Skip to comments.Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'
Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The RavenEdited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"
Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Note that he uses the word "could"...While I believe in God, it would appear, I think, to those who use only their senses to tangibly determine what is or is not, God is only a theory and therefore 'could' exist ...
Always look for the words "could", "perhaps"... Its a dead giveaway that means NOT PROVEN.
For the strict creationsists, I think they have lost the battle before it is started on this basis; just as evolution cannot be strictly proven - neither can God be strictly proven, yet, whether he does exist or not is immaterial to fact ('facts' stand aside from and independent of what puny mortals may conceive in their limited minds at any given moment) ...
The 'creationsists' fail to address those common elements we find in DNA, those components that result in the formation of some rather 'common' elements that are shared with different so-called species. 'til they come to grips with this aspect they will be continually 'inventing' specious reasons for 'differences' they cannot explain and therfore reamain forever ignoring that rather large elephant (present for all to see) that occupies their front living rooms ...
I prefer to use the word "dynamic" but I recognize that the word could not be properly applied to a God who is outside space-time. But viewed from our side of the divide dynamic might best describe it, it would look like that to us.
To continue with a thought I have pursued in another context, the two notions, that God controls the future, and that men are free agents, can only be reconciled if God is engaged in the here and now. Some have written that if God is engaged in the world then human freedom is negated, but I see it as precisely the reverse. He can absorb all of the uncertainties introduced by his human and very fallible, very inventive, and very idiosyncratic crew by remaining engaged.
How do you drive a single car down two different roads at the same time?
Which of the two functions of your male genital organ do you exclusively use?
(And anyone who claims writing in snow is a third function will be ignored)
You had a point, but it slipped away. Evolution may be implicit, but it is not explicit and certainly not specific.
Ahhh. The Jesuits.
You're talking about a microevolution type of study. Each organism under each condition will be different. I don't have numbers off hand. Do a PubMed search on microevolution and bacteria, salmon, guppies, e coli or look for Genetics symposium or the Microevolution: rate, pattern, process by Hendry and Kinnison
Essentially sit and watch, count the number of changes, and how many live or die. Repeat.
Right, sure, whatever you say ...
I guess this is just a random collection of atoms.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. In the world of science, it is the hypothesis that is not proven. This is contrary to what you probably learned in high school. Scientists use the word differently. This is why I posted the definition from the NSA.
The "fact" of evolution is not quite the same as the theory of evolution.
From the same source:
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"
The fact of evolution, scientifically, is the same as the theory of evolution. The word "theory" does not imply uncertainty - it is a statement of certainty.
There is only one function that is needed for my physical survival.(emotional survival is not considered).
(Also remember the argument among the body parts as to which was the most important-- the sphincter won.)
Ah...I bumped my shin on the rhetorical coffee table....
Both are needed for the survival of your genes, and as you recall, we are discussing evolution here.
"Have him give me a call."
Seriously, there are those that are going to require THAT kind of proof before 'they believe' - I'm not one of those BTW.
Did you miss my point in my previous post?
It was created just as it is. Somewhere in there, it says each kind produces offspring of its own kind (not something different). Your mileage may vary.
So let me get your bible passage straight... when we try to figure something in the world out, we are being wicked and foolish? ... The pursuit of knowledge is bad?
No, but thanks for posing such wicked and foolish conclusions. See "25 Rules of Disinformation," #2 and/or #4.
The pursuit of knowledge is admirable. What's 'bad' is to engage in that pursuit by first denying the truth that's staring us in the face (see verse 19 in that Romans 1 passage, also Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10).
I know you guys like to think so. But, in truth, I see no benefit in putting forth a wild theory of my own or addressing his.
Nope. "My" genes are in my family. If I am around to whup things, "my" genes tend to survive. If I am not around to whup things, "my" genes tend not to survive. The ability to excrete toxins is a necessity for survival sexual reproduction is not.
You quoted all the evidence I need. Would it matter to you if I was to take the time to find the verse? (I didn't think it would.)
Andrew; you're arguing that sexual reproduction does not tend to lead to the survival of your genes. Are you sure that's what you intend to claim?
Sorry marron for not having written sooner. I'm working on a project that has become rather all-consuming of my free time lately. What you write here anticipates some of the points I'm struggling with in that venture.
To respond to the points you raise here, let me begin by saying that my understanding of God -- imperfect as it is -- is that promulgated by the Council of Nicea, AD 325: That there is One God in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It seems very clear to me that at least One of the Persons is not in time -- the Father, in the sense of St. Thomas Aquinas' Unknown Tetragrammatical God. The Son, "Who was God, and was with God" in the Beginning, incarnated in time in the person of Jesus Christ -- the God of the Presence (in Aquinas' theology) -- was crucified, died, and was buried; then He rose from death and ascended into Heaven (i.e., left space-time altogether) and is reunited with the Father.
From the human point of view, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity -- the Holy Spirit, God the Comforter -- is "in time" to the extent that He is in human souls (but souls are themselves timeless, eternal!).
Having said all this, there is an extraordinarily important sense in which the Son is still in the world of space and time. For the Son is the Logos of God, the Word of the Beginning. The Logos is in the world as its primary creative principle and as its ever-enduring, fundamental ordering principle.
