Quirks & Quarks

I'm interested to see where this goes but I'll tell you this much. Evolution does not work with the true christian faith. Christian faith insists that there was no death as part of God's design and that death only entered the creation through Adam. Evolution insists on millions of years of death. If christianity is going to throw it's hands up and say "oh, we've been wrong for 2000 years and either the bible is false on this account or God has communicated pourly with with." I'm sad to see this happening. Either the Vatacan has lost it's mind or this article is not an accurate portrail of the vatacan's position on the matter.

I'm very pleased by this development. Now, if a couple of fundamentalist church would wake up and smell the coffee, that would be fantastic!

Here's another article that I found interesting in relationship with 'darwinism.'

Very well written article. The author does an excellent job in helping people realize the distinction between science and faith/religion, how one can exist harmoniously with the other.

Great commentary, Bob, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Let's face it: most people of faith, including Catholics and other non-fundamentalists, have managed to reconcile faith and science for a long time. The real problem is that fundamentalists, especially Christian groups who believe in the literal word of the bible, feel they must attack science as a whole, and evolution in particular, because it contradicts a literal interpretation.

So while you say "Faith is a belief. And everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs," when those beliefs come into direct conflict with science, fur is bound to fly. Yes, science is just a system of describing the universe, but "intelligent design" has arisen out of the fundamentalists' need to fight back at what they perceive as an attack on their beliefs (and people like Richard Dawkins--whose arguments I share but whose delivery I abhor--don't help matters much).

The Vatican can proclaim Darwin the "winner" all it wants, but it won't wash with your average bible-belter who believes that God created the earth 6,000 years ago.

While religion and science may not be mutually exclusive, I think many religious people believe that, like religion, one can pick and choose which aspects of science to believe. They reject the notion of evolution or natural selection because it seems to contradict their religious beliefs while at the same time have no quarrel with the idea of in vitro fertilization or the use of cell-phones, even though all these are examples of the application of scientific principles. Unfortunately, this is not same as, for example, rejecting the notion of a literal heaven and hell but believing in an afterlife. Religious texts are chock-a-block full of ideas that people do not agree on and have fought over for millenia. Science is not like that! Theories and ideas based on science can be disproven and often are. But it's not a matter of choosing the science you like over the science you don't. Science is a process and if an idea is wrong it will eventually be shown to be so. Our modern way of life is largely based on the application of scientific principles. It makes as much sense to reject evolution as it does to reject electricity. Maybe that's why the Vatican has finally come around - their thinking has evolved and they have finally seen the light.

In 1996, in a formal statement Pope John Paul 2 said that 'fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the (Darwin's) theory of evolution as more than just hypotheses.

Science and faith should not even conflict nowadays. They are two completely separate entities where one explains "how" and the other "why".

Unfortunately, even with this proclamation, there will still be some who get the concepts of "how" and "why" confused (both scientists and theologians alike) and the unnecessary conflict will continue.

Whatever.

Now if they would just give up on the small matters of papal infallibility, the ordination of women, birth control and the pretence that the Bible is not cherry-picked post-hoc rationalization of pre-exisiting beleifs and prejudices it might be possble to care. It amazes me that anybody with a brain bigger than a pea cares what the Vatican thinks about anything at all.

Intelligent Design is not the same thing as Fundamentalist Creationism. Intelligent Design is a movement lead by intelligent, educated scientists and theologians of the likes of Francis Collins, Hugh Ross and Rick Warren. It does not state that the world is 6000 years old and that people once walked with the dinosaurs. They are making intelligent observations that state that point to the fact that there is a creator involved in formation of the Universe and that Creator is still active in holding everything together today. The universe is so perfectly tuned towards life that they believe that this is not mere coincidence.
Intelligent design is NOT Fundamentalist Creationism repackaged; it is in reaction to fundamentalism. If you don’t believe go online and listen to Fundamentalist Christian radio from the US or read from their web sights about their views on Intelligent Design. Fundamentalists hate Intelligent Design even more than they hate Richard Dawkins. I know because I have felt this sting myself.
I am a young pastor in a conservative Mennonite denomination. I have am personally greatly grieved over the all out war between science and faith. There are so many misunderstandings that are made between the two sides it is no wonder they don’t hear each other. But please lets stop the name calling and lets dialogue.

By the way I have a BA and an MA in pastoral ministry, I am an amateur astronomer , I subscribe to numerous scientific journals, I LOVE Quirks and Quarks and I dream about getting a degree in astronomy some day.

the debate between evolution and creationism is not a fair one. The debate between logic and faith is not a fair one either. Evolution is a logical rationally structured and fact verified explanation to reality. Faith is a set of beliefs emanating from written texts which have no basis in science or verifiable reality. For someone to believe biblical writings as science is seriously deluded.
I applaud the immense contribution which Darwin made to our understanding of the evolution of all species, including homo sapiens. Humanity is not excluded because of our consciousness. We respond to the same rules as other species.
The examination of bibical texts reveals the limitations of attempting to use literal interpretations of religious ideological beliefs as science. Can't be done.
Let's not call faith-science, or attempt to describe a three-dimension reality in time and space within the limitations of the written biblical word and it's theological implications.

Just to set the record straight: for the Mennonite pastor - Francis Collins definitely does not support Intelligent Design. Dr. Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Project, and a practicing Christian. But he has stated clearly on many occasions that he completely rejects ID - especially its arguments based on irreducible complexity.

I came up with the following some time ago that I think relates to this discussion:

Theory of Ologyism - the Common Bond

There are conflicts between religions. There are conflicts between sciences. But there are many conflicts between science and religion on the whole. Which is where the Theory of Ologyism comes in.

Ologyists believe in finding the commonalities between beliefs and that science and religion are fundamentally the same thing; an attempt to explain the universe from different points of view. Like the blind men and the elephant, no one can have the complete picture, so each individual must form their own vision of reality in a way that makes sense to them in order to achieve peace. Expecting everyone to believe the same thing would be like expecting everyone to speak the same language, have the same culture or even dress alike.

