The Eye: Evolution versus Creationism 1983
Sox2 writes "SciScoop is running a story about researchers in Germany who claim to have solved the "mystery" surrounding the evolution of the mamalian eye. The work, published in Science, goes some way to answering the issues raised in the "intelligent design" debate that has become the mainstay of creationist thinking."
Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is essentially saying 'we found the smoking gun'; that light-sensitive cells originated within the brain, and migrated slowly outwards to form eyes. Ergo, the famous Darwin reasoning 'any form of eye is an evolutionary advantage, and therefore given even a truly-awful eye you would expect it to develop over time into something useful' is at least plausible. Evolution at work within a large-enough population.
I remember reading in 'PCW' back when I was at school (20 years or so ago
Simon
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't Scale Well (Score:5, Funny)
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king."
I believe in most cultures it would be more like
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is a freak".
Or perhaps
"In the land of the X eyed, the X+1 eyed man is king where x = 0"
When did beer-goggles invented? (Score:4, Funny)
Their eyesight must have been bad!
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and here is another fact: In the zebrafish, despite their retinas being much more complex and sophisticated than ours, can repair their retinas from damage whereas we are currently screwed if our retinas go bad.
IAAVS (I am a vision scientist), and neuroscientist.
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Red Herring article is here [redherring.com] but you need to give up your first born to read it.
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Funny)
> Now that you mention the three channels of vision, it reminds me on an
> article I read in Red Herring sometime back about a mutant gene that shows up
> in some women that that gives them 4 channels of vision. It allows the ones
> lucky enough to have it to have a much sharper perception of color tones -
> ironically, most that have it aren't even aware that they see the world any
> different than the rest of us. Do a google on tetrachromatic women.
>
> The Red Herring article is here but you need to give up your first born to
> read it.
However, you also have to read the Green Herring and the Blue Herring to get the complete picture.
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwin said no such thing. Darwin's theory only dictates that the fittest will survive. Organisms are in competition on numerous levels. There is no reason to believe that such an intermediate creature would not be superior in some important ways to its competitors.
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Informative)
No species evolves in a vacuum, and evolution (effectively) is constantly trying to find the most advantage for the species within a given environment. Even laying aside the argument that just because one thing is increased doesn't mean another is decreased (some creatures have good sight, good smell, and good hearing, for example), it is the environment, not the species that dictates what path evolution takes a species.
Consider a massively pungent environment, where all smells are rendered undetectable against the background within a metre or so. If you hunt over large distance, your species will likely only use smell for identification within social groups. Sight, hearing, maybe sonic radar, whatever will become far more important, and therefore more prominent to your species.
Consider the opposite - a constantly foggy environment. Here sight (unless you evolve a radio-sense) will be pretty useless, smell and hearing will take control.
The real world is neither of the above extremes, but given the prey and lifestyle of any given species, it is highly unlikely to ever result in a *real* stagnation in evolution. Even if so (hah!) there is more to it than just evolution at work - if you read Stuart Kauffman's 'The origins of order' (and you manage to finish it, which took me a few tries), he derives theories that both place limits on what evolution can acheive, and shows how jumps can be made from the stable state to a worse or better state across fitness landscapes.
People think that apes/chimpanzees/whatever are less evolved than humans, which is rubbish. People are more intelligent, but apes are just as evolved - a human wouldn't survive anywhere near as long as a great ape in the ape's natural habitat. Evolution and environment go hand in hand.
Simon.
Re:Darwin got it right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution* isn't trying anything. It simply happens.
End of message.
[*] Evolution is a prevalent, beneficial mutation. Specifically, a mutation simply happens.
Let it begin (Score:5, Funny)
What's your favorite Linux distribution? Why?
Does anyone you know still run Windows?
What religion are you?
Vi or emacs?
Mac users: all gay?
How do you feel about abortion?
Which U.S. presidential candidate do you support?
Was the war in Iraq justified?
Just some food for thought.
Re: Let it begin (Score:5, Funny)
> What religion are you?
> Vi or emacs?
Looks like you got an accidental line break in there.
This won't change their minds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I understand that for this article they probably spoke in very simplistic terms but the phrase "strikingly resembled" doesn't exactly equate to "concrete evidence". This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...
Re:This won't change their minds... (Score:5, Interesting)
Frequently Encountered Criticisms (Score:5, Informative)
No, it won't (Score:4, Informative)
This article supports what the Bible says about all humans descending from Noah in Asia (i.e. Noah's ark settled in Armenia after a global flood about 4200 years ago.)
Re:No, it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Luke 6:27 - 6:29
Haven't seen too much of the spirit of charity on display in the latest election, have we?
Re:No, it won't (Score:5, Interesting)
It is an easy thing to misunderstand genetics and think that, say, Mitochondrial Eve could have been Eve of the Bible, but thinking so would betray a lack of understanding about what these mathematical common ancestors mean.
Mathematically you can back-calculate that since you have two parents, and 4 grandparents and so on, that pretty soon you'd outnumber the past population, meaning everyone is inter-related. Picking different genes you can find out how long ago the common ancestor for that gene was, but it does not tell you that the common ancestor was the only human at that time.
You and your siblings share common ancestry through your parents, but there are plenty of the rest of us around.
Re:No, it won't (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and take another look at the Tasmania example at the end of the article.
Re:No, it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic diversity (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't Noah's sons include his daughters-in-law in the Arc? If he had daughters, did they bring their husbands?
Where did that genetic diversity go?
Noah had three sons. Noah, his wife, and his sons and thier wives, were the only humans beings who entered the ark. The Bible records a male genetic bottleneck 4200 years ago -- i.e. all the males in the ark were descendants of Noah.
The following quote is from a NY times article about an interesting genetic study from a few years ago. It speaks about how the male lineage began to descend, referring quaintly to the Y-chromosome originator of the lineage as 'Adam' (could more correctly be 'Noah'). Note how it talks about three sub-lineages:This is shown clearly by this figure [nytimes.com](NY Times subscription may be required).
