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 ...
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.