GW's views on Evolution

[jungwoo]

just a thought

Occasionally people get upset when dogmatic statements are made. They say, "You can't be dogmatic like that."

Many think that some people are dogmatic and others are not.
It isn't a matter of whether you are dogmatic or not, but of which dogma is the best dogma with which to be dogmatized!-Ken Ham

[Ryu (non-working password]

*sigh* (Al Gore-style )

YeLLa are you watching all this?
This is what I meant by all the questions, hurt feelings, mis-interpretations, etc.
And this is not even the meat of the subject.

If you want to be truly religious, strive to understand. DON'T bind yourself in a literal interpretations of the bible, (what people mistake for Christianity, or any religion) and to the other extreme don't become so dogmatic in scientific study that your world comes down when someone discovers something different.

It's fun, but hard. Especially because so many people don't think about religion in any deeper meaning, and only attribute it to "invisible men", "people literally growing from peopl'e sides", etc.
As long as that's the case, everyone will fight. Darwin for instance was a religious scholar. His intentions were not to disprove God with his theory, but rather give a theory on how "he" might have done it.

So have fun, watch out for all the muck on both sides, and don't be blind in either side.
LOL, ENJOY! muahahaha

Ryu

[Atomic]

jung--

Don't worry about it, it's hard to interpret tones on a message board. Now, on to your thoughts.

First, go and read Dawkin's article, the last link. Based on your thoughts, I can see you did not read the article or take it into consideration. This answers why science is not faith based, but instead, based on logic, reasoning, and fact. He covers this in great detail and there's no reason for me to butcher his article, so read that before continuing.

Now, on to all-knowing, etc. We never said we were all knowing. People strive to understand what they have based on the information they have. Just because you don't have all the exact details doesn't mean you cannot understand what happened. This happens all the time in crime scene interpretation. You don't need to have a video tape of the crime to figure out how it happened, what happened, etc. You use clues. The scientist uses logic, reasoning, and known facts to reconstruct what happened. Scientific evidence leans towards evolution and not a Garden of Eden. Hence, science doesn't require faith and relying on faith in science isn't really considered science or good science. Again, reference the Dawkins article.

This is what scientists do when reconstructing history. Speaking of which, we are now delving more into palentology than evolution.

Now, your question is answered in the first link I posted and the last link, Dawkin's article.

Lastly, we have proof of evolution happening recently in flies (work of a person in my department who is quite famous for documenting this), plants, and birds (work done on Galapagos finches, for example). It is a real, documented and explained. If you take the time to gather the evidence and read it, you cannot deny it and it requires no leaps of faith, like religion does.

Last question about the eye: primitive eyes are found on many, many animals and are used to sense light and sometimes light gradients. Now, if positive photo-taxis (attraction to light) or negative photo-taxis is beneficial to you, then a primitive eye is quite useful. Many insects have both compound eyes and primitive eyes that evolved because they were useful.

Now, as to why something like that would evolve over a long period of time, it is because it's usefulness could give an animal an advantage over it's competitors, allowing for it to maybe exploit a new niche (as in, place of living, or food source) and/or out compete another animal. If this animal takes another's food source, the losing competitor will die out because they have no food source, unless they change. This is documented as well and happens when non-native species are introduced into an area.

Just a few examples that I hope help you to better understand evolution and science. Please read the articles.

Atomic

[YeLLa-TiGeR]

Ryu, this is hella confusing, and I think I'll leave this debate to the old people. (as in over 18) I have to say, I think people are taking the bible too literally. Does it have to be PURE religion or PURE science in each explanation? I think you cannot find the truth until both sides are fully explored and used. I personally think a combination of the both is the best explanation.

[Ryu (non-working password]

Glad to hear it. Sounds like you're on the right track.
Atomic and others do make a solid point. Science does not need a leap of faith whereas Religion does. Faith, however is the main point in Religion. If you look at say the Bible for instance (but could just as well look at the Buddhist scriptures, Koran, etc) You get the feeling that faith as it is, is possibly THE most important aspect. After all if religion did not require faith...what the hell would be religious about it? It would be simple science. Simple history.
So in that respect, you cannot look at the two in the exact same light. But there is definately a deeper connection between them. Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, Aristotle, etc. All these men were trying to keep an open mind so that knowledge from all views could come into play.
After all if one is closed minded to science, eventually he'll be proven a fool. Yet if one is closed minded towards the Bible then again they are not allowing possible knowledge to present itself. And that to me might be the greatest sin. The bible after all is comprised of images, and it is up to people to understand those images. It's like a dog watching TV. The dog does not know that the image on the screen is not the real image he's seeing. He can't differentiate between the two. When people do this very thing with religion and the bible, the contradictions and illogical abstracts start flowing
Grace doesn't destroy nature, but completes it. That's possibly a good way to think of it.