In other words, the Y-Chromosome ancestor was:
- A single male chromosomal ancestor
- With three descendant male lineages
- The third male lineage had seven sub-lineages
- These seven sub-lineages from the third lineage populate all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
The Bible says the same thing:
- We are all descended from a single male ancestor - Noah
- Noah had three male descendants
- One of the three sons, Japeth, had seven sons
- The Japeth lineage (his seven sons and their descendants) populated all the world except the Middle East and Africa.
Re:This won't change their minds... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to. On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition, unprovable belief.
When both sides are not even supposed to have common ground on which to argue, the creationist/evolutionist debate is a non-sequitur on both sides.
Re:This won't change their minds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-falsifiability means that it's useless from a scientific point of view. A useful scientific theory must make predictions; if those predictions turn out to be wrong, then you discard the theory. You almost never know anything 100% certainly in science, but falsifiability lets you know 100% for certain when something is wrong. Lack of falsifiability means that it makes no predictions and is therefore useless. I can assume that it's true, or that it's false, but that doesn't change what I expect to happen in the world.
Intelligent design arguments are not necessarily non-falsifiable. They predict the existence of features which could not have evolved. The eye was one such feature, but this discovery tends to refute that. There are others, such as mitochondria, which are basically a challenge to evolutionary theory that says, "Show me how that could have evolved".
(Not to mention that God himself could, someday, speak from the sky, cause plagues of locusts, and generally prove his existence in the scientific sense. His reasons for not doing so remain obscure to me, but then, by definition they would.)
Personally, I believe that if there were an intelligent designer we wouldn't have to search so hard for evidence. An intelligent designer had many, many options; if we're not descended from ape-like species, then it was unnecessarily parsimonious of that designer to make us so extraordinarily similar, down the the levels of individual bones and individual nucleic acids. Those pieces of evidence that claim to falsify evolution are few and far between and it generally seems possible to find the refutations for them, given time either to piece out the genetics or the necessarily gap-ridden fossil record.
But that won't change the minds of anybody who believes a non-falsifiable theory in the first place. They don't place the same priority that I do on predictive powers of theories. They're more interested in the moral implications, and will disregard any theory that denies their morality, no matter how much closer it comes to "truth" in the scientific sense. It's just not something they care about.
It's not my cup of tea, and of course I'm upset when they try to force on me a version of truth that I can prove is wrong (using a version of "proof" that they don't accept but which has proven very useful for developing things like toaster ovens and rocket ships). Especially when that version of truth contradicts my moral beliefs. But without even a single point of overlap between us there appears to be no rational place to resolve that. It must be an article of faith. If you wish your faith to contradict perceived reaility, or to make no statements whatever about perceived reality, then I will certainly outcompete you in the building of toaster-ovens and rocket ships, but that may not matter.
noooo...... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have a misperception of scientists' motives. If there was concrete evidence of God creating the universe, that evidence would be used by scientists to better understand reality. You're confusing science with atheism. BTW, scientists have a tendency toward agnosticism, not atheism.
I find it frustrating that religious people (which by your post I suppose you are one, that or badly misinformed about science) think that because they base their worldview on faith, that everyone else does as well. Some of us are perfectly happy admitting that there are things which we do not yet know, and striving to find out in due time.
Your statement is also ironic, seeing that science is constantly challenged/attacked by the religious, who refuse to accept things because they are worried about implications for their beliefs.
To really consider the relation between the science and religion, there's some homework to do. Philosophically speaking, God can not be proved nor disproved. David Hume showed that all proofs of God beg the question of God's existence. That means they're circular proofs; they prove nothing. Similarly, when you're discussing a being/force which can by definition "do anything", it's child's play to refute any assertion based on faith; if someone says that God doesn't exist because of observation X, the retort is that God wants it that way, and is hiding.
If religious people want 100% of the population to believe in God, I have two suggestions: 1) Stop trying to assert that science is untrue on the basis of your personal beliefs. 2) Stop using your social identity as an excuse to do things which are clearly prohibited in your own code of conduct.
This still leaves the religious more "wiggle room" than I would like; but I think we can agree that we'd all get along better if we are considerate of each other's beliefs. And frankly, I have as much right to believe that physical reality has no cause but itself as others do to believe that physical reality must have a cause other than itself because nothing causes itself, therefore it's cause must be God, which has no cause because God has no cause but itself.
When Galileo concluded that the earth must go around the sun, it wasn't because he wanted to disprove God or destroy religion; it was because he observed reality. Galileo didn't attack the church; the church attacked Galileo. When Darwin published the Origin of the species, it wasn't his way of casting doubt on God or religion; it was his theory as to why animals are the way they are. Again, Darwin didn't attack the church, the church attacked Darwin.
What bothers me more than anything is that people who use faith to explain everything seem to have the least understanding of the nature of the spirit and the debate which they wish to participate in. Religion's value is in its charge to its followers to do the RIGHT thing. To help the weak and poor. To repay a wrong with a right. To love and forgive instead of hating and avenging. Religion also has speculative answers to questions which once were considered unanswerable. Now that some of those answers are proving to be *ahem* inexact, *certain* people are very upset. Instead of keeping their cool, they attack the messenger, and everyone who doesn't agree with them. The US is very backward, philosophically, in many places, and this is perpetuated by conservatives for political reasons. Liberals don't want to take your religion away people... we just want the same freedom you take for granted; to believe as we will and live as we choose. Evangelists have missed something here; that their right to swing their fist stops at my nose. You don't want schools teaching that God doesn't exist.. well guess what, they don't address that issue at all. We don't want *you* forcing us to live your lifestyle. You think you're "saving" people. But if atheists were to go around "saving" people from
Evolution vs. Creationism (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, I am not sure that evolution is incompatible with the idea of "intelligent design" as long as one is careful about defining intelligent design....
I agree. Most molecular biologists who are in the intelligent design camp are not against "micro-evolution", but are instead against "macro-evolution" -- primodial soup-type theories of genesis of life.
