The American Astronomical Society (AAS) is the largest group of professional astronomers in America (I’m a member). They will occasionally put out a statement about important issues, and they just released one about Intelligent Design. AAS President Robert Kirshner said (and I love this quotation),
Science teachers have their hands full teaching the things that we actually know about the world we live in. They shouldn’t be burdened with content-free dogma like Intelligent Design.
Woohoo! That was pretty succinct.
The full AAS statement is on their website, but I like this part:
Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess — scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
They get in lots of jabs there– evolution is rock-solid, backed by evidence and experimentation. They also get in one on the idea that the word “theory” somehow makes evolution flimsy, when that’s not the case at all.
And they make their feelings about ID clear:
…“Intelligent Design�? fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Since “Intelligent Design�? is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation’s primary and secondary schools.
Hear hear.
September 20th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Wow. I’ve never heard the scientific method (and the use of the scientific method) put so elegantly before. Bravo to the AAS. Unfortunately, I doubt this will put any dent in the ID proponents’ campaign.
September 20th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
I was glad to finally get a statement from the AAS – all the other scientific organizations I’m a member of came out with them weeks ago. But I think the AAS put it the best. I really hope someone in a position of power will stand up and take notice – but not too optomistic.
September 21st, 2005 at 12:38 am
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration on Tuesday dismissed North Korea’s demand for civilian nuclear reactors and appeared confident about a final agreement to end that nation’s nuclear weapons program. 翻译公å?¸
September 21st, 2005 at 6:37 am
Fantastic! This co-incides with the Australian Federal Education minister clarifying that while he though children should be exposed to ID, it should be in religious instruction not in Science class
September 21st, 2005 at 7:16 am
I feel that a quote from “Why Intelligent Design Fails” by Young and Edis fits in here:
p 120 “Natural theology (Paley, 1802) presumed that the Universe was the product of God’s will and that the rational study of the Universe would reveal God’s will on par with the direct revelation of holy scripture. Two hundred years later, the intelligent design movement is a desperate attempt to find in the Universe unambiguous evidence that God exists at all.”
Appropriate. William Dembski heads the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s “Center for Science and Theology” to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ.
September 21st, 2005 at 7:34 am
WOOOOOOO!! Go AAS!!
(a little comment from the non-academic-but-not-stupid plebiscite)
September 21st, 2005 at 7:38 am
Just got this off of Spacedaily.com
Museums Prepare For Creationist Visitors
Sep 21, 2005
U.S. museums are preparing for increasingly vocal challenges to evolution exhibits, including those of the Washington-based National Science Foundation.
Museum lecturers and docents say they are being frequently confronted by small groups of creationists eager to vocally challenge evolution, The New York Times reported Tuesday, September 20th.
As a result, an increasing number of museums are training their staff in methods of dealing with people who reject long-settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
The National Science Foundation, sponsoring evolution-themed exhibits at six museums of natural history across the nation, includes training for docents and staff members in how to respond to creationists.
Gallup Poll statistics indicate 54 percent of people in the United States do not believe human beings evolved from other species.
Warren Allmon, director of the Paleontological Research Institute, an affiliate of Cornell University, said he encourages his staff to emphasize the fact that science museums live by the rules of science, and all science knowledge is provisional – subject to being revised when better answers are discovered, the Times reported.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:35 am
Gallup Poll statistics indicate… little. The head of Gallup (Ron Gallup Jr. or something) is an evangelical and a huge party donor.
Back on topic… AAS is preaching to the choir, so to speak. Their outreach methods do not get to people that need to be reached, and the language of this release is impenetrable to the average American. I have a science background and I still skimmed these three clippings; a less-educated person’s eyes would glaze over by the second sentence.
Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute is running a well-orchestrated PR campaign, targeting both select decision makers and vulnerable media outlets. And they use well-versed and rehearsed sound bites that lodge into the noncritical brain.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:45 am
For another view, see Brother Guy Consolmagno, a Vatican astronomer. He has two pieces at Astrobiology magazine, http://www.astrobio.net. Look for “By Design,” posted yesterday, and do a search for “Interview with Brother Guy Consolmagno, Curator of Meteorites at the Vatican Observatory.” Consolmagno isn’t about to undermine the authority of his employer, but clearly he has no patience for fundamentalists.
And for the record, he believes (and publishes) that his meteorite specimens are four billion years old, and organisms are bound by preexisting laws and processes. Physical inquiry is perfectly compatible with philosophical deduction.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:59 am
OH BOY….I bet we get over 100 comments! this is even more divisive than the IRAQ war!!
ID = content-free goal-oriented opinion backed by misrepresenations and mythology.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:52 am
I am in the process of reading an exceptionally well done book concerning
these issues and, of course, naturally, I urge reading:
“Does God Belong in Public Schools?” by Kent Greenawalt, a University Professor teaching at the Columbia University School of Law, and a former Deputy Solicitor General of the USA.
Especially Chapters 8-10: “Teaching Natural Science (TNS) I: Relation between Science and Religion”, “TNS II: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design” and “TNS III: What Amounts to Teaching Religion?”
September 21st, 2005 at 10:55 am
My question for the ID crowd (other than “Can you play the theme from ‘Deliverance’ on your banjo?�) is “Why couldn’t God create life on any other planet in our solar system? Like Mercury or Venus, for example.� If God is all powerful, then why would he need the basic building blocks (water, the right temperature, an atmosphere relatively free of Sulfuric Acid) in order to pull off a tiny miracle like making an amoeba? Is it possible that God doesn’t exist on other planets? Perhaps planets, themselves, aren’t real: after all, they’re never mentioned in the Bible.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:35 am
I’ve noticed how some planets are promising hope for resources. I bet that God set them there because he knew that we would eventually overpopulate and expend our resources and gave us more stuff in the solar system when we need it. For example, there seems to be petroleum chemicals on some of Saturns and Jupiters moons.
Also, I must say that the new ID theory of combining evolution with creation just doesn’t work. It hurts Christianity by lowering God’s power and only tries to appease some atheists. The Bible teaches to look for the truth, no less, not to comprimise truth. YEC makes much more sense than ID.
Slightly off topic, but an interesting thought…
What I find interesting about the hydroplate theory is that it easily could fit in with the evolutionary model. It explains many extinctions, comets, continents, earthquakes, petroleum, plates, and doesn’t really need to be applied just to creationism. I looked at my biology textbook and the hydroplate theory explained the extinctions much better than the meteorite theory, and does a fine job explaining the shape of the earth. It even explains the frozen mamoths. What is the problem with the hydroplate theory? All accusations against it are made with apparent misunderstaning of the theory.
September 21st, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Wow! Bob Kirshner does know how to tell it like it is. Content-free dogma, I like and will use, that phrase. It is good to see that musea are finally teaching their staff how to interact with individuals who disagree with evolution. For years, even planetaria, have avoided the use of the word “evolution” (as in stellar evolution) for fear of stepping on toes. We should be proud of our science and not apologize for it, ever. (So said Giordano Bruno…)
September 21st, 2005 at 12:43 pm
What are they afraid of? Evolution does not proof there isn’t a God. So evolution is rock-solid — does that suprise anyone? Nothing in Nature is its own source. The last I heard, Hawking was stuck on the question “why does the universe bother to exist”. So that prooves that there is a lot unknown and unknowable. Isn’t one classic definition: “God is that which no greater can be thought”?