Everyone knows that the universe and life began, the proof being the ability to ask the question. Does it really matter whether one person thinks it is by intelligent design and another thinks it is random chance? Everyone knows we are mortal. Does it really matter if one person believes in an afterlife, another in reincarnation and yet another in equating life with an off switch? What harm is there in having different beliefs? Just agree to disagree.

Ologyism even takes its name from combining common elements of both disciplines. "Ology" from the suffix of various scientific fields such as anthropology, ecology and geology, and "ism" from the suffix of various religious views such as Catholicism, Buddhism and Atheism. Even when you say "Olo", it sounds very close to "All of".

To paraphrase George Carlin:
"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful."
"Thou shalt not harm others provided they do no harm unto you."
"Thou shalt not force thine own beliefs onto others."

If even the Vatican is willing (at last) to reinterpret entire sections of the Bible to suit our modern understanding of the world, what becomes of the role of the Bible in our society? "Genesis" deals with the creation of the Universe, and according to the Vatican, it provides an unreliable and misleading explanation; its "truth" becomes apparent only in retrospect with the help of scientific inquiry and no small amount of metaphor.

If we judge the Bible unreliable regarding the creation of the Universe, we should take the rest of it with a grain of salt. Which other sections of the Bible should we discard, and from where does our ability to select these passages arise?

Science and Religion ARE incompatible. We have been convinced somehow that we must tip toe around religion, so we feel we have to find a way to make people feel better about their ridiculous beliefs. To say that religion and science occupy different spheres of existence is only true if you mean that science is a way to search for truth and religion is a way to avoid it. And...intelligent design, creationism, whatever you wish to call it is no science at all. I would love to see a published, peer-reviewed article that presents anything resembling evidence for the existence of any kind of god. As far as I know, that article does not exist because there is no evidence.

As the witty and wise Bill Maher says, "Religion makes a virtue out of not thinking."

I agree with Peter from London.

To look to the Vatican for advice on science is to ask a dead horse for advice on investment strategies.

Stories about creation, in any religion, are attempts to place ourselves, to formulate an identity, in relation to the cosmos. In this they are not entirely foreign to science. There is room for conflict between religion and science, certainly, but also room for each to challenge the other to a greater purpose.
Scientific evidence can challenge belief to question what it believes and how. Belief, on the other hand, poses questions to reductionistic accounts of reality. It challenges science not to ignore the poetic dimension. The interesting thing about the Biblical creation account is that,in contrast to early Mesopotamian or even Greco-Roman creation mythologies, it describes an origin that is not founded in violence. The way evolution gets talked about, "survival of the fittest", paints an antagonistic picture, almost as though the point is to triumph over every other organism and, perhaps the cosmos itself. This is not inherent to the nature of evolution, or struggle, but it does point out the language deficiency of scientific methodology. Faith needs reason to challenge it to greater understanding. Reason needs faith or it will embrace the void.

"Either the Vatacan has lost it's mind or this article is not an accurate portrail of the vatacan's position on the matter."

- I have read a lot of Catholic theology and paid lot of attention to the faith vs. science issue. I have never read anything where the church claimed that the bible stood above science. The church has never claimed to be an authority or infallible on scientific but on faith and morals only. The Gallileo issue was more about disobedience than it was about science.
My parents were very strict (some may say fundamentalist) Catholics and from my very earliest memories on discussions of evolution they taught that it's was ok to believe in Darwin type evolution as long as we also believed that it was guided by God. That it was Gods way of creating us.

My personal belief is that life was created by God, but that doesn't mean it can't evolve since then.

I do have a question that evolutionists are unable or unwilling to answer though. How come there are gentically-inherited conditions and defects. According to evolution, the bodies should get physically better each generation as they evolve and inherited conditions should be filtered out. Also, evolution states the physical body should get better as time goes on, If we humans are more evolved than a Gorilla, why can a Gorilla easily kill a human in a fight? Heck, most people I know would loose a fight with a Chipmunk, much less a Gorilla.

Also, simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms defies one of the Principles of Physic (Antropy I think it's called, please correct me if I'm wrong) which states that matter breaks down into less complex forms.

I can't believe the THEORY of evolution is still being pushed on people. There isn't a thread of evidence that one species has changed to another. There's missing links everywhere. They can draw all the lines they want to link species, they're only lines. Evolution is still dead people and so is the ability of the Catholic church to represent the God of this universe. No news here. Science loves to tout their abilities but in reality they only scratch the surface of knowledge of this world which so clearly reveals intelligent design and the fingerprint of God. One day you'll get it.

Re: GregoriousMaximious

The universe is not perfectly tuned towards life. Life is perfectly tunded to the universe.

Get your factrs straight, yo.

Until God (or Zues or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) chooses to show his hand and reveal himself in a tangible way, religious mysticism cannot truly be reconciled with science.

While a specific individual - or in this case the Catholic Church as an entity - may rationalize holding a set of beliefs about the supernatural and accepting science, what they have really done is compartmentalize their incompatible logic models.

Reconciling science with faith is only an issue to the faithful. Personally, I don't see how they can possibly reconcile at all. Science has an obligation to reject the supernatural. Religion has an obligation to embrace the supernatural.

It's almost ironic that it was theologians who were amongst the first scientists. They believed that through science they might be able to reveal the nature of god. As science keeps dutifully gathering evidence, testing hypothesis, establishing theories and embracing philosophical naturalism, god seems further and further away. Now the theologians are terrified that science may actually find answers and it won't be god. Then they will look really silly in those outfits.

Bob,
That would be astounding, if the church recognizes evolution, and by necessity therefore geologic time, it could really help resolve some ridiculous divisions. Incidentally who was the cosmologist? In university I started a religion one night on that concept known as "The Searchers for the Primal Zot". It is still what I put down if something insists on knowing my religion.

The problem is that they do ultimately conflict - your cosmological correspondent wasn't completely kidding about those lumps. If, as seems likely, they formed via the same principle of natural selection that semi-randomly chose the emergent phenomena we call us, then natural selection and gods are competing to provide the same explanatory and psychological services. Those memetic alleles can agree to disagree for a time, but they're ultimately only going to integrate through this sort of assimilation.