I think that unless you're a strict, seven day creationist, you at least have to have an open mind about evolution. And if you're still against micro-evolution, you're just a Luddite.
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evolution vs. Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
May I suggest you think about why the ID folk only want *their* Intelligent Designs taught in schools? I think we really should be teaching Native American Indian creation theories as well, perhaps the Aborginal (sp?) from Austraila as well if they're really interested in true teaching of non-Darwin based reasons as to 'why we're here'. And if you really want to see the sparks fly, suggest the teachings of the Koran (and I have no idea what these are or if they are diff from Christian type concepts...but my guess is the 'supporters' of ID would have a huge problem with this just on concept)
if we know 1 thing about evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
History versus theory (Score:5, Insightful)
What effect will it have on the creation/evolution debate? The same effect that all the other mounds of evidence in favor of evolution have so far had on the debate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
inside-out vs outside-in (Score:5, Insightful)
DISCLAIMER: this is just my $0.02
Re: inside-out vs outside-in (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual difference is that creationists take their personal beliefs as axiomatic and work from there, whereas scientists use observables to winnow out which beliefs are true and which aren't.
Re: inside-out vs outside-in-Faith-based seeing. (Score:5, Insightful)
> is assumes that everything that's important is observable.
Yes [and no]. If you assume there are hidden agents that affect everything that happens, you can't do any science at all. (Or religion either; see further below.)
But the issue isn't whether science can aspire to omniscience, but rather which is the better guide to reality: what we see, or what our ancestors told us.
[The "and no" is because we don't actually assume that everything important is observable, e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all the immense challenges for science that follow from it. But I bracket this because I don't think it's what you meant.]
> Kind of a faith in itself (to see is to believe).
Certainly there's a philosophical problem with it, but we rely on it just to make it through the day. How do you know you're taking your morning leak in the john instead of wetting the bed? How do you know you're eating breakfast instead of jumping off a cliff?
Also, such an appeal to nihilism is pretty useless as a support for keeping creationism in the ring. How do you know the bible really exists, or if it does, how do you know it says what the letters on the page look like they say?
Definitions: Get your belief out of my facts (Score:5, Informative)
or
"God exists" is a belief, not a fact.
No matter how much you believe it, it doesn't make it a fact.
What's the Big Fuss (Score:4, Insightful)
'Who are we to say how God created or didn't create the World. God could've could've chosen to create the creatures in 7 days or God could've chosen to create the creatures in the world with evolution'
I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.
It does turn out to be a lively debate that can go on for hours between two opinionated people. And my guess is that those two people usually care more about looking smarter than the other, than they care about their beliefs and Morality.
Brandon Petersen
Get Firefox! [spreadfirefox.com]
Um... (Score:4, Informative)
No entry found for mamalian. (Score:4, Funny)
From the story submission:
Did you mean mammalian [reference.com]?
Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Human Eye is Flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
If the human eye is evidence of creationism then it can only be evidence of a flawed creator.
Re:Human Eye is Flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention other flaws such as our esophagus, which shares an entry point with the windpipe, allowing for easy choking.
Or our appendix, which is unused and causes all sorts of problems in modern man.
Or our wisdom teeth, which don't fit anymore and need to be removed surgically in many people.
Or our knees which fail way too easily.
Or our backs which are too fragile and don't self repair well enough ( e.g., spinal cords ).
All these things SCREAM to me of an evolutionary process which selected for beings which could get around in an energetically cheaply fashion, well enough to have a few children before the parts fail. This is good for evolution and population. This is terrible for the individual who suffers for it.
This tells me that "god" is more interested in overpopulation than the success and happiness of the individual.
What absurd arrogance (Score:4, Insightful)
Einstein rejected more than one theory on the premise that no God would have designed the proposed system - and he was right more often than not. Religion and science are hardly incompatible, except to those of rigid thinking.
What I find most interesting about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This doesn't mean you need to become an athiest, though -- although I am one, I don't see the difficulty in conceiving evolution as merely a tool of your creator. If (a) god(s) wanted to create a planet with life on it, why couldn't they work through natural processes that they themselves set in motion? How does that challenge anyone's faith?
Re:What I find most interesting about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same people that thinks Bush has done a great job. Saved us from EvilDoers (does this sound like a bible term), made the economy strong and healthy, protected the environment, left no child behind .....
If you have faith it doen't matter what reality is out there, it's a closed-loop system.
Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book (Score:5, Insightful)
It's what made me go from agnostic to atheist. We just use the concept of God whenever we reach personal limits. Time and time again we use God to explain things and we're proven wrong. Me becoming an atheist came after seeing one too many arguments in favor of the God is a coping mecanism rather than truth.
Re:Richard Dawkins goes in depth in his book (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're talking about is a well-known heresy: in theological circles it's called the God of the Gaps Fallacy. Priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and pretty much everyone else with formal theological training despises the God of the Gaps, with solid theological reasoning. If we use God to fill in the gaps in human understanding, then to advance in human knowledge is to diminish God's majesty--and that is simply not allowed to occur. That means we have only two choices: we can either not advance human knowledge and let God live in those gaps, or else we can not put God in those gaps in the first place.
Of those two choices, we can't do the first: not just because it's the natural state of knowledge to progress, but because it's heretical to think that God should fit into the world where we want Him to fit. It turns God into a false idol, something we create for our own convenience, and that's major heresy.
Unfortunately, for all the sincere and educated theologians out there, there's an Al Sharpton or another self-appointed minister without theological training who says "no, no! Science is the work of the Devil!"
[sighs] God, you know I love you. But some of your followers are cause to make me doubt your existence, to say nothing of your wisdom.
Natural Selection (Score:5, Funny)
The creationism website has been slashdotted.
That's all the proof *I* needed! Go Darwin!
Both sides have it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
The creationists are wrong because they misunderstand their own religion. The key factor in religion is faith. It is not necessary to prove that God exists. In fact, that's missing the entire point. A true religious person will take the existence of God on faith, and will neither need nor desire to prove His existence.
