Evolution

The OP did not ask for proof but for reasons we either believe or don’t believe in evolution. I gave some and the OP then asked me what I meant by them. At no time did the OP ask for proof. So I’ve been merely answering questions about my beliefs since then. No proof required, just what I believe. You might try reading the OP once in a while, just to see what you’re talking about.

Thanks for assuming you know what I’m thinking but you are a little off the mark. The reason I dismiss these mundane “roots of evolution” is because I don’t consider them to be the roots of anything, let alone evolution. To me it’s a little like saying that the sun shining, wind blowing and the tides rising and falling are the “roots of evolution”. they all happen but most people would not call them the “roots of evolution”.

Are you just going to argue semantics or you going to stick to the discussion at hand? If you want to just argue semantics then the phrase “seems to me” means; “I’ve thought about it and this is to me the most reasonable conclusion, what do you think?”. The Phrase “seems to me” never carries with it the thought of “I don’t like it”, at least not to me.

 

How do you define different creatures? Number of chromosomes? If so, then to convince you, a creature must show that it can add a pair of chromosomes through mutation to prove evolution.

 

Sorry, I didn’t have anything particular in mind, I was mainly referring back to Hoatzin’s illustration about the blindfolded men and the elephant, where at the end one puts his blindfold back on “ignoring obvious facts to the contrary” about what he’d seen of the elephant, so he could going believing what he wanted.

 

As I've mentioned before the problem lies with the word “kinds”, it's not a scientific word and so can not be compared to any of the scientific words used to describe the different “families” of plants and animals, even the difference in the number of chromosomes may have nothing to do with what a “kind” is. It seems that God has placed a barrier between one “kind” and another that no amount of “evolutionary process” can go beyond.

Yes, I know if you don’t believe in the God of the Bible, that may sound like a cop out but that's my story and I’m sticking to to it!

 

If any of you are interested in a good discussion of evolution by a Christian evolutionist, you might consider Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, was the star witness against ID in the Dover School Board case concerning teaching evolution in the schools. I think his arguments in favor of Darwin's theory are compelling. For another Christian supporter of evolution, you might try Francis Collins, The Language of God. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project from 1993 to August 2008, presents genetic evidence for the theory. It is also interesting that Michael Leahy, champion of ID, acknowledges the overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent of humans and chimps.

 

Okiefreak, do you know of any books that dissect the logic of evolutionary theory and its findings? I wanted to read "Uncommon Dissent" but I am not sure if it is any good. Do you know anything about that?

I ask this because based on your past replies you seem to be knowledgeable on both sides of every coin.

 

Do you consider horses and donkeys different kinds?

 

I assume you mean the book edited by Bill Dembsky, rather than the blog maintained by the same writer. The book is a collection of critiques of Darwinism by a variety of ID authors. I find their points of view interesting but not convincing. It's an assault on Darwinism by ideologues with axes to grind. If you read it, you should also look at the other side--for example the books by Miller and Collins that I mentioned above. And you might also read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker.

 

I liked Kenneth's lecture on the 'Collapse of Intelligent Design' He overall argued that science and religion do not need to conflict with each other but that they do belong to different realms. That the knowledge derived from scientific experiments can have theological implications, but that theology is not science and science is not theology. I did like the idea that two chromosomes combined together could create another species. If something like that were absolutely true, without a doubt, then that would pretty much point to a creator. That these eventual combinations were purposeful and designed but that science itself cannot make that kind of statement. I know that is not what Kenneth actually said, but I think that it is implied... considering that he is a Catholic, he probably believes in theistic evolution.

I'll check out the others. Thanks.

Btw, I didn't really mean Dembsky. Basically what I am looking for is an unorthodox look at the whole debate in its entirety. Something all together different... something that doesn't pit ID and Evolution against each other but reevaluates everything that we know about our origins... kind of like what OWB is doing but in a more in depth way. Do you know of anything like this available? I believe that both sides may be missing the point on what is meant by intelligent design. When assumptions are made, chaos ensues and we are left we a lot of silliness in the process and we end up with a oversimplified version of ID.

 

Theoretically, absolute truth is a lot better than the relative, tentative kind offered by science. Unfortunately, I think that the scientific kind is the best that we have to offer. If science can muster enough evidence to pass the "reasonable doubt" test, that's good enough for me to take a chance on. I don't know of any book that re-evaluates everything we know about our origins in a context beyond evolution and ID. If you find one, I'd sure be interested. I wasn't aware that OWB was attempting that. I had the impression he was simply serving up the genesis story as fact and picking away at the limitations of other explanations.

Speaking of Uncommon Descent, there are some exciting evolutionary developments on the blog by that name. Contributors who do not accept common descent are being banished. In other words, ID has split off from its Creationist roots and evolved to the point that the main distinguishing characteristic from Darwinism is the notion that God guided the process that Darwinists consider a product of chance and natural selection.

 

To me, it doesn't seem like ID is really all that much different from evolutionary theory; seems like it is pretty much evolution with a "oh and btw, God did it" in there for good measure, which doesn't really explain anything anyhow.

 

I recommend Carl Sagans book, "Demon Haunted World, science as a candle in the dark" to you.

 

Great book! Saint Carl, pray for us.

 

I do but the real question is does God?

 

It's not about saying 'God did it." It's not so much different than saying, "Chemical pair A and Chemical pair B combined to create chemical pair C and that did it". That is just describing the physicality of it and it doesn't really answer anything imo. What I want to know is the why behind that. Why was anything combined in such a way and why does any of it work in the way that it does.

I still think that you're oversimplifying ID, Okiefreak.

 

Why, what's it about?

 

Pretty much, that book is describing how everything can be 'explained' away with science. And when we live in a world without science, we end up believing in UFO's, the loch ness monster, angels, demons because without science it is like being left in the dark. And when we are in the dark, we end up imagining things that are not real because we do not have enough light (science) to shine through and to reveal to presence of day (truth). Then Sagan goes on to prove why this is so, then goes on to reveal how wonderful the world will be if science illiteracy is annihilated. etc etc etc

 

I read somewhere that close to 99% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct, if there is no evolution involved and indeed life was created by an omnipotent intelligence why would it waste billions of years fumbling with creatures who's pre written destiny was to die off completely?

Seems like a waste of time to me, an ENORMOUS waste of time.

 

Thanx.

 

Didn't you ask this question once before?

Oh well, for one thing he wasn't fumbling, he knew exactly what he was doing. I lot of things that God may do, may seem like a waste of time to us but seeing as we are not omniscient, we couldn't really know for sure if it was a waste of time or not.