This is the Vatican realising that it too, is mortally bound by the laws of thermodynamics and won't be providing the main comfort for existential angst forever. And here's to a slow, happy and peaceful transition period.

Believing in stuff takes energy and creates risk - burned calories and lost threads of thought in your brain. It's a dynamic balance you maintain, and though you are a creature of habit, you won't continue doing it indefinitely unless you need to. Particularly if you grew up never needing to.

What a silly post! No references? No quotes? Sounds like nonsense to me!

To GregoriousMaximious; I think you'll find that the main scientists (and I use the term loosely) behind ID (intelligent design) are William Dembski and Michael Behe. I'd also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the "Wedge Document" from the "Institute of Creation Research" it clearly shows that the main reason for reviving ID is to wedge creationism into the classroom.

I say reviving because intelligent design was postulated originally in 1918 by Herman Joseph Muller. It did not stand the test of time and was abandoned.

Intelligent design is not a theory or even a hypothesis, it is a mere assertion. The assertion that some things in nature are too complex to be explained by natural means. This is actually an anti-science position. Science is about how all things observable in nature have natural explanations.

While on one hand having the Vatican endorse evolution may help in public acceptance of the theory, evolution has actually satisfied a much tougher test, namely, observational reality.

I totally disagree with the statement that science and religion don't conflict. Science is a methodology to discover the truth to the best of our ability, religion is about believing without any evidence (if there was evidence, there would be no need for faith). These are not compatible world views.

I find it shocking that people still believe in some of the claims made by religion. The idea that humans are the special creations of an invisible, omnipotent sky-being with full dominion over the animal and plant kingdom isn't only absurd, it's dangerous and immoral. This is the sort of thinking that has gotten us into the climate catastrophe we're in.

If I were to make claims that I knew a magical being named Jabawaba that created the universe, that he only spoke to me because I practiced his sanctioned rituals and would grant me anything I wanted once I died, I would be locked up (and rightly so).

It's time to stop 'respecting' these ridiculous iron age views and to treat them with the contempt and ridicule they deserve.

I hope you keep us posted on this conference. It would be interesting to learn what they have to say. As I recall, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, two of the most important scientists produced by England both believed in a creator. Personally, I don't, but it gives me pause when I think that intellects of that calibre did.

I am a person of science. And I would be perfectly open to any theory that contradicts evolution if it could be scientifically scrutinized and examined. Any such theory would face a serious challenge, however, since 150 years of scrutinizing and studying evolution has revealed not a single instance which disproves it. Furthermore, the relatively new field of genetics provided the mechanism for which evolution occurs, in the passing on of our genes from generation to generation with random mutation.
Intelligent design by contrast, cannot be considered a scientific theory. It is essentially a negative argument. Ie: evolution is wrong so intelligent design must be right. It also cannot be tested scientifically. For these reasons, intelligent design must remain purely a part of religious belief alone.
The Vatican got this one right.

Wow, I am always shocked at the tone and mean spirited nature of some people when you give a different opinion than their own. How about respect and civil manners when discussing science. This is not politics you know. :)

The only thing the I.D. proponents are right about is the incompatibility of evolution with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
On the other hand, if evolution is wrong, then many branches of science - biology, chemistry, archeology, astronomy, palaeontology etc, are all not only factually wrong, but fundamentally flawed.
There is no reason that Intelligent Design should be considered as a viable alternative 'theory' to evolution.

In response to John, who said:
"I do have a question that evolutionists are unable or unwilling to answer though. How come there are gentically-inherited conditions and defects. According to evolution, the bodies should get physically better each generation as they evolve and inherited conditions should be filtered out. Also, evolution states the physical body should get better as time goes on, If we humans are more evolved than a Gorilla, why can a Gorilla easily kill a human in a fight? Heck, most people I know would loose a fight with a Chipmunk, much less a Gorilla.

Also, simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms defies one of the Principles of Physic (Antropy I think it's called, please correct me if I'm wrong) which states that matter breaks down into less complex forms. "

Non-thinkers often run into a little item they don't understand and claim evolutionists have no answer for it. Mutation is the source of evolutionary novelty. Recessive conditions do not affect the survival of the individual unless 2 copies are present. Evolution does not state that the physical body should get better, only that we should become more adapted to our environments. Physical strength is only one way to maximize your number of descendants.

It's entropy that you are referring to, and it states that "in a closed system, order will decrease". The earth is not a closed system, because energy is constantly steaming in from the sun. This energy allows organism to create order.

A little research (and I mean about 5 min on the internet) would have answered these, and many more questions for you!

Those that take the Bible at face value, well - they need to explain Leviticus and all that smiting.

" This is the sort of thinking that has gotten us into the climate catastrophe we're in."
Actually, the modern worldview, which separates faith and reason, making faith private and using scientific reason as tool of domination in the service of the nation-state and capital, that has got us into the climate catastrophe we're in. Blanket statements about religion as the cause of all ill are ahistorical and do not engage particularities.

In response to Jeff who said

"I can't believe the THEORY of evolution is still being pushed on people. There isn't a thread of evidence that one species has changed to another. There's missing links everywhere. They can draw all the lines they want to link species, they're only lines. Evolution is still dead people

If you read and understood the theory of Evolution you would know that is doesn't say that one species changes into another. It says that a species adapates to its environment and that over time two groups of the same species will be different from each other and from there ancestorial species. To give you an example I will use Humans and Gorrilas. A couple million years ago(or more) both humans and gorrilas share a common ancestor. Through time we as humans and gorrilas as gorrilas both started adapting in response to our environments and today we don't resemble each other or our common ancestor.(we do share 90+% of our genes) So evolution is not saying to we use to be present day Gorrilas what it is saying is that we share common ancestor.

And if you don't believe that we adapt then we have bigger problems here then i thought.