The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.
Re:Both sides have it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong. Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
So what... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone were to create a time machine or "past viewer" so we could watch the entire history of the planet at any accelerated rate we wanted and trace the evolution of all life, it might change the mind of 10% of the True Believers. The rest would consider it to be a deceiving tool of Satan.
What's up with all the misunderstanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think many people here would have less problems with creationists if they weren't so damn evil about it.
yes, you heard me: evil. I think it's evil to trick children into believing this stuff. If you want your kids to learn creationism, fine -- teach them: yourself. But it's not the public school system's business to do so. Schools should teach things outside of religion -- e.g. math, history, language, science.
I'm not going to try to forcibly teach your kids and everybody's kids that the earth is flat, or that vampires are real, or that visual basic is the One True Language, just because I happen to believe it is the case. I will make my own children ignorant and incapable of critical thought, not yours.
Re:What's up with all the misunderstanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you not see what an absurd thing that is to say?
I base my morals on my beliefs. On what I believe is right and wrong. Murder is bad, speeding is also (although less) bad. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about speeding. Does that mean it's OK for Christians?
Does what I just said make any sense? No, of course not. Everyone has their own moral code, where they get it from varies, but to say that someone can't have one because they do no believe in God is rubbish.
Arguing Religion with Philosophers (Score:5, Interesting)
1 Corinthians Chapter 2
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him" -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Each must make up his own mind who Christ is, and what He's done for them. After that, we'll all sit around the throne in Heaven and talk with God like neighbors around the '67 Mustang --"So, THAT'S how you supercharged the intake." -- "So, THAT'S how you micro-mechanically sequenced the RNA to replicate the DNA so that the photo-sensitive proteins in the eye would transfer from one generation to the next."Dawkins made a prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
The pit viper was already known so that wasn't hard. However, about 5 years after I read Dawkin's speculation, some oceanographers brought up some blind shrimp that had heat sensitive patches on their topside. The shrimp apparently use the ability to "see" heat to find smokers which provide the energy basis of the food chain at the bottom of the ocean.
Anyone know of a creature that uses a camera obscura for an eye?
Next stop: Bombardier Beetle (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it that any eye (or photosensitive cell) is better than no eye, and that better eyes are more likely to survive. In other words, every feature we possess was advantageous in its lesser forms also.
Linux fork (Score:5, Funny)
Simple Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationism is simple thinking for complex problems. A lot of people are frightened by the idea that some things can't be explained. In ancient Rome they blamed floods and earthquakes on Poseidon. Science later told us that these are explainable natural events, not the work of Gods. Science has given us answers to many of the questions about our world that used to be associated to gods. There are a few really tough questions left that scientists are making some headway on like, "What are we made of?" Which is being understood through particle physics and quantum theory. "Why are we here?" That's a tough and fundamentally esoteric question that I don't think anyone could agree on... and here is where religion comes in. I don't have a problem with religion itself, but I'm uneasy with it because it breeds fundamentalism, hatred and mistrust. A great number of our wars in history have been about, "My god is better than your god." Again, a product of simple thinking. The funniest part is that at the most basic level all religions agree on the same things, love, trust and harmony between man. Often these values are upheld, but more and more people are straying from the basic ideas of what religion was indeed to teach us.
Ignore Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is not a belief. Science follows the scientific method. Accepted principles in science can be independently verified by testing and re-testing hypotheses using the scientific method.
Science is also not static, and it does not offer any guarantee that today's conclusions will match tomorrow's conclusions. While creationists attempt to cite this uncertainty as a weakness, it is one of science's greatest strengths. There is no place for dogma in science. Whereas, religion (and creationism as a sub-part of religion) is rife with dogma and the need to suppress intellectual curiousity.
Creationists deliberately misconstrue statements by various scientists and scientific conclusions in order to paint those statement and conclusions as "beliefs" rather than the results of the scientific method. Except creationists are not true scientists, because they come to the table with a hypothesis, the truth of which they are highly invested in proving. That is not the scientific method, because they do not approach their hypothesis with neutrality. Therefore, they find exactly the answers they seek. That is not science.
From a different perspective.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Faith and science are not necessarily opposed to each other, though a lot of atheists would like to think they are.
The problem I see is that atheists attempt to pervert science into "proving" that there is no God, as if the techniques of science are somehow suited to grappling with the metaphysical.
The other problem I see is that fundamentalist Christians are denying their faith in God. God - not science - is supposed to be the truth, but if your arguments for faith rest on scientific proofs, then you've supplanted God with Science as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Which is just self-defeating. If God is truth, and He said He created the world in seven days, then He did. End of story. Chasing after "scientific" proofs of Biblical stories only shows one's faith to rest not in God, but in science.
And then comes science. In the discovery of the marvels of our universe, we come to realize that it is ordered - the hallmark of a creative genius. No, it doesn't prove God exists - if it did, science (or logic), rather than God, would be the ultimate truth. It isn't. Not to say science doesn't serve a useful purpose - it does; but rather that it is a tentative explanation of nature. From a logical standpoint, science doesn't prove anything, but rather explains it.
And those who try to base their religion on science only show themselves to be foolish - whether they are the atheists using evolution to bolster their naturalist beliefs, or fundamentals using flawed reasoning to bolster their creastionist ones. In fact, I'd say that both camps have done more damage to the reputation of science than all of the scientific scandals in history (cold fusion, California's fictitious elements, etc...)
Faith is something that one discovers apart from science. And we all look like fools when we attempt to use the scientific method to "prove" what we suspect to be true about God. No amount of scientific proof will ever bring an atheist to salvation, nor will it convince a true believer that God doesn't exist.
Common misconception... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, science is not religion. But naturalism - the philosophy that states that everything can be explained in terms of the natural univers - is a psuedo-religion of sorts, and it finds particularly strong support among atheists and scientists. So you will often find proponents of naturalism using science to bolster their religious convictions, which often has the effect of blurring the distinction between science and religion.