September 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Hydroplate… is not a theory – for precisely the same reasons that ID is not. It is not supported by evidence in the field. This CONCEPT assumes that the Earth’s crust floated on a subterranian ocean of liquid water.
This concept assumes that this crust was unbelievably thin compared to what we know about the crust today. And it must have been non-porous and impermeable to water welling up from below. Even the weight of a single mountain would have been enough to crack it and rupture the surface. Add to that the tremendous effects the tidal forces of our moon would have on such a situation and you have a construct which could never have existed in reality.
September 21st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
“What are they afraid of? Evolution does not proof there isn’t a God.”
The entire foundation of creationism, and therefore Intelligent Design, is the idea the it couldn’t happen any other way. They can’t very well stand by and let a bunch of scientists show how it could.
September 21st, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Rodney,
We can do without the bajo/redneck/inbred inferences. I have family that are full on ID subscribers, and they are NOT inbred rednecks. They are people whom I have immense love and respect for. I may not hold all their beliefs, but leave off the bigotry.
CJSF
September 21st, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that, eh Rodney?
September 21st, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Again, misunderstaning of the hydroplate theory. The theory of plate techtonics is based on what? Observations. What is the hydroplate theory based on? Obseravations. They both use similar observations, actually.
September 21st, 2005 at 3:01 pm
ALL the sciences have to stand up, NOW, and band together against religious stupidity and self righteous bigotry!
As the current administration has shown all too often, real knowledge will quickly be discarded when it’s politically expedient to do so.
September 21st, 2005 at 3:50 pm
of course an astronomer for the Vatican accepts the current science! contrary to popular belief, it isn’t all Christians that believe in YEC, ID, or Biblical literalism. Catholic doctrine has held since 1953 that evolution is a fact. if the church from which all other Christians sprang (leaving out the great debate between Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox churches, anyway) can have both God and evolution, what’s wrong with Protestant fundamentalists?
September 21st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
M Duke, this is not the place to discuss the hydroplate theory. This is to discuss what I wrote in my blog entry. If you want to discuss something else, I suggest you go to the bulletin board and talk about it there in the “Against the Mainstream” section.
September 22nd, 2005 at 5:42 am
Hey, all you folks out there in the 9th court district! Be careful. It looks like you’ll soon be reciting, “…One nation, under Intelligent Design,…” Ha! Sorry. I just had to get that in.
It’s great that the AAS has taken a stance in this debate. Sooner or later, this contentious discussion will be coming to a school district near you (and me), and we’ll all be choosing up sides.
Have a great day.
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:43 am
I have to agree with the call for an end to associating ID people with banjo playing rednecks.
Doing it is an insult to banjo players everywhere.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:34 am
Nice to see AAS is helping to clear the air.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:14 am
“Catholic doctrine has held since 1953 that evolution is a fact”
Thanks Gillian. Just trying to show that it’s not an us-vs-them debate. I snuck into a creationist meeting. One of them said, ‘How can [Christians] believe in evolution???’ Then another said, ‘I’m glad the distinction is getting sharper.’ And these weren’t banjo pickers, either, but techies.
Fundamentalists and hardcore evangelicals know they do not form a majority. ID is an attempt to swing over mainline denominations and religious non-Christians (including hardcore Muslims, ironically). They want the debate to become ‘creationist or atheist- pick one.’ Don’t fall into their trap.
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:11 am
well…not 100 posts….I guess none of the IDers showed up… you ever go to evolutionblog…Jason’s great and he even went into the belly of the beast…
I’m glad the AAS issued the statement. What we need is more info/theories on the jump from star-created C-H-O-N and self-replicating protein strings….
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:30 pm
OK let’s hold the end zone boogie dancing, hoots, hollers and wild gyrations for a moment. Before you spike a Bible in the end zone, let me try to understand what is being celebrated here. A bunch of scientists from the AAS declared that ID is not possible according to what, their opinion? Who cares? I mean out side of the little amen corner here. Who cares? I am certainly not impressed. They have propped up the institutional lie and high tech religion of evolution for a little bit longer. Now if they had told the truth, I would not have been impressed, I would have fainted dead away. That would have been cause for celebration, this little announcement? No.
Oh, some of you might want to be more careful about expressing zeal for the cause to new comers, some of you are starting to sound more and more like an old fashioned big tent revival meeting here. The Royal Guardsmen of evolution all claim that it is not a belief system, yet they cling to it like it is. They strive to fight against anything and everything at all costs that might threaten it. If they have the truth it will prevail. They do not, but if they had the truth they would also have the confidence that nothing could stop it or challenge it. The Royal Guardsman simply cannot afford to have ID or just simply put; the Creation account fully displayed along side of evolution. They have to know that Darwinism will fold up like a house of cards. I know that the little amen group here will only shout me down and rail against me. I really don’t care. Most of the Royal Guardsmen of evolution are bullies anyway. They need to force feed their un official state religion on us all. That is what this is really all about.
I have every confidence that the Bible is true, and that Gods plan for us will succeed. In His time; on His terms and according to His will. He does not have to explain anything to you. But he might, if you tried asking him nicely. He does love you, and only wants the best for you. It would be nice if the Catholic Church got their views in line with Gods, but I am just a mild mannered protestant.
I am on to the critical thinking open minded game. Most of the Royal Guardsmen of evolution have never given the Creation account any serious thought, or even a fair hearing, have they? Here is some free advise, open up your mind too God, and He will renew your mind for you; giving you eyes to see his truth and ears to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. I will spare the Royal guardsman some follow up questions. No I do not have an open mind on this subject, and evolution was pretty much dead on arrival for me. My mother read the Bible to me at an early age. Sorry fellow’s I just going to have to be one that got away. I have been inoculated by the Holy Spirit.
So, go ahead, hoot, holler continue all those little boogie dances in the end zone. Attack me, throw the mud and spew the bile. The Royal guardsmen have won nothing.
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
“I am on to the critical thinking open minded game”
“No I do not have an open mind on this subject, and evolution was pretty much dead on arrival for me”
Serious contradiction here. Better make up your mind.
September 22nd, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Stiring the pot.
To me Evolution is a tool. Used by Natural Selection, it has created an incredible variety of life on our world. However, we’ve also used this tool. We call it “selective breeding”. Its results can be seen, in our Dogs, Cats, Finches, Doves, Pigeons, Cattle, the grain crops and even roses. These days, we can even cut corners by manipulating DNA directly.
As to whether our planet has been influenced by Alien species as Loyd Pye believes, this is debatable. Open to speculation, we cant prove it one way or the other.
As to whether our planet is the result of the hand of Deity. Again we cant prove that one way or the other either. This belongs in the arena of Philosophy and religion. Definately not a science class room.
Muddying the waters.