In a response to John

No real scientist would say that we are more evolved than a present day gorrila because the statment is illogical. You could say that we have futher evolved from our ancestors because you can not quantify the word evolved

This is a response to John's comment:

"My personal belief is that life was created by God, but that doesn't mean it can't evolve since then.
I do have a question that evolutionists are unable or unwilling to answer though. How come there are gentically-inherited conditions and defects. According to evolution, the bodies should get physically better each generation as they evolve and inherited conditions should be filtered out. Also, evolution states the physical body should get better as time goes on, If we humans are more evolved than a Gorilla, why can a Gorilla easily kill a human in a fight? Heck, most people I know would loose a fight with a Chipmunk, much less a Gorilla."

I would answer your question by saying you have totally misunderstood the Theory of Evoloution. The theory does not in any way insist that creatures will perpetually get smarter, stronger, healthier, or better in any other way. It just says that if a particualar random mutation is greatly beneficial in helping a species adapt to their environment, the members of the species with that trait will be more likely to procreate and pass it on, and that over a vast expanse of time, only members of the species with this beneficial trait will exist, and a new species will potentially be born.

GregoriousMaximious wrote:
"Wow, I am always shocked at the tone and mean spirited nature of some people when you give a different opinion than their own. How about respect and civil manners when discussing science. This is not politics you know. :)"

That's a fair point. Some people get more upset than others. Maybe I can shed some light on where some of the anger comes from.

It's quite funny that you would say this is not politics because ID is political. Proponents of ID seem to spend much of their time trying to get law makers to let ID into schools. They claim that there is a conspiracy against ID in the scientific community (watch the film "Expelled"). The only thing they don't seem to do is the science. You know, present evidence, present hypothesis, publish in peer reviewed journals. The normal channels.

Attempting to have ID taught to school children is an attempt to sneak it in the back door. Science has a front door. The reason ID doesn't make it in the front door is because it is clearly not science. It is clearly not supported by the evidence. Remember, ID would have to explain the fossil record, why I have to take all my anti-biotics, etc. if it is somehow to replace evolution by natural selection.

It's the dodginess and plain lack of science that upsets the real scientists and even lay people like myself.

Does that make any sense? You seem like a bright, curious young man. Examine the evidence, read the papers, do the science. You'll see why ID goes no where. Science isn't about opinions it's about explaining evidence.

Thank-you Jim for you intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal. Also thank-you for the suggestion of seeing Expelled. I just watched it and it was a fantastic movie! I am not a conspiracy person, and the conspercy language bugged me in the movie but the arguments made about why there is such a war between the established science community and Creative Design scientists was very intriguing.
What I like the best about this movie can be summed up by what Alester McGrath said about Dawkins arguments against a creator. He said that scientific explanation and description is not an anti-religious argument! Rather is shows the incredible intricacies of natures careful planning and direction. It shows us the design of the Designer. Just read the Quarks and Quarks guild to space and I can so clearly see the incredible creative design! The question of Purpose, Intentionality, and WHY are left unanswered by neo-Darwinism. Intelligent design is an attempt to mesh these together with science. Yes it falls short at times, but as does all man made theories at one point or another.
Science clearly points to an intelligent creative designer. Does it point to the God of the Bible? I believe it does but that is where faith comes in. Does science point towards no purpose, no point, no God? If that is your conclusion then that is what when your faith kicks in as well.
Great discussion. It will keep me reading my science magazines. By the way I came to a personal understanding of faith while taking Biology in high school, things just work to perfectly to not have been designed.

It's a shame you took "Expelled" at face value. The movie was dishonest, often fabricated and basically completely debunked. If you are intellectually honest you must visit expelledexposed.com

You say things just work too perfectly to have been designed. So? Now what? I'm reminded of black holes. IIRC black holes were postulated because mathematically the universe wasn't behaving the way it should unless there was a considerable amount of mass that was unaccounted for. So the idea of black holes was hypothesized. The next step was to try to figure out what sort of form they would take and how we could possible find them. Only until they were actually found were they accepted as actually real.

ID is like that. If there is an intelligent force how can we find it? What might it look like to us or instruments that we could devise? What experiments could reveal it? How could it be measured and quantified? Simply stating that it all seems too perfect doesn't make it so. This assertion needs to be supported by evidence from observational reality. Time to do the science and if it can't work time to admit it isn't so.

At one time scientists thought they could make gold from everyday objects. Alchemy was a top pursuit of many brilliant men. It doesn't work and is relegated to history. ID is the modern day alchemy. So go ahead and produce the evidence and science to make me change my mind.

You say science clearly points to an intelligent creative designer please show me the evidence.

Just a few general comments:

The Bible was never written (or compiled) to be a scientific book. It is a book of faith that has some historical truths to it. Arguments that Genesis, if taken literally, is wrong and therefore anyone of faith doesn't know what they are talking about is absolutely absurd. Literary tools were used to write this book of faith, but science has supported that the Genesis account of the order of creation is pretty accurate. A rational person can easily reconcile what current scientific theory teaches us and what a book of faith suggests.

The Catholic Church has never stated that faith and reason (or science) should be at lagerheads. After the Enlightenment there seemed to be a prominent belief that faith and reason could not be reconciled. It is only in the last decade or two that the Vatican has actively sought to clarify the fact that faith and reason go hand in hand. We all have a brain and we should use it to try to understand the hard science of our being and also the soft or social science of why we are here; the meaning of life (so to speak) that no amount of data can define.

Thank you to the anonymous writer that gives a little more perspective to the Galileo issue. When will some of these urban legends die.

I think it's important to remember that both science and theology evolve over time. That's not to say that the Truth (scientific or religious) changes or is altered, but our understanding of it does. We need to stop being so arrogant to think that current theories give us all the answers so we don't need to consider a new or different perspective. A little intellectual humility should be maintained on all sides of the debate.

My university degree is in Biology and of course I studied evolution and the mechanism (differential reproductive success) that drives the process of change.

The simplest questions with respect to evolution remain unanswered. Before an attribute evolves such as flight in birds for example, a long process of evolutionary changes that confer no reproductive advantage upon the individual must occur.

For a simple example look at the feather. A feather must evolve from a non-feathery hair, yet in its formative stages, the advantage of flight does not occur with these proto-feathers.