The other is based on total ignorance and acceptance of something without questioning any of it.
As trollish as this might sound, I see this line of reasoning often repeated, so I think I should respond to it. Religion, especially Christianity, is based on both man's experiences and divine revelation. It is not merely the unquestioned acceptance of some nice fantasies. Divine revelation is truthful by definition (if it's not true, it didn't come from the one who is the truth). Contrast this with science in which axioms initially thought true can prove false with greater observation and understanding. One can never know with any degree of acceptable certainty if a scientific theory is true; one can know the observations, but continued observation could disprove earlier theories.
Now this is all fine and good when it comes to material things. Generally speaking, science provides a safe way to bet. But when it comes to things such as eternal destiny, the uncertainty of the scientific method is far from reassuring. Yes, I can trust a physicist to predict the Moon's orbit, but no, I wouldn't trust the same physicist with my eternal destiny.
Now as for man's experiences. Christianity arose from the largest body of scientific data ever assembled - namely, the Bible and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This body of data far exceeds that of any other discipline - God has been the subject of more study than any other subject throughout history. Nor is reason contrary to faith - in fact, it is the light of reason which causes us to believe. Anyone who disagrees would do well to read Descarte, who found a reason to believe in God without ever mentioning a Bible verse.
We do not accept Christianity without question. Every mature Christian that I've known has, at some point, questioned their belief. And we always come back to the same place - that God does exist. To think otherwise would require simply ignoring some profound evidence:
Granted, you might not be convinced of God's existence from what I've just written, but at least you should gather that religion, and Christianity in particular, is not opposed to reason. Rather, it is our faith and our reason working together which lead us to believe in God.
Re:Arguing with a creationist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arguing with a creationist (Score:5, Insightful)
I have nothing against organized religion.
I do have something against organized religion preaching in direct contradiction to accepted science, while providing no evidence to the contrary, other then "its in this book, so you cant teach the obvious, accepted science."
Re:Arguing with a creationist (Score:5, Insightful)
They are in some. And in most schools the faculty is too terrified of the fundies to teach evolution at all -- witness the fact that if you ask most high school students, they'll think evolution means "man descended from monkeys". And in fact they can't even tell you the difference between a monkey and an ape.
What bugs me is not that parents with religious conviction are trying to have a say in the education of their children -- I'm for that. What bugs me is that people who cannot define the word "allele" have the gall to spout their opinions on evolutionary biology and demand their arguments be treated as having equal weight with scientific conclusions. That would be like me going to a church and saying "you know, I've never really read Ezekial but we need to stop using it in scripture readings because I've heard it contradicts my field, comparitive linguistics."
I don't think that the simple fact that schools are too scared to teach the theory of evolution is what breaks our schools. But, it is part of a larger trend of religious conservatives fighting tooth and nail against intellectualism in general. And that is what's killing our schools.
Re:Arguing with a creationist (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean god did it. Every natural phenomenon was once explained by saying "(a) god did it", we now have scientific explanations for most of those. There's no reason to resort to magical explanations just because we don't have the answer yet.
Re:Arguing with a creationist (Score:5, Informative)
21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Or, in logo-illustrated form [thebricktestament.com] for the biblical-language-challenged.
Mirror here (Score:5, Informative)
tell the entire story of our evolution over time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wearing the right blinders, it will be obvious that your road is the only correct one, and that all else is distractions. There are those who will make the same assertion against scientists, claiming that there are "science blinders" that restrict their vision. While I won't disagree that there are scientists who wear blinders, I would argue that the basic premise of science is to remove the blinders. The facts will guide you, and a scientist is always supposed to be ready to modify or discard a theory if disproven by facts.
I spent a little time with google and "neocon" (and a few other terms, some independent of "neocon") this weekend, and came to an interesting conclusion: Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough. In other words, they compromised too much, and if they'd been sufficiently uncompromising they would have succeeded. Rather a disturbing world view, IMHO. Of course, this is the result of an hour or so on the Web, and my view can be modified by facts.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Insightful)
The scriptures are ambigious in many areas. It is not the place of a man to fill in the details with opinion. Did Judas hang himself, or did he jump over a cliff? Depends on which Gospel you consult. Did Christ point to the crowds or the Scribes in his famous "you brood of vipers" line? Depends on which Gospel you consult. What were Christ's last words? Considering that none of the Apostles were there, whatever is recorded in the Gospel is a secondhand telling. And even there, it depends on which Gospel you consult.
Ambiguity is just something you have to get used to folks. Fundimentalism, or even a strict interpretation of the scripture, isn't even supported by scripture.
"All scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy, 3:16
You can't quote a single passage of the Bible, without considering what other passages might have to say.
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Universe started on any particular day. Nor does it state how man was created, save that God formed us from Dust. Exactly what is meant by that? Was it literally from dirt molecules? Or figuratively, say from a more lowely form of life? Are we reading what the ancient Hebrews understood, or merely the best translation into the written word that their language allowed.
I'm ranting, but I definetly agree with you on all points.
--Sean
the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" (Score:5, Insightful)
It is such a fucking sorry state that one must argue evolution *all over again*, because morons refuse hard evidence. We are back in the middle ages, when someone takes the Bible literally.
What a drawback. Would this be the beginning of the end for the great U.S., a nation that thrived on independent thinking and scientific investigations brought on by the great influx of immigrant brains post WW-II? I guess so...
What developed the West, what set it apart from the rest, was *science*, not religion.
In that respect, religious rednecks are very much like the fundamentalist muslims they fear and loathe so much.
Re:the fucking sorry state of American "thinking" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're buying into broad cultural stereotypes about "Western" and "Eastern" culture which don't hold up to close scrutiny. First of all, there is no line between East and West. Those cultures we consider Western have had extensive cultural interaction with those we call Eastern: Buddhism, for example, was influenced to a large degree by "Western" philosophy as far back as the first century C.E., when a syncretic "Greco-Buddhism" emerged in central Asia; likewise, early Christian mysticism borrowed from Hindu religious practices. There's not even any clear consensus as to who is Western and who is Eastern: Islam is considered "Eastern" by Christians and "Western" by Hindus, and in the Balkans various religious and ethnic groups have seen Russia's influence as an example of both the "decadent West" and the "primitive East."