The Nicene Creed says that the Son is "begotten, not made" of the Father; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. Thus both Son and Spirit, like the Father, are "uncreated"; they are True Eternal God. The manner of the emergence of the second two divine Persons is particularly fascinating to me, and the fruitful source of frequent meditation.
For the Son Who was begotton of the Father, the Logos or Word of the Beginning, was incarnated as man in order to become a divine sacrifice for the purpose if restoring man into loving communication with the Father, to heal the breech that existed between God and Man commencing with the rebellion of Adam. After the Cross, the facilitator of this reconciliation is the Holy Spirit -- Who proceeded from the Will of Father and Son to "enter the world" as divine-human mediator and comforter after the Resurrection of Christ.
One meaning of Logos to my mind is God's plan for the universe. That plan will certainly be realized to the purpose or goal that God foreknows from the Beginning. To use a Platonic analogy: The Father is the Unknown God of the Beyond, Divine Nous -- infinitely willing, creating, loving intellect; the Son is the Logos, the Word of that willing and loving infinite Intellect that was "spoken" or "breathed" into existence at the beginning of creation. The Holy Spirit is analogous to the Demiurge, who uses persuasion to being souls into alignment with the divine plan.
There is free will in the world, for a man can always refuse to participate in the divine Plan. What is known in faith however, is that the divine Plan will be realized. The man who turns away from the Holy Spirit working in his soul to bring him into loving relation with God will probably not be a part of that plan, when it is brought into its glory at a time known only to God Himself.
So I agree with you: "God controls the future, and that men are free agents." Yet from the purely human standpoint, it seems to me that for God to be immanently engaged in the here and now in a sense other than as the eternal paradigm set in heaven and breathed forth in the Word (which is ineradicably imprinted on this world and the next) requires human souls freely willing to become a habitation for the Holy Spirit, and to follow Christ.
Well, that's the best I can do to try to explain certain reflections that have seized me, heart and mind, in recent times. I'm not sure I've directly answered the issues you raise, marron. What do you think?
Yes, as a matter of fact, this is the will of Allah.
No, I am not. I am arguing that my genes certainly exist apart from me since I received them from my parents. My passing them on does benefit their(the genes) survival, but to do that I must first survive. I wouldn't have lasted a week without a means of excreting toxins. Men have certainly survived without being a parent and aided in the dispersion of their genes.
My hair stands on end when folks (on either side) talk about genes benefiting, or genes being selfish, or whether. This kind of language adds heat but no light. Specific genes become more or less frequent in a population depending on the reproductive success of organisms. It makes no difference at all why the organisms survive and reproduce. The sphinx cat, a recent mutation, is ugly as sin and extremely unlikely to survive without human interference. But there is human interference. The "success" or "failure" of genes has nothing at all to do with the innate characteristics of the gene.
You don't need a penis to excrete toxins. Had you had a nasty accident during circumcision, you would almost certainly be able to pee, albeit sitting down. But, without modern medical interention, you would not be able to reproduce.
You can, of course, facilitiate the propagation of your genes in other ways besides sexual reproduction, albeit far less efficiently. But, getting back to the original point, the human penis certainly has two functions. I don't see why we're wasting our time with this obvious point.
Didn't mean to do that! I attribute no consciousness to genes. Perhaps I should have stated "My passing them on, keeps them around longer."
I didn't argue against that. I merely stated that one function, the excretion function, was essential for survival, and I threw in the sphincter reference as an illustration.
It appears this was a foolish analogy, since clearly fitness does imply more than one specific function.
Hey, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's you who, for whatever reason, can't figure out what I meant when I said "you quoted all the evidence I need." Funny how that possibility seemingly didn't enter your mind before you accused me of lying.
But, really, it was there. It was the second sentence you quoted. In other words, the Bible says so, and that's enough for me. I'm surprised the question contained in my reply didn't make that crystal clear.
With all due respect, I don't lie. However, I wouldn't be surprised if those who are prone to lying when the situation "justifies it" would simply assume "of course, everyone else does it, too."
Well, you didn't read the rest of the discussion, because I answered that. post 53--- Only if the car is not required at the original destination.
I didn't address directly the "how" of it, but you have. God has a design, which is flexible enough to include us and our shenanigans, and he is engaged in the here and now keeping things moving generally in the right direction. That would be on several levels, our innate design, the operation of reason which is a part of our nature, but further by the various means by which he broadcasts his principles into the culture. The Church, with all its flaws is a key part of that.
And then there is the more direct means, by which his spirit moves in the hearts of men, to which some respond and some do not in the immediate term, but which over time brings his weight to bear on events whether or not people recognize his movements. Some are as you say more willing vessels than others, and some are more readily moved to action than others.
There even is a division of labor in this area; you have the people who transmit the word into the culture who may or may not fully understand the significance of what they are saying, and who may or may not fully reflect what they say in their own lives. As disappointing as this can be, it is important nonetheless that they are engaged in this part of the work.
Then you have the people who actually act on it, who may or may not be recognizably religious in nature, and often are not. But they are the ones who act, and actually make the word real in flesh and blood terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.