Lets confuse the issue with a hypothetical. Say in 200 years or so, we begin to Terraform Mars. First we start with the Atmosphere, then later we begin on a Hydrosphere. During this process, we will almost certainly, genetically alter Earth lifeforms to match the developing Martian environment. A combination of selective breeding and DNA manipulation. These lifeforms will then be transplanted to Mars. What have we got then.
Oh my god!!!!!!! We’ll become the “Intellegent Designers”.
Let the creationists stuff that in their collective pipe and smoke it!
Folcrom.
September 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 am
Given (1) we did terraform mars, and (2) we did tranplant life up there, and (3) in the millions of years that martian life took to get to our current level, the life on earth is no more, and finally (4) the Martians had their debate about their beginnings. How could the Martian’s know there was a IDer that kickstarted them ?
Would it be fair for them to say that ID fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea, and thus does not belong in the science curriculum studied in a science class ? If that’s the case, then its unlikely it would be investigated and shown to be true for their civilisation.
I’m thinking that while Folcrom wanted to whack the creationists, his example has instead shown that the concept of ID could occur, and thus deserves at least a check by science to verify if it happened here.
its a bit of a worry that while I think ID is rubbish science (and the god of the gaps is even worse rubbish religion), I’m feeling sorry if any Martian’s scientists reject ID – since in their case it did happen.
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:59 am
Gillian,
Very good question! I think sometimes these folks forget that they aren’t the “First Christians”. I personally believe that if they can lie to themselves about Catholics, they can deceive themselves about anything else to…..
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 am
din, what a great scenario. I think the Martian scientists would do this: They would see the genetic, biochemical and morphological hierarchies amongst martian life-forms and conclude (correctly) that evolution had happened. They would (correctly) state that the origin of Martian life was a separate issue. This would put them about where we are now. they would then try and figure out how life began. If we had does something like encoding a copyright notice into their DNA, one day they might find it and conclude (correctly) that Intelligent Design started life on Mars, and they would then start to wonder about who the designer was. In the absence of such evidence, parsimony would dictate that they should not invent a desgner.
If we found a copyright notice in Earth DNA, I think we would do the same, but so far of course no such evidence has been found.
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:16 am
Ed,
What Church did Christ create around 2,000 years ago?
Protestant perhaps? No, I dont’ think so.
As Gillian stated, we Catholics believe that God uses evolution as a way of creating in our physical Universe.
What is so darn hard to understand about that?
What exactly is so darn hard to understand that in creating the Universe, God created it to be understood with all the fundamental scientific laws that allow us to do all the technological things we are doing?
Folks who believe that the world is only 6,000 or so years old, who believe that the Dinosaurs where on Noah’s Aark, just aren’t thinking very deeply.
If we deny “Carbon 14″ dating…we deny the concept of radioactivity. If we deny the concept of radioactivity I wonder how Nuclear Reactors work? And don’t we get some electricity from those same Reactors…hmmm?
When you start to deny those concepts then you have to ask yourself if your hypotheisis is right or wrong. And if we use all this technology, based on all these scientific discoveries, then there can only be one solution:
That our hypothesis is wrong.
One final thought:
When folks say that Carbon 14 dating is wrong, that Noah really had Dinosaurs in the Aark etc. , what they are really saying is that the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe couldn’t create in a certain way.
In other words they try to put God into a little box.
Not a very humble thing to do is it?
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:19 am
folcrom and din:
Wouldn’t Homo sapiens Intelligent Designers also inhabit Mars, too?
In 2/3 billion years (a very very long time), Earth will become inhabitable due our star’s solar output. So, unless we become capable
of gradually shifting Earth’s orbit outward in reponse, we will certainly colonize Mars.
So, there will be a history of Mars’ terraforming and civilization and natural history musuems, etc. from the beginning.
Therefore, if there had been ID in our solar system, I am sure that they would have left evidence on our moon or elsewhere easily recognizable as such by an evolved intelligence on Earth. They could have terraformed Mars, too. Or, why didn’t they stay?
All of our exploration of this solar system, thus far, has not discovered any artifacts of a visitation. If we did or do, then we’d know, wouldn’t we?
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:35 am
Ed wrote: “I am on to the critical thinking open-minded game. Most of the Royal Guardsmen of evolution have never given the Creation account any serious thought, or even a fair hearing, have they?”
However, I have read quite extensively about the Holy Bible, the history of religious faiths of the past five thousand years. the hundreds of different creation myths of hundreds of different peoples (including the Hebrew “Genesis” chapters) over the past fifteen years to self-educate myself about it all.
I am and have been an Atheist since 1970 because no god exists anywhere. If a god existed, I would not be an Atheist.
Despite what you have written, you are quite biblically illiterate. You really don’t seem to have any context as to the Hebrew Genesis “Creation” myths, do you? You don’t know their oral or written history, do you?
Out of the hundreds of past and current creation stories, you have selectively chosen only those within the Holy Bilble to have “faith” in.
So, if you want to mention the “critical thinking open-minded” game, your comments don’t put you in the game. In essence, your comments put you in the “uncritical thinking, gullible, closed-minded” class of humanity.
And all of our explorations have not discovered any god, either. Let’s not get into “open-minded vs close-minded” crap. Let’s have independently, verifiable evidence for any god/goddesses. Your religious “mind rush” is not evidence for any gods, it is only evidence of your own brain processes and/or anyone else’s.
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:22 am
Ed, and others, reminds me of how their belief in an all powerful God (willfully ignoring the Bible’s own account of other Gods that created the “other people” that Adam & Eve’s children comingled with) is really the belief that their God is so little that He couldn’t created humans and other creatures with a tool as complex as evolution.
Why must there faith in a flawed concept be stronger than the God they profess to believe in?
September 23rd, 2005 at 3:17 pm
• Samara Says:
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
“I am on to the critical thinking open minded game�
“No I do not have an open mind on this subject, and evolution was pretty much dead on arrival for me�
Serious contradiction here. Better make up your mind.
***I can see why you got confused, let me clear this right up. I have made up my mind on the subject of origins, because I take the Bible and God at His word. So I will discuss the issue, I am not going to be changing my mind on the truth of the Creation account. So, on this subject I freely admit to being closed minded. I am being honest about it. What bothers me is when anyone comes along proclaiming to be open minded when clearly they are not.
On the subject of critical thinking, I don’t really have a problem with the concept of critical thinking. I don’t see any real critical thinking going on here. I see that evolution pretty much gets a pass, oh they might ask a few questions about it; nothing that might actually challenge it. But, when the subject of creation comes up? Oh boy! It is bombs away!
I could be wrong, I haven’t read every single post here, many but not all, I just do not think that critical thinking is being fairly and objectively applied. I freely admit my personal bias. You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t believe in taking prisoners for God. All people should come to him of their own free will. ***
• P. Edward Murray Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 5:16 am
Ed,
What Church did Christ create around 2,000 years ago?
Protestant perhaps? No, I dont’ think so.
**Christ founded a unified church 2000 years ago. It wasn’t Catholic or Protestant as we know them today. But, the Protestant Churches did split away over time as they saw the Church going in the wrong direction, a subject that would take hours to go over. I will spare you the details as it would take us way off topic.**
As Gillian stated, we Catholics believe that God uses evolution as a way of creating in our physical Universe.