As for the claim that "hard doctrines" are easier to find in the West than in the East, history disagrees. China gave us both the extremely rigid social organization of Confucianism and the easygoing individualism of Taoism, at times recognizing both doctrines simultaneously; while here in the "West" we've seen everything from Catholics to Wiccans, businessmen to hippies.
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Interesting)
Man: Lord, how long is a million years to you?
God: Only a minute.
Man: Lord, how much is a million dollars to you?
God: Only a penny.
Man: Lord, can I have a million dollars?
God: In a minute.
It is naive of us to believe that Genesis is to be interpreted as literal fact, in much the same way that it is naive of us to believe that anything so transcribed, translated, and retranslated by fallible men is the infallible word of God.
Further, it is naive to assume that someone several thousand years ago could have understood evolution if God had described it to him/her. Jesus spoke in parables as a way of boiling complex issues down to a simple metaphorical truth. It seems perfectly consistent to assume that Genesis is similar: God taking a very complicated subject (for the time period) and distilling it to its very essence so that primitive minds could understand.
Creation versus evolution is not inherently a conflict except for those weak in faith. A faith that cannot be challenged---that cannot accept the possibility that it might have gotten some details wrong---is not true faith. True faith must grow, change, sometimes even die entirely to be reborn anew in a stronger, more vibrant form. That's what the Bible says, but some people forget this and angrily defend the exact words of the Bible as God's absolute truth, thus refusing to allow their faith to be tested. A faith untested cannot be strong, for it is in being tested that our faith becomes deeper than a superficial understanding of God.
God did not come to this Earth thousands of years ago never to return. He did not abandon us. He works in our lives every day, whether we're scientists or random church-goers. Does it not, therefore, stand to reason that evolution might be a new truth that God has revealed to us? Not all new truths are heresy. Earth is not flat. The Sun does not revolve around Earth. Women and men are equal. God created the world in billions of years. No difference.
That said, I could be wrong, but so could everyone else---and that is the point.
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Informative)
1) The bible is the literal, breathed, inerrant Word of God. For this to be the case (so the argument goes), the stories of creation in Genesis cannot be mere alegory, they must be literally true. Otherwise, who's to say what else is not literally true. Yes, I realize that this is a weak argument.
The second, and IMHO, MUCH stronger argument is the following:
2) Fundamentalists believe in a literal heaven where you go to live after you die. That's not metaphorical. They also believe that non-believers literally go to a hell after they die, which is also not metaphorical. In fundamentalist Protestantism, the only thing that will get you into heaven is belief in Christ. That's it. End of story. But the fundamentalists have to explain WHY this is (in other words, if I live my life in a good way, why do I still go to hell if I'm not christian?). Here's why (again, so the argument goes):
- God is perfect. So perfect, in fact, that He must not allow imperfection in his sight. To avoid this, all those who are not perfect go to a place without God (Hell) and so will not be in His site.
- The fall introduced evil into the world. In so doing, God's creation (Mankind) was made evil. That's ALL of his creation, not just the original "evil doers" (that would be Adam and Eve). As the new testament says "All fall short of the glory of God." And "Man's best deeds are but dirty rags." So basically, since you are inherently imperfect (hence away from God, or "sinful" technically) there is nothing you could possibly do to earn your way to heaven. Woo hoo! We're all going to hell!
- But, what if God made a sacrifice to atone for the fall on behalf of all mankind? The argument is that Jesus did this. In so doing, whomever would accept that Christ did this for him would basically have their own sins atoned for by Christ Himself (who was also God), so that when that person stood before God in Heaven, God would see the atonement of Christ (himself) instead of that person's sins. Hence, heaven is possible, but only for believers.
There's protestant theology in a nutshell. Now, here's where creationism comes in (again, so the argument goes):
If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.
Usually this combined with the first argument about biblical literalism ensures that it will indeed be a cold day in Hell before protestants can reconcile their beliefs with mainstream science.
Just thought you'd like to know. Christians, feel free to correct me if any of the details are wrong.
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to look at the motivation of people like the pope when they say these things. They're smart enough to realize that evolution is an incontrovertible fact, but they don't want to give up their religion. So what else are they going to say?
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "evolution". In the biological sense, evolution is a process, not an event. One debates whether a process occurs and whether an event occurred.
I can and do study (and thereby demonstrate the existence of) evolution every day in my research. These days, evolutionary scientists seek to understand and characterize the properties and mathematics of the process of evolution. We observe and characterize it, day in and day out.
The phrase "...whether or not evolution occurred..." is not even lexically coherent. It's equivalent to "whether or not oxidation occurred" or "whether or not gravitation occurred". If someone wants to debate the existence of the process, feel free. But creationists gave up that lane of attack decades ago in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. They pretend that the difference is now a debate between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - a distiction which does not exist and cannot be defined.
If instead you want to debate whether the dual processes of evolution and speciation have led, over the course of several billion years, to the particular phylogeny biological species which currently inhabit the Earth, feel free. At that point, we're out of the realm of strict science (meaning the scientific method) and into the realm of observation, speculation, and logical argument because we can't, of course, conduct a controlled experiment.
But for goodness' sake, at least please take the time to understand the terms about which you're debating.
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Insightful)
But there are those who insist that the Earth was created "with age" 6000 years ago, and that fossils, etc, are a diversionary trap for the unfaithful.
Of course, this could be true. It could also be true that the universe was created last Thursday and that all appearances of age, including fossils memories, are simply manufactured. The problem with this view (Omphalism) is that it's unfalsifiable. There is no observable consequence to distinguish a universe that's actually old from one that simply has the appearance of age or even from a universe even older than our estimates that's been altered to look young for that matter. And even if we could somehow be sure that the universe was created with the appearance of age, then it simply doesn't tell us anything new. The supposition doesn't help us explain or predict any new observations.Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, great! It had to be a Thursday! I never could quite get the hang of Thursdays.