How is it that such a complex formation as a wing or an eye can evolve without initially conferring some reproductive advantage upon the individual possessing the trait?

In other words, a wing or a feather or an eye doesn't work as a feather for flight or an eye for vision until it is well along the path of it's development. Literally millions of chance mutations would have had to occur before these structures would have been any use to the owner or would have been of any advantage relating to reproductive success.

It is a simple question but one that nobody has convincingly answered for me.

Many have danced around these questions with unsatisfactory answers.

It's OK not to have the answers but the suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is bulletproof is simply dishonest.

Science has become the new religion for many.

Unfortunately many scientists lack the necessary humility to be really good scientists.

Andrew Rivett wrote

"My university degree is in Biology and of course I studied evolution and the mechanism (differential reproductive success) that drives the process of change.

The simplest questions with respect to evolution remain unanswered. Before an attribute evolves such as flight in birds for example, a long process of evolutionary changes that confer no reproductive advantage upon the individual must occur. "

Exaptation. The process of evolving a new use from something that used to serve a different purpose.

Feathers were a thermoregulatory device at one time. They would later become useful for flight. Just because feathers now allow many, but not all, birds to fly doesn't mean that they didn't provide some other useful purpose along the way.

Flight is pretty interesting really. Pterosuars were flying long before birds. Many insects fly. There are even flying mammals which I believe show that their wings is structured quite similarly to our own hands. So bats were able to exapt some bone structure into a wing while we hominids exapted it into our ever dextrous hands with opposable thumbs. A bone structure that was found in a rudimentary form in the fins of Tiktaalik. What once helped a fish to swim likely now allows bats to fly and us to pick our noses. Nature is amazing isn't it?

Don't forget that there are also many animals that are in an intermediate flying form now. Flying squirrels, flying fish, gliding snakes are all gliders of course.

The fossil record quite clearly shows feathered flight occurring in stages. feathered flyers don't just suddenly appear. The stages of feathers appearing, then crude gliders and subsequently flyers appear as evolution might predict and certainly explains.

Anyone care to explain the progression of feathered flyers using Intelligent Design? Anyone? Bueller?

To Andrew Rivett:

It's unfortunate that, if your claim to having a degree in biology is true, you never learned about the concept of exaptation (Google it). Maybe you could get your tuition refunded.

To GregoriousMaximous:

I think you might be confusing Intelligent Design with "theistic evolution." The latter is what Francis Collins advocates, and essentially accepts evolutionary theory as is, while adding the (superfluous, IMHO) idea that evolution was God's method of creating the diversity of species that have existed on earth. IOW, it does not contradict accepted scientific knowledge at all. ID, as espoused by Behe, Dembski et al, holds that there are certain structures and processes that could not have been produced by evolutionary processes and therefore speak to the existence of a "designer". There is absolutely no evidence to back this belief up and, as others have pointed out, it is basically a relabelled version of creationism, designed to circumvent constitutional prohibitions against the latter.

Andrew Rivett wonders how a specific characteristic - an eye, a feather, a wing - could develop from chance mutations passed along from generation to generation.

Well, it isn't chance that does the job. And it isn't sex that drives the process, though reproductive success is usually quoted as its primary purpose.

No, any form of life (plant or animal) must subscribe to three functions long before it is able to contribute genes to its personal progeny. That is, it is obliged to ingest nutrients, digest them and excrete what's left over.

So Audrey, the plant from Little Shop of Horrors, had it right when she said "Feed me!" Eyes with binocular vision, variable focus, different colours started out as cells which discriminated light from shadow in order to identify prey. Feathered wings were forelimbs equipped with hairs which swept prey into the reach of jaws; that the flattened, thickened hair-into-feather could also lift the owner's body forward was happy co-incidence. Bats, on the other hand, got rid of the hair but grew the skin between the digits (and still use their wings to sweep bugs into their mouths as they flit about.) Deciduous trees have flat leaves, evergreens have needle leaves, both optimizing light gathering (feeding) and breathing out or excreting Oxygen.

The individual which can best use whatever functions it possesses to improve its survival will therefore get to pass along those functions to its descendants. And that survival depends entirely on the availability of food and the individual's ability to ingest, digest and excrete.

It's funny that I still hear young people "of faith" wanting to argue that evolution is a fake when you see it even by our own hand all around us every year. I mean look at the basic evolution of computers even and you can demonstrate how even "short-lived" things evolve. Iguess they are afriad that what their pastors have told them is a lie- that the world is far older than they believe and that humanity while a great and powerful species is no better than the rest - definitely not more important (except perhaps in our destructive capacity).

john (from winnipeg) said:
>>I do have a question that evolutionists are unable or unwilling to answer though.

I will have a stab at your answer for you then. Even though "Evolutionist" is a silly term.

>>How come there are gentically-inherited conditions and defects.

It is an odd thing to expect from a loving god isn't it? Oh you mean in terms of evolution!
Simple really; evolution isn't a magic bullet, not all conditions/mutations are weeded out, because not all adversely affect survival and procreation enough for that. Also genetic mutations aren't as rare as many think; the average human Zygote contains ~128 of them!

>> According to evolution, the bodies should get physically better each generation as they evolve and inherited conditions should be filtered out.

False. The fact and theory of evolution (ToE) does NOT claim that bodies will get "better" just that in general the ones better suited for the current conditions (all conditions, which includes everything it faces) will tend to fare better than those less well suited (kind of obvious if you think about it, that is why T.H. Huxley's immediate response to Darwin's thesis was "Why didn't I think of that?!")
Over MANY generations certain traits that become poor fitting to the environment do get weeded out, but the process is long and new mutations keep cropping up. The short answer is that life is not as simple as you might like it to be.

>>Also, evolution states the physical body should get better as time goes on, If we humans are more evolved than a Gorilla, why can a Gorilla easily kill a human in a fight

Sorry this is just awful. Sorry; it really is.
1. Evolution DOES NOT say that.