Take care,
Ryu

[Atomic]

Actually, Aquinas gets ripped on very often for his twisted views relating to quack science. There's a funny story about an old statue of his and Cornell, I believe. I'll save that for later.

Basically, religion and science are incompatible and measure different things, which ties in with faith in one, and logic/reasoning in the other.

Religion originally tried to explain phenomena that wasn't explainable at the time and it was good. Then, when science came knocking, most religious people gave back territory that they knew wasn't theres.

On an interesting note, the Pope has made a statement that evolution is the only real answer for what we have today and fully supports it. The first support for evolution from the Catholic church came in 1942, I believe.

Like I said earlier, it's mostly Western quacks that try to refute evolution and tout creationism as the true and only way.

Atomic

[Ryu (non-working password]

Aquinas did volumes considering the age he was in. A scientist of that day cannot be compared as "better" than the scientists of this day because 50 years from now something may change. It wasn't too long ago when all science thought the atom was the smallest substance, until they opened it up.
Obviously we are gaining much more knowledge in this day and age, but my point was that a scientist who cannot adapt is just as blind as a religious zealot.
I'm not arguing that religion has the true account of creation, etc. Far from it probably. Again, the bible talks in images. It's like thinking the actor really IS the person he portrays on the screen. It's a crude example, but one that works.
The number one thing wrong with religion today, in my opinion, is the inability to study factual science as NOT a threat to your faith in something greater than yourself. If you believe in an invisible man, then by all means you are correct, but for a deeper spirituality I don't think science and faith necessarily have to be enemies.
We have found MASSIVE info in the realm of science in just the last century...think about what we may find out in the next. I'm not implying towards any scientific proof of religion (whereas that won't be religion anymore), but I am saying that if people fall into the trap of thinking "we have it all figured out finally..." well that's pseudo-science. And a direct slap in the face to science itself.
Science strives for truth, philosophy strives for wisdom, religion, in my opinion, strives for the completion of self. I guess my views are rather agnostic at times. I don't argue with "the bible says God created the earth in 6 days" because I don't necessarily take that literally. So my faith is never hurt or broken by science simply because I enjoy the pursuit of truth in all fields. Science is one of the most respectable carriers of truth. You can't just ignore that. But in order to be complete you have to be reflective in matters of philosophy, emotions, morality, and also a certain spiritual sense. I don't know what that is, but to downplay all religion because of imagery of a book is downright arrogant, and a bit ignorant in my opinion. Some look at religion in a deeper context

Well that's just my opinion.

Take care,

Ryu

[Atomic]

Ryu(I can't find my password....)

I'm not discounting all of religion. I think it does have its merits, but more along the lines of morality and the like. It has no business messing around in the area of science, nor does science have any reason to mess around with religion. In a nutshell, science and religion shouldn't mix and the idea of creationist science is totally absurd and worthless! It's like trying to prove that the egg came before the chicken...

I'll give you the Aquinas story in a little while. Stephen J. Gould talked a little about him when he came to our campus about a month ago. Very interesting and insightful talk, indeed!

Atomic

[Ryu (non-working password]

Ah, I understand where you're coming from now.
I'm sorry, I somewhat jumped to the conclusion that some of the posters were claiming religious notions or say morality, etc were "worthless", etc.
I misunderstood a little. My apologies.

I'm looking forward to the story

Ryu .....(now that Tim is back perhaps I can get just "RYU" back and drop the "non working password

[david a]

Hi guys. The "religious quack" hasen't gone away yet!

Although I don't have time to post lengthy tonight, I will just state that I am looking at the sites you mentioned, Atomic, and not just buring my head in the sand, as others state. As I said before, I have an open mind, and strive to look at the facts on both sides. I urge you to do the same.

Check out if you have time: (no religious dogma here!)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odessey/debate/index.html

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm

Look for my rebutal tommorrow, and have a good night.

[Atomic]

David--

The Nova link doesn't work. Please check it again and verify.

Thanks,

Atomic

[david a]

My apologies Atomic- I must learn how to spell odyssey!

Here's thelink again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/index.html

I got a chance to read through your first link and I am checking out the others tonight. Some interesting arguements in there, however there are some glaring problems in it.

First of all, there are poor representations of religious
arguments in the article.