What is so darn hard to understand about that?
***It goes against what is written in the scripture. ***
What exactly is so darn hard to understand that in creating the Universe, God created it to be understood with all the fundamental scientific laws that allow us to do all the technological things we are doing?
***I don’t have any problem with this statement.***
Folks who believe that the world is only 6,000 or so years old, who believe that the Dinosaurs where on Noah’s Aark, just aren’t thinking very deeply.
***In your opinion, I simply disagree with you.***
If we deny “Carbon 14″ dating…we deny the concept of radioactivity. If we deny the concept of radioactivity I wonder how Nuclear Reactors work? And don’t we get some electricity from those same Reactors…hmmm?
***Well beat me over the head with a straw man. Carbon 14 dating has nothing to do with how Nuclear reactors work. I think Nuclear power is a find idea.***
When you start to deny those concepts then you have to ask yourself if your hypotheisis is right or wrong. And if we use all this technology, based on all these scientific discoveries, then there can only be one solution:
***You are over reaching in your conclusion here, I do not see the one to one connection.**
One final thought:
When folks say that Carbon 14 dating is wrong, that Noah really had Dinosaurs in the Aark etc. , what they are really saying is that the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe couldn’t create in a certain way.
In other words they try to put God into a little box.
Not a very humble thing to do is it?
***I do not think that any thing is impossible for God; he could have created this Universe any way he wanted to. He chose to speak the worlds into existence and creation responded. The Bible says it took a week, seven 24 hour days. I am simply taking him at His word.***
1. sjs Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 11:22 am
Ed, and others, reminds me of how their belief in an all powerful God (willfully ignoring the Bible’s own account of other Gods that created the “other people� that Adam & Eve’s children comingled with
***sjs I would love to see a Biblical reference to what you are writing about. Adam and Eve were the first people. We all descended from them. Would you please site the passage, footnote or commentary that you saw so that I could read it as well?***
Chet you have also made some good points, but it has been a long day and I am too tired to properly respond to you. I thank you for your comments, and will try to get back to you over the week end.
My prayers do go out to anyone that has been hit by either Katrina, or Rita. In the face of such awesome power we are not just evolutionists or creationists, we are human beings. We share this planet together.
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Ed -
Genesis 3.22 (if I’m referencing this right)
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”
Who is “us”? God must surely be referring to others like Himself.
Genesis 4.14-15
“Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”
Curious since the only other people you’d say were alive at this time are Adam and Eve. God obviously seems concerned that others will find and kill Cain if He does not protect him.
Genesis 4.16-17
“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
So who was his wife? Was it an “other person” or one of his sisters that Adam and Eve had later? It has to be one of those two, literal interpretation allows for no other choice.
It is sad that people who believe in an all powerful God limit His powers so much. The Bible is a book, written by men; apocryphal lessons of behaviour and a way to control the masses. To take it as the end all and be all of human existence is extremely belittling of the power of a God, if you believe one exists. To say that a God could not create intelligent life through evolution (though humans appear to be on the verge of doing just that ourselves) is the height of arrogance and vanity.
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:37 pm
SJS, there is a tradition that Adam’s first wife was Lilith, and perhaps the women east of Eden were her progeny. Trust folklore to fill in the gaps of the gods.
September 24th, 2005 at 4:59 am
Jim -
oh yeah, I know those stories and many others, I’m just pointing out logical inconsistencies using his own set of rules (which I assume to be the King James version)
I just don’t understand why ID proponents, virtually 100% religious and overwhelmingly Christian (though I don’t know which flavors), believe in an “all powerful” God, but one they insist isn’t powerful or smart enough to create animals (including humans) using as grand a scheme as evolution.
Evolution does not by definition deny there is a God, and anyone of true faith shouldn’t be shaken by the idea of evolution. I’m not saying there is/isn’t a God (I’m agnostic myself), but as we’re seeing here and I’ve seen elsewhere, there are many strongly religious people who understand a belief in God by no means precludes the theory of evolution.
September 24th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Ed, what’s wrong with the Royal Guardsmen? “Snoopy vs. the Red Baron” is a classic!
September 24th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Seriously speaking, evolution is not a faith or a dogma; it’s a scientific theory. Biologists believe in evolution because it has been scientifically tested, verified, and shown to work. That is, it consistently passes experiments, and it makes predictions that, by and large, WORK.
That’s what scientific theories are about:
1. They provide naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.
2. They are testable, and falsifiable.
3. They have been proven, over and over again, to work. Anything that hasn’t is called a hypothesis, not a theory.
4. They offer useful predictions that consistently work.
#1 means that evolution does NOT SAY there is or is not a God. That has to do with the supernatural, which is outside the realm of science.
#2 & #3 mean that evolution has been subjected to numerous experiments, and that by and large, it’s passed those tests. When it fails a given experiment, the part of the theory being tested has to be looked at to see if it needs modification–so yes, the theory of evolution has evolved over time. If a large number of the parts of the evolutionary theory failed to pass experiments, the theory itself would come into question–but that hasn’t happened.
It also follows that ID is NOT a scientific theory:
1. It inserts a supernatural cause for events.
2. It is not falsifiable. You can’t prove or disprove the existence of a creator being, especially one that’s not even identified in the concept.
3. It has not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny and been proven to work.
4. It does not offer useful predictions that consistently work.
The reason the scientific community refuses to adopt ID is because it does not meet the criteria to be a scientific theory. It’s not that they’re closed-minded about it (though there’s always some in a group like that), it’s that they’re being asked to include something nonscientific as a science–and they feel, rightfully, indignant about that.
The scientific community rejects ID for the same reason that it rejects the ideas of the Flat Earth Society: the flat earth concept isn’t scientific and there are already explanations that better explain the facts.
September 24th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Ed you said “It would be nice if the Catholic Church got their views in line with Gods…”
And,
“I have been inoculated by the Holy Spirit.”
Well, all I can say is the following:
My Church began around 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ
told St. Peter that he would be the rock that he (Jesus) would build his church.
All other Christian churches split from my church.
So, I have a slight problem understanding that my Church has to “Get in line with God”, because my Church was started by God.
Roman Catholics are taught that the New Testament comprises the teachings of Christ and the first Apostles that are true.
The Old Testament is very symbolic; it is not literal truth and although is does contain history it is not completely historical truth either. I do believe in and revere the ancient prophets too.
But let’s go back a bit and talk about Genesis:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth…and God said let there be light….”
What is the simple truth here?
That God created the heavens and the Earth.
Note it doesn’t say how but it is very simple and beautiful.
God created…that’s it
And “God said let there be light”
Again, very simple,very beautiful.
Not again that it doesn’t say how but think about
the “Big Bang” and please explain to me why God could not have done it this way? At first there was no light (before the Big Bang) and after the Big Bang there was light.
Now, Big Bang theory and Astronomers tell us that the Universe can be thought of as a Sphere or Ball and to illustrate this I want to leave with you a quote that I found in
Dr. Timothy Ferris book “Galaxies”
“He showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazel-nut,
in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball.