2. Humans and Gorillas are alive today! Therefore Gorillas are just as evolved as we are. We did not evolve from Gorillas you know; we are their cousins. With only about 3.1% difference in our coding DNA if I recall correctly.

3. If we and Gorillas routinely competitively and physically fought (for resources or whatever) then perhaps we wold have either evolved to be their physical equals or perished, as that is not the case, your point is moot. (your next point will highlight this.)

>>Heck, most people I know would loose a fight with a Chipmunk, much less a Gorilla.

Good thing we don't have to fight Gorillas or chipmunks for survival or procreational advantage then, isn't it?
Seriously; that last sentence answers it all really.

>>Also, simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms defies one of the Principles of Physic (Antropy I think it's called, please correct me if I'm wrong) which states that matter breaks down into less complex forms.

You are wrong (correcting as requested.)
I think you are thinking of Entropy, and the Second Law of thermodynamics that states that "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe." (at least that is one way it is summed up in terms directly relating to entropy.)
And no, it does not contradict evolution at all. This is an old flawed creationist canard; Just Google "Second Law of thermodynamics evolution" and look for yourself (when I did, the first link was TalkOrigins, an excellent source for correcting such misinformation.)
This is a poor forum for such topics, they need a lot of space to explain properly. But to be far too brief: The Law is:
1. Focused on heat (hence the name.)
2. It details a general trend in an closed system (i.e. the entire universe, Earth is not a closed system, it gets a lot of fresh energy input from the sun for a start, plus a fair amount of other cosmic radiation etc.)
3. This trend is general, not absolute, increases in complexity are possible, especially in local setting where influxes of energy are present, such as any planet circling a star.
4. This entropy still DOES have a real effect, this is why we must eat (almost constantly) to survive. To stave of entropy we have to take on board new sources of energy (food, drink, radiation form the sun etc.) or else we 'run down' - that's entropy.

"Andrew Rivett

My university degree is in Biology..."...and I don't understand Exaptation.

Thank you for the concrete demonstration of the erosion of our educational standards by the politicization of the Theory of Evolution.

"Let's face it: most people of faith, including Catholics and other non-fundamentalists, have managed to reconcile faith and science for a long time."

Perhaps *some* people could truly reconcile the two, but I suspect *most* people don't give a great deal of thought to the conflicts between the two and don't truly reconcile it at all. Accepting the existence of dinosaurs during the week and singing hymns on Sunday isn't really reconciliation.

Quote Annon:
Arguments that Genesis, if taken literally, is wrong and therefore anyone of faith doesn't know what they are talking about is absolutely absurd. Literary tools were used to write this book of faith, but science has supported that the Genesis account of the order of creation is pretty accurate.
End Quote

Which of the two completely different orders of creation given in Genesis is that? Genesis 1: plants; sea creatures and birds; then wild beasts, livestock and land animals; finally man and woman; or Genesis 2: man; plants; land animals and birds; then woman?

Leaving the unsolved portions of the Universe to God is an intellectually dishonest excercise. You (and the Vatican) seem to be arguing that there is this set of important stuff that believers can attribute to God since they aren't yet understood by the scientific community. But as sciences improves God will be continually pushed further and further back to the beginning of time.

Believe in God and view science as just trying to understand His work. Or don't believe in God and view science as trying to push the boundary of our knowledge. Trying to carve up all knowledge between science and God cheapens both.

Faith and Science?
How much faith must it take to believe we came from a rock and primordial goo? Evilution is proved wrong daily, it is simply not in the main stream media. The Bible proves it's self over and over again, non believers simply will not take a look. I would direct you to Ken Ham at the creation science ministry, his work makes sense to me. What every one needs to look for is the money behind any government project such as evilution or global warming. They are both false and heavily funded by tax payers.

Surely there is a middle path in this debate. I like to remain open-minded about the possibility of intelligent design by another civilization, somewhere else in the universe, rather than by a deity.

It may be that life on Earth was seeded by another civilization. Early organized religion might have been entrusted with the explanation of life on Earth by expressing the facts in terms that ancient people on Earth could understand.

This creates an opening for discussion of intelligent design outside of any religious context.

Dodge from Minnesota says:

"The Bible proves it's self (sic) over and over again, non believers simply will not take a look."

Are you referring to the Bible that claims that:

Rabbits chew their cud and have a divided hoof.

Insects have four legs.

A circle with a diameter of 10 cubits would have a circumference of less than 30 cubits.

Bats are birds.

Stars are tiny objects that could fall and land on earth.

That Bible?

Perhaps you meant to say, "The Bible proves itself, over and over again, to be less than worthless as a source of scientific knowledge...."

I am not here to state my belief opinion the matter of whos right or wrong, but i may do so unintentionally, please forgive me.

Yes Jeff, we truely are only scratching the surface. Science has its great qualities, But thats not to say Theological thinking does not either. There is so many unexplainable things in the world. Yes, science may come up with a true fact about something, BUT THATS NOT TO SAY THAT IS THE ONLY TRUTH. There are so many questions to be asked, yet for some reason most people seem to think they know whats right and wrong without fully examining the possibilities. If your going to bash a belief or scietific theory, do some reading before you throw your immature phrases to hide your own ignorance.

In response to Jim:
"Religion has an obligation to embrace the supernatural."

This arguement holds no water. There is no obligation. We were all given the gift of free will. Logically and rationally we each seek the truth. What makes sense to you may not make sense to me. The thought process of the mind seeking the reason behind life is much too complex for our limited language. Communication is key, we will only grow as a species if we try to understand each other better. We which brings me to the next quote from Jim:

It's almost ironic that it was theologians who were amongst the first scientists."

How so is this ironic? Science and Theology once went hand in hand, but because both sides thought they were more right, look what we have today. Science and Theology has a place in this world. The problem comes when one believes it is better then the other. Placing ego and pride above seeking the truth, only pushes us further and further away.

