be more mouths to feed and decrease its chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive or does the species? Did the ability to reproduce or the urge to reproduce come first and why? What did whales evolve from? Which system evolved first, and how long did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juice, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move bones? The immune system or the need for it? How does evolution explain symbiosis. How would evolution explain mimicry, was it just by chance, or their own intellegent choice? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, ect. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve?What kind of evolutionist are you, Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What is so scientific about hydrogen gas becoming human? Do you honestly believe everything came from nothing? What about the law of conservation of angular momentum, shouldn't all of the planets in our universe be spinning in the same direction. What about equilibrium? If everything is billions of years old why does Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive? Why are the silt level in the oceans and the dust layer on the moon so thin, a little embarassing fact that only allows for a few thousand years of deposits. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat..Evolution will be the next big punch line in history. Ouch! www.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you throw six balls of yarn into a wind storm, how long will it take to come out with a sweater? That would be far more simplistic than a single cell, which is more advanced than any machine we have on Earth, just happening. Evolution is a theory. It violates the first and second LAWS of thermodynamics. Matter can niether be created nor destroyed. The second law simply states everything tends toward disorder. Adding energy does not create order. If truck carrying bricks hits a bump they will not fall off in their previously ordered state. Time is not a solution to the laws. Even if you hit the bump over and over the bricks would still fall ramdom, and they certainly would not become a house. Where did matter come from? How did it get so perfectly organized? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce itself? That would be more mouths to feed and decrease its chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive or does the species? Did the ability to reproduce or the urge to reproduce come first and why? What did whales evolve from? Which system evolved first, and how long did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juice, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move bones? The immune system or the need for it? How does evolution explain symbiosis. How would evolution explain mimicry, was it just by chance, or their own intellegent choice? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, ect. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve?What kind of evolutionist are you, Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What is so scientific about hydrogen gas becoming human? Do you honestly believe everything came from nothing? What about the law of conservation of angular momentum, shouldn't all of the planets in our universe be spinning in the same direction. What about equilibrium? If everything is billions of years old why does Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive? Why are the silt level in the oceans and the dust layer on the moon so thin, a little embarassing fact that only allows for a few thousand years of deposits. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat..Evolution will be the next big punch line in history. Ouch! www.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you throw six balls of yarn into a wind storm, how long will it take to come out with a sweater? That would be far more simplistic than a single cell, which is more advanced than any machine we have on Earth, just happening. Evolution is a theory. It violates the first and second LAWS of thermodynamics. Matter can niether be created nor destroyed. The second law simply states everything tends toward disorder. Adding energy does not create order. If truck carrying bricks hits a bump they will not fall off in their previously ordered state. Time is not a solution to the laws. Even if you hit the bump over and over the bricks would still fall ramdom, and they certainly would not become a house. Where did matter come from? How did it get so perfectly organized? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce itself? That would be more mouths to feed and decrease its chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive or does the species? Did the ability to reproduce or the urge to reproduce come first and why? What did whales evolve from? Which system evolved first, and how long did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juice, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move bones? The immune system or the need for it? How does evolution explain symbiosis. How would evolution explain mimicry, was it just by chance, or their own intellegent choice? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, ect. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve?What kind of evolutionist are you, Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What is so scientific about hydrogen gas becoming human? Do you honestly believe everything came from nothing? What about the law of conservation of angular momentum, shouldn't all of the planets in our universe be spinning in the same direction. What about equilibrium? If everything is billions of years old why does Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive? Why are the silt level in the oceans and the dust layer on the moon so thin, a little embarassing fact that only allows for a few thousand years of deposits. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat..Evolution will be the next big punch line in history. Ouch! www.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you throw six balls of yarn into a wind storm, how long will it take to come out with a sweater? That would be far more simplistic than a single cell, which is more advanced than any machine we have on Earth, just happening. Evolution is a theory. It violates the first and second LAWS of thermodynamics. Matter can niether be created nor destroyed. The second law simply states everything tends toward disorder. Adding energy does not create order. If truck carrying bricks hits a bump they will not fall off in their previously ordered state. Time is not a solution to the laws. Even if you hit the bump over and over the bricks would still fall ramdom, and they certainly would not become a house. Where did matter come from? How did it get so perfectly organized? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce itself? That would be more mouths to feed and decrease its chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive or does the species? Did the ability to reproduce or the urge to reproduce come first and why? What did whales evolve from? Which system evolved first, and how long did it work without the others? The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juice, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move bones? The immune system or the need for it? How does evolution explain symbiosis. How would evolution explain mimicry, was it just by chance, or their own intellegent choice? When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, ect. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. How did photosynthesis evolve?What kind of evolutionist are you, Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What is so scientific about hydrogen gas becoming human? Do you honestly believe everything came from nothing? What about the law of conservation of angular momentum, shouldn't all of the planets in our universe be spinning in the same direction. What about equilibrium? If everything is billions of years old why does Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they receive? Why are the silt level in the oceans and the dust layer on the moon so thin, a little embarassing fact that only allows for a few thousand years of deposits. Five hundred years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat..Evolution will be the next big punch line in history. Ouch! www.drdino.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Church owes science no apology whatsoever. The Bible clearly teaches that God made what is seen out of what is unseeable (Hebrews 11:3). He spoke it into existence, as Genesis shows. Step one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe made it perfect and mature, in six literal days. He's God. He can do that. Step two.
The process of decay and elimination was ADDED to creation by God as a judgment after man disobeyed Him. "Cursed is the ground because of you." (Gen 2:17) "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay...we know that the whole of creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:20-22) Step three.
This means that science is working with degraded data. God took what was perfect and mature, and threw it into turmoil, decay, and degradation as a judgment against sin. For instance, entropy, and/or the second law of thermodynamics was not originally part of creation, but rather added to the mix as a measure of judgment against creation. What was once perfect is now degraded. The systems in play today are twisted and degraded, not original. The world today is like a degraded computer system, and if scientists refuse to believe that the computer was once designed perfectly, then it will make faulty assumptions and conclusions about the state of the computer when analyzing the degraded data.