I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding,
and thought: what may this be? And it was answered
generally thus: It is all that is made”
-St. Juliana
Interesting isn’t it that hundreds of years ago, in a
vision, God told a woman about what the Universe
looks like?
Being a fellow Christian, I would ask why you would want
to argue with a Saint?
When you argue with a Saint are you not really arguing with God?
God does not always talk in a voice that can be heard. But when I read “Let there be light”and I read “That is all that is made” I sense beauty and simplicity, I sense God.
Now, I always have a problem with the terms
“Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” because they really
don’t have much meaning. They speak of, as one person put it, a certain “arrogance” and “pride”.
Ed, I would not have difference with you if you were a simple person who went to Church and read the Bible and believed.
Such people I believe say “I really don’t know how creation happened but I believe God did it”. I have difference with you because you fail to believe that God could have built the Universe in a different way.
One last point….
I too “..have been inoculated by the Holy Spirit.”
We call it the Sacrement of Confirmation!
I have an author for you to look up..
Dr. Scott Hahn.
I will remember you in my prayers!:)
September 25th, 2005 at 1:12 am
Thank you, P. Edward Murray. A word from the Christian moderates was definitely in order here.
(Ed: this is not a dig at you, just a random thought for the evening.) Someone commented in one of the other posts, re. statements that evolution is atheistic: Do you think the Pope is an atheist? (Comment made before the passing of John Paul II, of course.)
September 25th, 2005 at 6:02 am
Leon,
Of course I do not think that Pope John Paul II was an
atheist!:)
Again, you have to consider the source. I believe that because of the long schism between Catholics and other Christians, they have “lost their way” and don’t realize how much it really clouds their thinking.
September 25th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
With headings like, “Stiring the pot.” and “Muddying the waters.” its a wonder people on this forum did not see that was exactly what I was doing.
Stiring the pot and muddying the waters, creates a trigger for further discussion and debate. This is a good thing. Open minds in open discussion.
Another point that was missed, even by the ID proponents themselves.
ID leaves open the possibility, that we are ouselves, our own designers!
If we as a species, move forward and terraform another world, ie Mars, and populate it, as we see fit. Then we become the intelligent designers. Over eons of time, this would undoubtably be forgotton, through disasters and wars etc.
It is possible, that we (as a species) have done this before and have forgotton it over the eons of time.
This of course still does not make ID a scientific theory. At the present moment in time, it can neither be proven nor disproven. This makes ID a belief structure, not a scientific theory. So it is a matter of philisophical interest.
Perhaps in the future, we will have advance enough to be able to make inroads on this issue. To be able to tell the difference between naturally altered DNA and DNA that has been manipulated. Until then, we should be patient and open minded.
Brightest of Blessings
Folcrom.
September 26th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
• Chet Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 7:35 am
Ed wrote: “I am on to the critical thinking open-minded game. Most of the Royal Guardsmen of evolution have never given the Creation account any serious thought, or even a fair hearing, have they?�
However, I have read quite extensively about the Holy Bible, the history of religious faiths of the past five thousand years. the hundreds of different creation myths of hundreds of different peoples (including the Hebrew “Genesis� chapters) over the past fifteen years to self-educate myself about it all.
***I am sorry I am late, I didn’t forget you. It is good to read and study all of these different Creation accounts. I think that they are just corruptions of the original found in the Bible. I also think that it is interesting that we have so many creation and flood accounts all over the world. Have you run across any evolutionary myths? ***
I am and have been an Atheist since 1970 because no god exists anywhere. If a god existed, I would not be an Atheist.
***Chet, I am truly sorry that you have not found him yet. Have you been everywhere in order to be able to say that no God exists anywhere? That you haven’t found Him yet does not prove that He does not exist. I pray that He will reveal Himself too you, Keep up the search He is there to be found.***
Despite what you have written, you are quite biblically illiterate.
*** I am neither a scientist nor a theologian, I am a layman.***
\\u really don’t seem to have any context as to the Hebrew Genesis “Creation� myths, do you? You don’t know their oral or written history, do you?
***According to Biblical history Moses wrote down the Torah. Considering that Moses did spend 80 day’s altogether with God in top of Mt. Sinai. I don’t think that they just talked about the weather after God gave Moses the 10 Commandments. He could just as well dictated what he wanted in the Torah. Moses got it right from the source.***
Out of the hundreds of past and current creation stories, you have selectively chosen only those within the Holy Bilble to have “faith� in.
***I have the freedom to do so. The other stories I find interesting, but not scripture.***
So, if you want to mention the “critical thinking open-minded� game, your comments don’t put you in the game. In essence, your comments put you in the “uncritical thinking, gullible, closed-minded� class of humanity.
***What class of humanity? It sounds like I am somehow lower than you. It is OK Chet. It was a cheep shot, but I forgive you.***
And all of our explorations have not discovered any god, either.
***No serious attempt to find God has been made yet.***
Let’s have independently, verifiable evidence for any god/goddesses.
***God will not be hunted down, captured and tortured in your laboratory Chet. He does not run and hide in caves. If you do catch anything I guarantee you it won’ be God. He is Spirit.***
Your religious “mind rush� is not evidence for any gods, it is only evidence of your own brain processes and/or anyone else’s.
***I have never really got into all of that mind rush business. I sometimes feel like I am missing something. To me it is all rational and logical. It just makes sense to me. I can’t explain it any better than that. Which I do understand that this makes no sense at all too you.***
• sjs Says:
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Ed -
Genesis 3.22 (if I’m referencing this right)
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:�
Who is “us�? God must surely be referring to others like Himself.
***Us would have to be God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. How? In The Book of John we find this passage.
John 1:1-4 NIV
The Word Became Flesh
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the Beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
That, among other verses is why I know the us was the Trinity. By the way I prefer the NIV. I am not a King James only follower.***
Genesis 4.14-15
“Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.�
Curious since the only other people you’d say were alive at this time are Adam and Eve. God obviously seems concerned that others will find and kill Cain if He does not protect him.
***Gen 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Verse 5 states that he lived 930 years. You could have quite a few kids in that kind of time frame. Brothers and sisters could have been those others.***
Genesis 4.16-17
“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.�
So who was his wife? Was it an “other person� or one of his sisters that Adam and Eve had later? It has to be one of those two, literal interpretation allows for no other choice.
*** I would go along with Cain’s wife being a sister. It was not out lawed until much later.***
• sjs Says:
September 24th, 2005 at 4:59 am
Jim -
oh yeah, I know those stories and many others, I’m just pointing out logical inconsistencies using his own set of rules (which I assume to be the King James version)
**Nope, NIV.***
I just don’t understand why ID proponents, virtually 100% religious and overwhelmingly Christian (though I don’t know which flavors), believe in an “all powerful� God, but one they insist isn’t powerful or smart enough to create animals (including humans) using as grand a scheme as evolution.