As for thinking the Bible as a scientific source of knowledge, you are clearly misinterpreting the Catholic belief. This book is a source of knowledge that helps stir the mind in a positive manner, as any religious book. It helps you live your life in peace while trying to understand why. It helps you to ask questions and find answers. It is not a book for everyone. Not every religion is a faith for everyone, that also goes to say certinly scientology alone is not a faith for everyone either. There are good qualities to all sides, yet we only look at the bad and bash bash bash, bliding ourselves of the good, of the opportunities.

Not everything is black and white is what im saying. I find many people are so afraid they disregard anything they cannot see with their own eyes, or prove something as fact. That just places your own thought process inside a box. Theology needs science, and science needs theology, but of course, we as humans know whats best, so we will continue to be ignorant and fight. What we should be discussing is WHERE and HOW each side needs the other. There are questions and answers both sides can mend.

In the end we are all invited to search for the truth, but it is everyones individual path. Pick and choose and rationalize for yourself.

***These conventions/debates are meant to help us on that path. They are meant to further our knowledge and wisdom. They are meant to share what others have discovered or believe and analyze. It saddens me to see in this day and age, most humans really have not evolved to far from our primative state. There is always more to something then meets the eye.
The only absolute i believe in is God, because the rest falls in the place easily and rationally for me. In the end, we truely know very little, but the only way well learn is by seeking knowledge and analyzing it for OURSELVES.

(sorry if i repeated myself, just my style of writing)

Hey Michael

If religion has no obligation to embrace the supernatural I guess they can dispense with the concept of gods, demons, angels and the whole magic show at any time now.

What is ironic about early theologians and their connection to science is how today's theologians are now busy rejecting science. They've basically declared war on science. At one time theologians searched for truth now they spend much of their time rejecting truth. It would be laughingly amusing if they didn't carry so much political power.

The scientific method helps eliminate ambiguities in the search for truth. Facts about the natural world are not black and white. They are correct or incorrect. Science is a self correcting tool that assist us in sorting out what is fact and what is fiction.

There is no middle ground to be had in science vs. religion. It is religion that has many issues with the facts that science has revealed to us. Religion has next to no impact on science. The religious squawk about science because they know that when many religious claims are scrutinized by the scientific method they fall apart. There is nothing there except buffoonery and wishful thinking.

You cannot philosophize something into existence.

It is fascinating how people make comments without having read or studying a subject. Let me make a cursory review of wrong statements that I saw in some posts.

1) "The Vatican finally recognized Darwin's theory." This is of course wrong, and to certain extent is irrelevant because it has long been said by Church officials that the details of the ancient history of man on earth should be left to science.

2) "The Vatican defended a geocentric view of the universe against Galileo." Again, wrong. Some people probably thought Galileo was wrong, but before him the Pope had allowed and encouraged Copernicus (himself a believer) to teach heliocentrism to church people.

2) "Francis Collins is an ID believer." In fact, in his book "the language of God" (or some other title) he dedicates quite a few pages to explaining why he thinks ID is wrong.

3) Some guy saying that believers (and in particular catholics) believe in gods similar to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "tooth fairy"; they are therefore not rational. This is just nonsense. One thing people have criticized in the works of Dawkins' and other apostles of popular atheism is the way they deal with the existence of religion among all races and in all times. This is a fact. They argue that we are all grown ups so let us just abandon it and turn to science. The problem is - science by its own nature has no feelings or hierarchy of values. It just poses and tests hypotheses endlessly. So we, poor human beings, are left with nothing because there is nothing else. The same force that led people to religion (what am I doing here? What is the purpose of my life) is left unanswered. What are rational people going to do? Either take prosac (a dellusion by construction) or embrace religion (perhaps a dellusion, I'm not sure). This is rationality: people doing choices to maximize their peace and well-being given the constraints they have.

It is fascinating how people make comments without having read or studying a subject. Let me make a cursory review of wrong statements that I saw in some posts.

1) "The Vatican finally recognized Darwin's theory." This is of course wrong, and to certain extent is irrelevant because it has long been said by Church officials that the details of the ancient history of man on earth should be left to science.

2) "The Vatican defended a geocentric view of the universe against Galileo." Again, wrong. Some people probably thought Galileo was wrong, but before him the Pope had allowed and encouraged Copernicus (himself a believer) to teach heliocentrism to church people.

2) "Francis Collins is an ID believer." In fact, in his book "the language of God" (or some other title) he dedicates quite a few pages to explaining why he thinks ID is wrong.

3) Some guy saying that believers (and in particular catholics) believe in gods similar to the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "tooth fairy"; they are therefore not rational. This is just nonsense. One thing people have criticized in the works of Dawkins' and other apostles of popular atheism is the way they deal with the existence of religion among all races and in all times. This is a fact. They argue that we are all grown ups so let us just abandon it and turn to science. The problem is - science by its own nature has no feelings or hierarchy of values. It just poses and tests hypotheses endlessly. So we, poor human beings, are left with nothing because there is nothing else. The same force that led people to religion (what am I doing here? What is the purpose of my life) is left unanswered. What are rational people going to do? Either take prozac (a dellusion by construction) or embrace religion (perhaps a dellusion, I'm not sure). This is rationality: people doing choices to maximize their peace and well-being given the constraints they have.

antonia wrote:

"The same force that led people to religion (what am I doing here? What is the purpose of my life) is left unanswered. What are rational people going to do? Either take prosac (a dellusion by construction) or embrace religion (perhaps a dellusion, I'm not sure). This is rationality: people doing choices to maximize their peace and well-being given the constraints they have."

While I agree with most of your post, I think you're oversimplifying the options here. True, the role of science in answering the existential (if that's the correct term) questions you raise is limited. Still, I don't think the answers obtained from religion are necessarily any better, and religion is certainly not the only source of potential answers. Theism, while very widespread, is only one of many philosophies or world views. I don't think atheists are any less equipped to answer these questions than theists are. Atheists just don't have the pat, pre-written answers religion provides. Reassuring as as those answers may be, they have no means of verification.

For anyone reading this thread not well versed in 'descent with modification' like myself, I highly recommend "Ever Since Darwin" by Stephen Jay Gould. I personally found Neoteny (literally, "holding youth") the most enthralling concept, though I wonder if it still exists in any respectable form today, my copy being published in '77.