Re:tell the entire story of our evolution over tim (Score:5, Funny)
Now, repeat after me:
Yea, though I walk through the valley of Friday, I shall fear no Weekend, for a hot chick is with me; My Rod and My Staff, they comfort me, especially when rubbed the right way; Thou preparest a table on which I may lay down my chick in the presence of mine video camera; thou annointest my chick with water-soluble lube, yea, even as her cups overflow. Surely lewdness and merriment shall follow me all the days of my life, perhaps even unto next Thursday, when the World Will End, and I shall dwell in the house of lewdness for ever, and ever. Ah, man.
Re:Why does everyone think 6 days??? (Score:5, Funny)
The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye... (Score:4, Insightful)
But they're mollusks, which means they branched off at something like a clam.
So, it's interesting wonder how they wound up with eyes too.
Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "mamalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The "mammalian" eye & the "cephalopod" eye. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is quite right. The difference is simple: the photoreceptors all have to feed into a neural network for processing, and then the outputs of that neural network are connected by axons (wires, basically) that run down into the optical nerve to transmit the information from the brain.
The cephalopod retina does this the way you'd expect: photoreceptors up front receiving the light, neural network behind it, axonal connections behind that.
The eye in all chordate (spinal-cord bearing, i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles) organisms is built the other way around: the photoreceptors are at the back of the retina, with the neural net in front of them and the axonal network in front of that. Before light reaches your photoreceptors, it has to pass through several layers of cells. Your "blind spot" is the area right on top of the optical nerve where the axons go back through the whole layered structure, taking up the room that might otherwise be used for photoreceptors. Take a look at the photo on the wikipedia page about the retina [wikipedia.org]. In that cross-section of the retina, the light comes in from the left.
From an engineering point of view, it's totally retarted. But evolved organisms have this kind of kludge all the time, because once you have a structure locked in, it's really hard to get away from it by mutation. You could concieve of a series of organisms with a few mutations at a time where by the end the structure of the retina was reversed and they had better eyes. BUT, the organisms in the middle of the series would probably be blind so you'd never get to the end.
Another fantastic example is the fact that our lungs are above and in front of our stomach, but our nose is above our mouth. This requires our air-path and food-path to cross each other, opening the possibility of choking to death. How stupid is that?
But the number and combination of mutations required to restructure the entire neck and jaw so that your trachea could be behind your throat
Particularly things like body-plan order that happen early in development tend to get really locked in by evolution. This is why we can see so many "bad engineering decisions" in biological organisms.
Re:Intelligent design? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that's it's faith, i.e. you just believe it with no basis in provable (or testable) fact. It's the same as believing the Bible, just a little more rational because there's nothing that proves it's not true.
The problem is when people try to masquerade it as science. "I don't understand how this can happen, ergo 'God' did it." is not science, it's faith.
Re:Intelligent design? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I'd like to ask; Now that the role of (insert favorite deity here) has been reduced to such an abstraction, what purpose does he/she/it serve in the process, other than maintaining compatibility with what you were taught to believe as a child? At what point does chemistry become divine influence?
I mean, if you believe in creation, that's fine. If you believe in evolution, that's also fine. What does this hybrid belief offer other than a weak compatibility between religion and science?
=Smidge=
Re:Intelligent design? (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is a codeword for creationism. It claims there are aspects of biology which cannot be explained through evolution, thus requiring... "intelligent design"
This is different from theological schools that integrate god and evolution, of which you are presumably a proponent (as are most sane theologies).
Most arguments in ID nowdays center around the concept of "irreducibly complex" biological components.
Some examples.
The blood clotting cascade.
The human eye.
DNA replication.
Most of the time they argue this while blithely ignoring a myriad of simpler intermediate processes in nature (Darwin himself pointed out that if you look at snails alone you can see almost every form of eye from primitive light sensing cells up to a complex focusing lens like our own) as well as the fact that components that are mutually dependant now may have evolved so without having been so in the past (the blood clotting cascade in humans versus lobsters for example, evidence that simpler clotting mechanisms were refined, and the components becoming inextricably linked - like hummingbird beaks and deep-throated flowers).
In short, it is their usual lack of imagination combined with a poorly concealed agenda of creationism.
One amusing thing is how they try to explain these "irreducibly complex" mechanisms in a biological framework.
A primitive cell created by some being that had all these mechanisms they clcaim required design. The cell had templates for blood clotting, eyes...
This massive cell then, presumably, differentiated into the current lifeforms who lost all this extra information.
Re:Intelligent design? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not compatible. The problem for 'intelligent design' is that much of the design is very unintelligent. For example, the design of the mammalian eye is awful - the nerves are in the wrong place, meaning we have blind spots. (If design were intelligent, we would have eyes like octopuses, which are far better). The are plenty of other examples of extremely bad design. Evolution is not about what's good; it's what's better than the competition.
Re:Face It (Score:5, Insightful)
Face It (Score:4, Informative)
The idea of the evolution is of a scientific one. It is continously checked against new findings, modified, refined and is open to scientific rebate.
Creationism is something that some people dreamt up and is pretty much based on only two thing: "because the Bible says so" and "it is highly unlikely" (well, try telling a lottery winner, that because it was utterly unlikely to win, he, in fact, did not win), and it is unlikely, because they think it is).
Yeah, no difference, right?
Re:Face It (Score:5, Insightful)
As for scientists, their view on evolution is usually founded in the scientific method [ucr.edu] and falsifiability [wikipedia.org].
I don't think any scientist will tell you that the theory of evolution is complete or proven in every aspect - as with most facets of biology, it's complex, and the data we have is essentially a partial, but extensive, set of samples. The problem with Creationists is that they fail to separate articles of faith ('God is the ultimate creator of the world' - a statement that is not incompatible with falsifiable observations) and science ('the world is 5000 years old' - there is no evidence to support this and many other such claims).