****** This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled too it. I do not see evolution as this grand anything. I believe in a God who has the power to give the order, and creation responds. There is no weakness in that. He could have taken the billions of years that evolution needs in order to work. It simply states that he only needed a week. Why drag things out if He didn’t need to? I thing the god of evolution is the one who is weak. It seems to take him Billions of years to make up his mind about what he really wants to do. My God got the job done in 6 days. He was finished and on the couch reading the paper when the god of evolution was just starting to smell the coffee.***
Evolution does not by definition deny there is a God, and anyone of true faith shouldn’t be shaken by the idea of evolution. I’m not saying there is/isn’t a God (I’m agnostic myself), but as we’re seeing here and I’ve seen elsewhere, there are many strongly religious people who understand a belief in God by no means precludes the theory of evolution.
*** But as I wrote above the God of evolution is a very weak and impotent god. It takes him billions of years just to decide what to have for breakfast, or which fishing hat to put on. My God got the job done on less than a week. He even took a day off to rest.***
• Leon Says:
September 24th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Ed, what’s wrong with the Royal Guardsmen? “Snoopy vs. the Red Baron� is a classic!
***Finally! Somebody with a sense of humor! Yes, good catch Leon, that is where I got the idea from. As serious as this issue is, we must find some comic relief, or we will end up hating each other. ***
September 27th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Ed,
I bless you, Ed, and thank you for all of your feedback.
However, I will not take the long and necessary time to respond to your objections BECAUSE no matter how well I logically and rationally answer every one of your objections, it will not make a difference to you and, of course, it will not. So, I won’t but I will be thinking of you.
Just as I do not need to be “everywhere in Universe” to know that there is no “God”. Our Solar System moves through the Milky Way Galaxy @ a million miles (or is it six?) per day multiplying that by 55 1/2 years of my existence = 2.886 billion miles or 17.316 billion miles. Oh, that can’t be correct, biblical text states that the “stars are fixed and immovable”!
The Old Testament “Genesis” creation myths are Hebrew modifications of other creation myths from other kingdoms and tribes around them. And they evolved from a polytheistic Hebrew tradition into a monotheistic tradition of YHWH, the Lord God of Israel, only: “I am the Lord God of Israel.”
The Holy Bible just functions with gods of Earth–not beyond it. In Job, “Satan” (another god) says that he was just wandering “to and fro on the earth” after ascending to meet with “YHWH” in the clouds above Job’s home grounds.
Further, the “Kingdom of YHWH” was in the clouds above Jerusalem.
“Jesus (Joshua in Hebrew)” rises into the clouds of heaven, too.
All of these clouds in biblical text are within Earth’s troposphere.
There are no planets, moons, asteroids, or comets in biblical text–the stars are just “points of light” punched into a “invisible” metal shell with the light beyond shining through the points “for signs and wonders” only.
That’s why I wrote that you are, in fact, biblically illiterate–you do not “know” its history. Put yourself in Hebrew times @ 2,500 BCE till 650 BCE from their perspectives. They were desert tribal living on a “flat, circular Earth”.
No, Ed, not “hating”, frustrated!
September 28th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Ed, so you say you take the bible as the literal truth, as the inerrant word of God. As you say, “I take the Bible and God at His word” and say you are “simply taking him at his word.” You say evolution is wrong because “It goes against what is written in the scripture.”
So based on this I assume you are a flat-Earther? The Bible, both old and new testaments, repeatedly state that the world is flat. Check Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Samuel 2:8, Revelations 7:1, and Isaiah 11:12 for some examples. The notion of a round Earth directly goes against “what is written in scripture,” as you put it.
So then do you believe the world is flat? If not, you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to take literally and thus are not “simply taking him at His word.” You are picking what parts of the Bible to take literally and what parts not to. There is no problem with that, every Christian does it whether they realize it or not. But what gives you the right to declare that your particular choices are the correct ones and that the vast majority of Christians in the world are wrong?
And no, I am not an atheist. I am a Christian. However, I recognize that some parts of the Bible are simply not meant to be taken literally. The simple fact is that there are a number of parts of the Bible that directly conflict with reality. When given a choice between the Bible and reality, I accept that God speaks to us more clearly and more directly through the universe He created than through a book that has gone through many human hands and many human languages over the millennia. To quote Arthur C. Clarke, “Though I am the last person to advocate laws against blasphemy, surely nothing could be more antireligious than to deny the evidence so clearly written in the rocks for all who have eyes to see.”
September 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Parts of the Bible are scientifically incorrect, more so because of who was writting than because of God. God doesn’t demand much influence in science. He gave us free will, and also lets us move inteligence wise at our own pace.
In Luke 4:5, it says he showed him all the kingdoms in a moment of time. It also said he took him up to a mountain. However, from the original text (translated in the center column of my Bible), it says “and taking him up, he showed him.” It isn’t inconcievable to see Midevial monks relating high place to a mountain. Certainly didn’t contradict their view of science.
Rev. 7:1 says that four Angels stood at the four corners of the earth. Considering the rest of revelation, and knowing that revelation is a symbolic encryption, there isn’t much point in looking for much of any scientific accuracy anywear in revelation. Also, “the stars are fixed and immoble” is found in revelation.
In Isaiah 11:12, the phrase “four corners of the earth” is used. Considering that this phrase is still in use today, it could simply be refered to as “the whole earth.”
First Samuel 2:8 is a part of Hannah’s prayer. The words of an uneducated person in ancient times. In all of these passages, the writter is unconcerned with scientific accuracy, and doesn’t know much about science as we know today.
May I say that the Bible is much more a philosophical and historical textbook than a science book.
How many languages has the Bible been through? Most of the new testament was written in greek, translated to latin, then to english. In some cases, we have old greek copies. Also, the translators (mostly monks or scribes) worked under strict conditions of accuracy. The torah can be taken directly from old hebrew, and is known to be acurate. The rest of the old testament I am unsure of. However, my point remains that the Bible has not actually been changed much.
Very correct in you saying that some of the Bible is not to be taken literally.
One last note: the catholic church began with Constantine. The idea of a pope and a central Church orginization was not what the apostles did. Also, Paul and Jesus trusted in the old testament. As did Peter and Stephen. And many others. Really, with the orginization of the Church in the Bible, I find Catholic orginization (along with other things) to be contradictory to the Bible.
October 2nd, 2005 at 2:08 pm
lol ok um… i can undersatnd not wanting to teach it in a science class, but totally debuncing god is something science in it’s infinate knowledge still can never do. even if they find porff that god desn’t exist alot of poeple still won’t belive. But you know it is kind of odd that the “Days” of creation coinside with what science says the universe started from and is now, and i admit the bible has some flaws but come on, trying to debunk god is going to be one heck of a task
. oh and by the way the hebrew word for “day” can mean an age, which would then move what the bible says side-by-side with what science states the “ages”, pardon my use of the word, are
October 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
oh and sorry for all the mistakes i am kind of Dyslexic
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
“And evening and morning were the (insert day here) day…”
Doesn’t sound like an age to me. Ages don’t have a morning and evening. Also, the sabbath is based on the 7 day creation week. I don’t think that the Bible is talking about great expanses of time.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:40 am
“Ages don’t have a morning and evening.”