To Michael in Mississauga; if you find God to be so absolute, I would recommend Kierkegaard's "The Sickness Unto Death". Penguin Books has a fantastic edition amongst many other classic works. To be honest, you will probably find him more agreeable than I. I guess you'll just have to read it to find out what I mean.

Faith is easy because you can be lazy and leave it to someone else.
Science is more difficult because you need to think, do some work, try AND fail before you figure out what you have done...

I disagree with the statement below.

"A scientific theory is not an opinion or a belief. It is the product of a long, highly disciplined process of question, hypothesis, experiment, conclusions, gathering facts, peer review, debate, then publication."

The conclusion is indeed a person's or a group's "belief or opinion" based on the evidence gathered and the issues debated.

A person's beliefs and opinions are also based upon evidence gathered (through books, discussions with peers, and other methods) and many are not reached until the person has undergone a lengthy period of thought and introspection.

Science and religion are NOT compatible. The theory of evolution is irrefutable and scientifically provable. The " theory of a god" is not either of these.
That said, i do wish there WAS an afterlife, or something.I don't really want to disappear and I can't imagine MY world without me. Even though I won't be around to notice, when my time comes, that there probably isn't. An after life , I mean.
That, I must say, gives me some comfort.

Just thought I'd point out Galileo's work had to do with the path of 4 moons of Jupiter, hence named the Galilean Moons. The Earth revolving around the Sun was proposed by Polish Astronomer Nicolai Copernicus many years before Galileo.

Interesting that the Vatican admits the validity of Darwinism, a pretty sophisticated scientific theory in itelf, yet it can't accept the simple medically proven concept of condoms reducing the spread of AIDS...

It is good that the science wing of the Vatican continues its good work on separating science from non science.

Hallelujah

And I do mean hallelujah

An expression of joy for a joyous occasion.

I've been hoping for this news and despairing that it would not come in my lifetime.

I am a non-believer who strongly supports faith. I have no doubt about science and the knowledge it brings. I also have no doubt about the many social benefits that faith brings.

You want evidence about those benefits? Look into the eyes of a young child in a faith- based school in our poorest countries. You will see happiness, hope and joy.

The aid rendered to those in this world who are in such need is every bit as important as the quest for knowledge.

Allow me to take on the role of an (somewhat cynical) outside observer. Outside the planet is where I'll be.

I can't see anyone, but I can see the whole human race. I see squabbles, petty squabbles. Your science answers many questions about your physical universe. Your faith answers many questions about your moral universe. Both concern themselves with the question of why you exist. (The rest of the universe is probably asking itself the same question)

On one hand, you have the Big Bang theory (and I use the word "theory" lightly) now much improved with lumps.

On the other hand, you have the Creator theory which varies greatly and may or may not also be improved with lumps.

As an observer, I'm not really supposed to make comments, but I keep thinking "All of you should make your way back to the drawing board."

In any case, your science will not die out. It is under negligible threat worldwide. The same cannot be said for your faith. The number of non-believers and non-practioners is a growing percentage of your population. Therein lays a danger.

The social benefits of your faith are not a theory, they are a fact. What will replace them? No science you posess would be willing to take on this role. Impoverished governments cannot do the job. (I’m sure you all would be happy to pay lots more taxes to get the job done.)

Since there is no danger to science, therefore faith should be encouraged. Either that or abandon your needy. (Of course, there is the “lots of tax” option, but I’ll believe in lumps before I believe that.)

Sorry, I’ll try to keep my thoughts to myself.

My last observation. Your world is generally going to hell in a hand-basket and you quibble.

Thanks for taking that little trip with me. Faith-based attacks on science have always proved futile and will continue to be futile. Science-based attacks on faith are not always futile. The consequences of a successful attack on faith should be as carefully considered as any scientific endeavor. Ignorance of the consequences can make a very intelligent person appear very stupid.

As a non-believer I would much rather see a reconciliation. We are, after all, a social species, and we ignore our needy at our own risk.

And so today is a good day. A pointless confrontation may be avoided and both science and faith will have more energy to pursue their goals.

Those in science need to work hard to help us keep our planet healthy and those in faith need to pray for those of science ‘cause Lord knows, they gonna need all the help they can get.

Thanks
Don

Evolution is a sleigh of hand meant to push God into the periphery of human experience. By your own admission, “When science doesn’t have an answer, saying, ‘God did it’ is just as valid until a scientific proof can fill in the gap.” Further, far from your claim, it is not an elegant theory.

Consider the conundrums of conjecture it pushes as fact, chief among them being on the origin of species from primordial soup for which there is not one single shred of evidence, physical or coherently logical. The Big Bang and early universe, as envisaged by evolutionists, is also in want of proper defense. And as for the tree of life that purports to show why I ought to love my monkey cousin -- it is so bereft of empirical data that its promotion is akin to a thousand evangelicals babbling in unknown tongues.

I can this with certainty though. For a Christian to say we have arrived this far by natural selection is to blatantly deny the active interest and intervention in the human condition by God. His foolish wisdom in swallowing the evolution bait will only be made manifest in a shamefaced silence when closely questioned about the creation and fall of man, the judgment of the flood, the separation of humanity at the tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the promise of his second advent. Watch him as he shifts his feet uneasily about, bowing and looking away, mumbling below his breath that it was all a myth. How art thou fallen, oh Mother of Harlots!

Even so, sadly, the Devil catches them one by one in his Delusion net.

Only an idiot would still care about antiquated theology. The church should support all scientific research for the good of mankind. It has no place in law or science. I include all so-called religions, not just a minor segment of the world represented by the vatican.

Darwinism actually wasn't Darwins to begin with - he added to anothers THEORY. He then expounded HIS belief system to include racism and supported the annialation of the undesirable-Check out the early Titles of his works and you'll see that they too "evolve" as he was confronted by people who questioned his ethics. Check out "Creation Science Evangelism",& Lee Strobel, "Case for a Creator" to mention a couple if you REALLY Honestly want to know how faith and science and the WORDS OF GOD work together.