Obviously, it's a complicated fray, and some of the Intelligent Design people make less outlandish claims, and instead try to attack the theory of evolution by finding exceptions or outliers. Unfortunately, they often selectively ignore important research and evidence, and have mostly been debunked (yes, I've read some of this stuff by these people out of curiousity to see how they presented their arguments, and I wasn't very impressed).
Most of the arguments, at a basic level, are elucidated quite well on the talk.origins FAQ [talkorigins.org]. Strangely, the site doesn't read like religious mantra to me.
no, just the creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
Re:"concrete evidence" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue anti-religious, hate-filled rants (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides that, people are too quick to paint all religious folk with the same brush. My wife is an Anglican, and believes that "Christian science" and literalism are ideological suicide. Faith is faith - whether a Christian-concept God exists or not, there will be no proof, no evidence, real-world implication that it exists... and an abrupt "creation" doesn't seem subtle enough for that. The universe shuold be taken at face value, and religion applied to wonder about what exists outside of it.
Re:Why Verses? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what Creationists believe is that God did the 7 days and he rested bit...then the Adam and Eve bit (so we can get "original sin" in there right off the bat) and that the Earth is really only 10,000 years old.
If they wish to believe this, that is their choice. As is the choice of the people that say the Earth is flat, and that we didn't really go to the Moon. These people are totally and completely free to believe this, to talk about it and to argue about it. Free speech and all that. I bow to them. I respect them. They're standing up for what they believe and that's fine.
But when they start putting this non-sense in my sons school books, then we've got a problem. They argue that children should be getting both sides so they can choose which to believe. Well, this is about science, not beliefs.
Then the Creationists, if they succeed in gaining a foothold into school science books shouldn't have a problem with other Creation theories. Like the Hindu and Buddists views on creation. Right? They shouldn't have a problem with that...right? What about Native American folklore? They should throw that all in the science books also...so that the children can decide for themselves which is right. But no, sorry...it's only the Judeo/Christian creation their only interested in.
Pot...meet kettle.
Re:Why Verses? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Bible: God is the Creator of all things. (Genesis 1)
Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.
2. Bible: World created in six days. (Genesis 1) These must be literal days; see #23.
Evolution: World evolved over the aeons.
3. Bible: Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3)
Evolution: Creative processes continuing.
4. Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.
5. Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
6. Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
7. Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
8. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: All fishes before fruit trees.
9. Bible: All stars made on the fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)
Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.
10. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20,21)
Evolution: Fishes evolved over hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
11. Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31; Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.
12. Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
13. Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.
14. Bible: Man before rain. (Genesis 2:5)
Evolution: Rain before man.
15. Bible: Man before woman. (Genesis 2:21-22)
Evolution: Woman before man. (by genetics).
16. Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-19)
Evolution: Sun before any light (on earth).
17. Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
18. Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life appeared all at once. (Genesis 1:20-21)
Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.
19. Bible: Man's body created from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)
Evolution: Man evolved from monkeys.
20. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man evolved.
21. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.
22. Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1 Corinthians 15:38-39), although speciation [answersingenesis.org] does occur.
Evolution: Life forms in a continual state of flux.
23. Bible: Man's sin is the cause of death. (Romans 5:12)
Evolution: Struggle and death existent log before the evolution of man.
Re:Please stop. (Score:5, Insightful)
- Someone else's religious beliefs get in the way of teaching my kids proper science.
- Someone else's beliefs mean my taxes are spent on quack treatments such as homeopathy and therapeutic touch instead of stuff that actually works.
- Someone else's beliefs prevent me from conceiving a child, or choosing not to conceive a child.
- Someone else's beliefs are used to determine funding for the scientific and medical research that may one day save my life.
- Someone else's beliefs are prominent in the election of the leader of the world's most powerful economic and military force.
At this point, someone else's beliefs very concretely become my concern, and I reserve my right to disagree with them and oppose them if necessary.
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity (Score:5, Funny)
Original sin is simply a metaphorical way to talk abou the primordial disparity between matter and anti-matter with which the universe has been stuck since early after its inception.
The Jesus story is a metaphorical reference to the time when electrons coupled with matter, and the universe became clear to light.
I think the bible is amazing
Re:A couple of questions about your Christianity (Score:5, Interesting)
Your first point, that one cannot be "born" Christian is, technically, true. After all, a newborn can't meaningfully be anything in terms of philosophy or religion. However, if one has been raised Christian for one's entire life, "lifelong" Christian is a perfectly good description of it. In Catholicism, at least, you are expected to make a conscious choice after reaching adulthood (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) to continue being Catholic, but that doesn't mean you weren't Catholic growing up. This is similar in the other Christian faiths with which I am familiar, and I assume in most, if not all, of them.
I don't mean to give offense, but had your second point not been surrounded by what seems to be reasoned text, I would call troll. Your statement that Christianity and Evolution are fundamentally incompatible is simply ridiculous. You are equating "Christianity" with "literal belief in the Bible as written," which is, quite plainly, false. There are Christian faiths, of course, which do subscribe to a strict-to-the-word belief in the Bible, but most do not.
The belief that man is fundamentally flawed and therefore can (and does) succumb to temptation does not rest upon the (patently false - after all, who did Cain marry?) strictest interpretation of the Bible. It rests solely upon the observation that man is flawed, and does sin. To reconcile this with a perfect creator (the "problem of evil") is a non-trivial philosophical task, but that's a different issue, and doesn't conflict with evolution whatsoever.
At its root, Christianity is simply the belief that there is a God who created everything (one way or another), and that His son, Jesus, died to redeem man of his sins after explaining how people should behave.
Everything else is added trappings and expansions (and, as a Catholic, let me tell you that various flavors add a lot of trappings and expansions). Some of those, such as strict intepretation of the Bible, do conflict directly with macro evolution. Others, such as the Assumption, don't.
In any event, in no way is Christianity fundamentally opposed to macro evolution. Strict interpretation is, but not Christianity.