1. "God created the world especially for man." This is a false statement. In Genesis 1, God gives man dominion over the earth, where He puts them in charge of, as the next chapter indicates, tending and keeping it. No where in scripture does God give the earth itself to man. Scripture indicates that- "The earth is the Lord's, and all the fullness thereof." Creation is for God's pleasure not ours.
2. Pope Pius the 12th. We have to remember that Pope pius is just a man. Although sadly, he speaks for the RC church as a whole, he does not speak for the minds and hearts of many RC's I know, who reject his embracement of evolution. The pope is entitled to his own beliefs, just as his congregation is also.
3. Once again the statement by the RC church that, "God destined all material creatures for the good of the human race." This is why I do not follow their teachings. Although there are many Christians in the RC church, Roman Catholicism is a poor representation of Orthodox christianity.
4. "Christians have a egocentric(self-centered) view of the world."
Evolution must dominate the exclusion of all else(refering to origins,etc.). They are engrossed or mentally distracted towards their theories alone. If not, they would embrace creation as well. They are therefore self-centred when stating ther own assertions. I have met few evolutionists that have taken the time to honestly look at the other side's veiws.
5. "It is pointed out that all of Genesis is just a story"?
Once again, a poor representation of a "religious" view.
There is good reason to believe that this is a false statement. Genesis 1-2, represents Adam and Eve as actual persons and even narrates the important events in their lives=history. It also says they gave birth to literal children who did the same. Thirdly, the same phrase("this is the history of, or this is the geneology of") used of Adam and Eve, is found in Genisis 5, is used to record later history in Gen. chapters 6,9,10,11,17 as well. Later Old Testament chronologies place Adam at the top of the list. The New Testament places Adam at the beginning of Jesus' literal ancestors. Sixth, Jesus refers to Adam and Eve as the first literal male and female. So, if you take Genesis away, everything else must go as well. If asked, I will take the time to present why I think the Bible is devine, not by science, but by historical, archeological, prophetic, statistical evidence. But for now, you can see that this is poor religious representation.
6. "The concept of quantum mechanics, genetics, etc. would not have made sense to them."
The people of the old testament "walked with God" God revealed himself to them through theosophy, theophonies, etc. and through indirect confrontations(eg. Angel of the Lord appearing). So really, they did not walk by blind faith and they did not need science to affirm their belief. In the New Testament, God walked with them physically as well so you see the reasoning in that. Today we have His word.
7. "The Bible lies in cultural and religious terms?"
The Bible is not only cultural, but has much historical, medical, archeological, and practical values as well.
8. Sure, in the womens case her religion does not rule out the beliefs of science because she has dismantled most of its foundations.
9. The passage quoted in Genesis 18:22-25.
This is a weak text in defense of the struggle between science and religion. When Abraham questioned God, does it necessarily mean his question was valid? It appears not, because there seemed not to be even 10 people counted as righteous in the city. Abraham's question, far from being crassly or selfishly manipulative, humbly and compassionately expressed his concern for people and in particular, for his nephew Lot and his family. The fact that Abraham reduced the righteous count from 50 to 10 indicates his awareness of just how wicked the city was.
(Just a side note: apparently Sodom and Gammorah were discovered in archeological finds rather recently. This was an apparent "problem" of validity of Genesis, widely used as "proof" by skeptics.
10. About the last paragraph. "Science as we have said...
religion insists that there...."
Ahh, but once you have attained a belief in evolution, you then exclude all other theories or else your theory would not be valid because it is not fully true. And to this, questioning your theory is not possible as some on this forum have revealed. So in essence, I am not questioning science itself, but a theory created from it. It is like saying that- since the Bible is truth, I cannot question a cultic groups representation of the Bible because they have relied on the Bible's truth to prove their twisted doctrines.

Also, and this is for all to hear on this forum.
I do not claim my belief in God by blind faith, but my faith is solidified through evidence. Not in science, because the definition of science, as I quoted earlier, excludes any notion that I can prove my veiws of origin or that God indeed exists, but through Manuscript, archeological,prophetic, and statistical evidence which I would be happy to provide, but since this a topic on evolution, I will refrain.

Lastly, Your question: Why does science work and religion doesn't?(i.e science tends to question logically, where religion relies on the devine text.)

For science to be true, it must question everything in light of the laws of science, which we pressume to be accurate and true. Now I admit that comparing science to religion is like apples to oranges, but both of their truths, are relied upon a certain foundation for their theories or beliefs to be true. Just like there are many theories risen from science, so too are interpretations from scripture. Although we rely on the Bible for devine truth, we still question mans interpretation of it. So too with science, as we rely on the laws of science(eg. law of gravity, law of thermodinamics), which we do not question, but the theories that arise from them. So do both work? Sure they do.