Yes they do, they are just separated by large periods of time.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
i made a comment to that awile ago but it seems not to have made it on the site. God isn’t bound by time therefore a day to him can be an age. Although i’m not exactley sure how he does it. In the bible they desribe him as being extremley bright (the light of god) which makes you think that he could be living energy and maybe be the only example of perpetual energey there is. Now as to how he could become this way is still something that i have been thinking about. Becaseu i beleive that everythig in the bible has a scientific explaination. like how abel was cast from the land and returned with a wife… it just wasn’t written how that other women came to be, noone can really be sure of what haapend because we weren’t there and most likley the begning of the humans was wiped out ages ago.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
“A day is a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is but a day.”
God is outside time. By that statement alone, one can see that God could push an age anyway into a 24 hour period if He had to. But, that would be something of a stupid thing to do, if God could just will things into existance anyway.
An age doesn’t have just one evening and one morning. Really, just read Genesis one. It doesn’t sound like it is describing and age. Also, Genesis 2 occurs on the sixth day, at least the begining of it. Also, if each day were an age, then plants would have waited a long time to be polinated. They were seperated by a few “ages.”
October 6th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Can’t believe you guys are still arguing about Evolution. Here in the UK we gave that up years ago. Do these people think that the rest of the civilised world is not lauging at them? – let me asure you, we are laughing!
October 6th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
yeah dude really good point. But god did will everything into existance he just did it slowly. See god did everything inside the laws of physics and science, but people say “Wait, what the bible is claiming he did isn’t inside the laws of Physics or science.” Well they are, our brains are so incredible small that we haven’t discovered the rest of the laws yet. I mean think about it, if evolution really does exsit why haven’t any new speices of animals been discovered, (aside from the ones that live in places that we haven’t been able to reach until rescent technolgoy came along) Science says that all the brids and animals and such came to aobut the same time, and that is now regarded as the Cambrian Explosin. and if we evolved from Apes… Why are there still apes around? And where is this supposed ‘Missing link’? i will tell you, We didn’t evolve! we were created
October 6th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
the bible also says that god removed the legs of the would be snake, now if you look into a biology book you will discover that there are tiny little leg bones in the snakes body, this is a claim that evlotuion is real, but if darwin took a minute to read the bible he would see, holy crap it’s just like the bible says, as for the rest of the animals i am still writing aobut that. i haven’t completely figured the whole process out yet but i am pretty close to alot of it.
October 6th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
# Kego thundergod Says:
October 6th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
I mean think about it, if evolution really does exsit why haven’t any new speices of animals been discovered, (aside from the ones that live in places that we haven’t been able to reach until rescent technolgoy came along)
*** Because evolution is a process that happens over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Give it a bit more time.***
Science says that all the brids and animals and such came to aobut the same time, and that is now regarded as the Cambrian Explosin. and if we evolved from Apes… Why are there still apes around?
*** It is unfortunate that people often refer to evolution as “survival of the fittest.” This does not mean that a new “version” of a species comes along and replaces the old one. New species evolve as branches (caused by random genetic mutations) from lines of existing species. Some of the new mutations work well and continue on as a new branch, while others do not. The original does not necessarily die out, but can continue on at the same time. ***
October 7th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Kego thundergod Says:
*** It is unfortunate that people often refer to evolution as “survival of the fittest.� This does not mean that a new “version� of a species comes along and replaces the old one. New species evolve as branches (caused by random genetic mutations) from lines of existing species. Some of the new mutations work well and continue on as a new branch, while others do not. The original does not necessarily die out
Yes–evolution is much better visualized as a tree than as a line. It’s not like we evolved from gorillas, chimps, or orangutans–rather, we share a common ancestor.
October 9th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
If the evolutionary theory were true, we should be able to easily create new cells, build proteins, and create new species. If RNA could form naturally in the early earth, as well as protein and other complex molecules, we should have been able to make life by now. I have seen some processes explained of how chromosomes can be edited in a generation using certain chemicals. How many new species have we made? We currently haven’t even successfully synthesized protein. If, as has been described, protein could be made with RNA and clay, then we should be far past that step.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Although I do not work in the sciences, my liberal arts education includes, between high school and college: 2 years of General Science, 2 years of Biology, 1 year of Astronomy, 1 year of Physics, and 4 years of Chemistry (I always thought high-speed exothermic reactions were really fun.)
Does God or a Diety of some type exist? We don’t know, and we have no direct scientific evidence. Did evolution occur? Based on hard evidence, it is apparent that yes, evolution is a past and on-going fact. Is it possible that evolution is the tool used by a Creator? Possibly.
I’m severely agnostic, but not quite an atheist. I’ve found these threads very interesting. In the spirit of debate, I would humbly suggest the following:
Scientists: keep pursuing information and explanations using the scientific method. Just keep in mind that there is some degree of possibility that physics, evolution, and the laws of chemistry, ect, are tools of a higher intelligence. (But don’t buy it until someone invents a God meter and gets a reading.)
As Chet wisely chose above, don’t waste your time on agressive hard-core Creationists like Ed. Sadly, some people have simply chosen to close their insecure minds and you’ll never get anywhere with them. But keep this in mind: one of your greatest challenges in reaching non-scientific people in the general population lies in the fact that very few people out there have any actual concept of cosmic distances and geologic/cosmological time scales. In my own conversations, I’ve found this to be a basic stumbling block.
Most lay people consider time in terms of a human lifetime. Many can conceive of centuries, even eons. Miles, and even thousands of miles are understandable… but lots of people without scientific training, immersed in a terribly shallow daily pop culture, are going to have a terribly difficult time wrapping their heads around scales involving billions of years and countless trillions of miles. Therefore it’s going to be a lot simpler for them to buy the easy answers people like Ed are selling.
So scientists, the next time you find yourself face to face with a person of faith, don’t instantly dismiss them as “banjo-playing inbred rednecks.” I have two degrees, speak three languages, play brass and percussion musical instruments, and am a skydiving instructor — and I’m an Irish Appalachian hilly billy from Georgia. Instead, try to determine if that person of faith has an open mind (you’ll find that many do.) See if you can engage them in a polite dialogue. You may well make inroads with them, as long as you don’t act like an arrogant tweed-jacket jackass in an ivory tower.
To Creationists: first and foremost, don’t automatically believe without question everything you read, including the Bible. Your first clue should be that every translation and version of the Bible contradicts every other. Either humans made errors, or God is schizophrenic. (I greatly prefer the former possibility.)
Regarding ID itself — please explain to me how, as a man, I have nipples. (And “because that’s what God decided” isn’t an acceptible answer. Try logic.)
Instead, Creationists, challenge yourselves. If you truly believe in God, then unshackle Him from your frail mental limitations and admit the possibilities that the scientific laws of the universe He created are his tools, evolution is part of the larger toolkit, and He works on a scale beyond your comprehension.
Both faith AND open-mindedness admit the possiblity that, one way or another, a Diety has revealed to us humans all that we know. Only human arrogance assumes that God has revealed all HE knows.
October 10th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
The Bible has remained remarkably uncontradictory between translations. Some parts, I have speculated, could be false, or pretty much just poorly translated. But, we have literally thousands of latin and greek Bibles to check if it remains accurate. And it has. To go further, the prophecies make claimes that are continuous, which are still acurate to this day. Go and check the prophecies of babylon, ninevah, tyre, and others. Then, look up the condition of the city today.
I accept that evolution played some part in history. I do hold, however, that macroevolution could not be the source for speciation. It would contradict what we know for certain to be the most accurately translated part of the Bible, the Jewish Torah. Also, there are various problems in some of the methods of macroevolution (see some of my above posts).
Chris P, you make a good point in that you cannot fit God into a little box for simplicity.
Strange thought, why do men have nipples? Probably because they develope like women early in life and they just stay. Also, they are highly sensitive and so can play a part in sex. God made sex, after all, to help marraiges (although it can much more easily be missused). On that line of thought, why did God make the world like we have it? He could have easily just made us stick figures. Why was the origional language like it was, instead of like another? Some things do play an important role, we just never may know, and some things are simply unimportant anyway. Really, does it make a difference if men have nipples or not? Either way, it would become part of the accepted look.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:04 am
I agree with M Duke that it is pointless to argue against the idea of creation by God on grounds like, “why is this like that, etc.” The real issue is, what is science, and what is religion. M Duke himself makes it very clear that he, and people like him, reject the evolutionary hypothesis on purely nonscientific grounds. He cites a religious authority, the Bible, as his evidence that evolution is wrong. OK, that’s not science, as the most fundamental rule of science is that you are not allowed to know the answer in advance of doing the experiment. So why are we even debating this issue here? This is a scientific website, religious opinions are certainly appropriate elsewhere on the web. But if we are going to use these pages as a forum for dialog between the religious perspective and the scientific one, I completely agree with Chris P that an air of respect for scientific accomplishment coupled with equal reverence for people’s personal beliefs is the appropriate tone.
October 17th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
You cannot know immediatly, true. But one can prove. You can know something is true, but you must also then prove it. In the case of the Bible, the prophecies provide a historic proof. Some things in the Bible are proved in the same way parts of the evolutionary model are proved: you can never recreate them, but you can look at the evidence. Can you test the Big bang? It has been proposed how… and would require a machine measured in light years. Similarly, you can’t test a global flood. You can, however, look at what is there and work backwards. A difference, however, is that the idea of a global flood comes from the Bible. But, when applied to the evidence, it explains many phenomena. The hydroplate theory is an observation of evidence added to the statement “if there was a flood.” The Big Bang puts trust in “if dark matter exsists.” Also, one must consider that, if God exsists, he could have given us a small “nudge” in science, concerning the flood. Much like a science teacher could.
October 17th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Kego thundergod Said:
> I mean think about it, if evolution really does exsit why haven’t any new speices of animals been discovered, (aside from the ones that live in places that we haven’t been able to reach until rescent technolgoy came along) Science says that all the brids and animals and such came to aobut the same time, and that is now regarded as the Cambrian Explosin.
If you think that there has been no speciation since the Cambrian Explosion, you are seriously uninformed. For example, neither mammals nor birds came into existence during the Cambrian period.
M Duke Said:
>If the evolutionary theory were true, we should be able to easily create new cells, build proteins, and create new species. If RNA could form naturally in the early earth, as well as protein and other complex molecules, we should have been able to make life by now. I have seen some processes explained of how chromosomes can be edited in a generation using certain chemicals. How many new species have we made? We currently haven’t even successfully synthesized protein. If, as has been described, protein could be made with RNA and clay, then we should be far past that step.
Why? I mean, you saying so doesn’t make it true. What’s your rationale for those declarations?
M Duke Said:
>The Bible has remained remarkably uncontradictory between translations. Some parts, I have speculated, could be false, or pretty much just poorly translated. But, we have literally thousands of latin and greek Bibles to check if it remains accurate. And it has.
It is not unsurprising that translations are fairly consistent. We have an essentially unbroken record from those Latin and Greek versions, and we can check them. So could the folks doing the translating along the way. So the fact that the translations are consistent is fairly meaningless and certainly not remarkable. However, what is meaningful is comparing the modern Torah with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a version of the Torah that was lost for a long time. Discovery of an earlier version that had been lost shows variations consistent with a document changing through the ages (through retellings, recopying) but that are distinct enough to question the consistency of the story.
Note also that we have a historical record that shows when major decisions were made with regard to versions of the Bible, such as why there are separate Catholic and Protestant versions. Curious, though, that God inspired two different versions of the same book, one with extra “chapters�.
>I accept that evolution played some part in history. I do hold, however, that macroevolution could not be the source for speciation. It would contradict what we know for certain to be the most accurately translated part of the Bible, the Jewish Torah.
The ridiculousness of that statement is so extreme it is difficult to put into words. I’ll have to let Ken G’s comment suffice. But as I stated, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the “accuracy� of the Torah to be in question.
>Strange thought, why do men have nipples? Probably because they develope like women early in life and they just stay. Also, they are highly sensitive and so can play a part in sex. God made sex, after all, to help marraiges (although it can much more easily be missused).
The line about nipples was intended as a remark on the intelligence of human “designâ€?. A biological explanation through evolution leaves no confusion, but a “created from scratchâ€? human man (from whom woman was later formed) should not have nipples. Unless perhaps (since Adam was formed in God’s image) God has nipples? But why would God need nipples?
Question, if god made sex to help marriages, then who performs the weddings for all the animals? And who performs the divorces, since almost no animal in existence is truly monogamous? And do animals go to hell for infidelity? And by the way, did Adam ever get a hard on prior to Eve’s creation? Was it possible, and if so, why?
Ken G Said:
>But if we are going to use these pages as a forum for dialog between the religious perspective and the scientific one, I completely agree with Chris P that an air of respect for scientific accomplishment coupled with equal reverence for people’s personal beliefs is the appropriate tone.
I’m fully willing to let people believe what they wish, but using stupid religious statements as a justification to attack science demands a critical review of those statements.
October 17th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
And it could be added that some men’s nipples are not sensitive at all, should we take it as evidence that God does not want those men to have a happy marriage? But this is all not the point, if God created men by some miraculous act, we could still be any way. That’s the point! A miraculous act leaves no basis for testing, no basis for understanding. You’re just guessing about the mind of God, it is never *falsifiable*. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science. There is no need to debate logic or veracity, the discussion is over once the nonscientific aspect has been identified. I think a lot of unecessary animosity is generated between the camps by trying to convince each other that their version of the truth is incorrect. Such a debate requires agreed on rule about how to identify correctness, and such rules only exist within the confines of the scientiffic method (which includes logic), not the rules of religion (which need not, they are a matter of personal faith). Once a particular viewpoint has been identified as religion rather than science, it is no longer fruitful to apply the scientific approach. Just say, OK, it’s not science, and shouldn’t be taught as science, and can’t claim to any of the advantages of the self-consistency, generalizability, objectivity, and workability of scientific results, but may have other advantages for the believer. Then everyone can go home with a lot less frustration and anger.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:43 am
I thought the statement by the AAS was excellent.
Kudos to the scientists that try to reach the general public and educate.