Evolution Important Question, But Debate Left Us No Wiser

realclearpolitics.com ^ | May 10, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[editor-surveyor]

"are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?"

Absolutely!

"The Vatican has no problem with evolution."

The Vatican seems to have no problem with paganism either, but I do.

The day we elect a president that believes in evolution, we are done. Stick the fork in.

[editor-surveyor]

"are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?"

Absolutely!

"The Vatican has no problem with evolution."

The Vatican seems to have no problem with paganism either, but I do.

The day we elect a president that believes in evolution, we are done. Stick the fork in.

[tacticalogic]

The day we elect a president that believes in evolution, we are done. Stick the fork in.

How do you know we haven't already had one (or more)?

[microgood]

Who proved that faith and reason are mutually exclusive? The Vatican has no problem with evolution.

That is partly true. They do not believe the mechanism cited (random mutation and natural selection) is correct.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then they don’t believe in their own Bible, the Bible and evolution don’t mix very well.

The Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth. Is Astronomy wrong too?

[Non-Sequitur]

Kudos to Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo for being brave enough to declare that they don’t believe in [Macro]evolution.

That's not what they said. They said they don't believe in evolution. Are you interpreting for them now?

[labette]

"There is no "the" Bible. There are many, differing compilations and translations of scriptures into many different bibles."

Obviously, you either reject or haven't studied these versions:

King James Version (KJV) Genesis 1 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

New International Version (NIV)Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

English Standard Version (ESV)Genesis 1: 1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Message (MSG) Genesis 1: 1-2First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all you see, all you don't see. Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God's Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss.

Genesis 1: 31 King James Version (KJV) 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

21st Century King James Version (KJ21) 31And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

New Life Version (NLV)31 God saw all that He had made and it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Today's New International Version (TNIV) 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

.

How 'bout something New Testament?

John 1:3 King James Version (KJV) 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

New International Version (NIV) 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)3 All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing [nought], that thing that was made.

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) 3God made everything by the Word. Nothing has been made without him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)3 All things were created (A) through Him, (B) and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

.

So...Which compilation and translation do you study?

[Jeff Gordon]

The MSG version is pretty interesting. It seems to back up the concept of evolution.

[labette]

Even an "unusual" translation like the MSG contains verse 31: " God looked over everything he had made; it was so good, so very good! It was evening, it was morning— Day Six."

[CharlesWayneCT]

I asked: "So the real issue is, would you vote for someone who believes in God, or is that too irrational?"

You responded: "No, the real issue for me the ability of our President to think rationally. Belief in any of the forms of creationism is irrational."

So are you saying that you don't find belief in a God who could create the universe irrational, but you find belief that God did create the universe is irrational?

[Jeff Gordon]

So are you saying that you don't find belief in a God who could create the universe irrational, but you find belief that God did create the universe is irrational?

Nope. I am saying:
"No, the real issue for me the ability of our President to think rationally. Belief in any of the forms of creationism is irrational."

[CharlesWayneCT]

So I am supposed to simply agree with your assertion that “any form of creationism is irrational”, but you refuse to even entertain the notion of whether belief in a God who could create the universe is irrational or not?

You position is irrational. I won’t take advice on who to vote for president from an irrational person.

[Jeff Gordon]

So I am supposed to simply agree with your assertion that “any form of creationism is irrational”

Of course not. For you to change your worldview based upon the worldview of a single, random voter would be silly.

I am not asking anyone to change any of their beliefs. I am not offering advice. I am just expressing what I believe.

[curiosity]

Microevolution and macroevolution can't be properly distilled in this space, but broadly speaking, micro allows for the possibility of a creator.

So why wouldn't macro? Macroevolution is just evolution above the species level. It no more rules out a creator than does quantum physics.

[CharlesWayneCT]

But a mere expression of belief isn’t that useful on a political discussion site. I’m mean, it’s OK, it’s just that most of us are here to actually discuss what we believe, offer our basis (assumptions, facts, arguments) for our beliefs, and try to persuade others.

So I thought I could learn something from your statement, by persuing the thought process behind it. I’ve encountered people who say that creationism is a mental disorder, but I can never get them to explain how this ONE aspect of a person’s personal beliefs is so disqualifying compared to everything else that makes up the typical religious dogma.

I thought maybe you would be able to shed some light on the subject.

Anyway, thank you.

[neverdem]

I didn’t write that statement. Where did you find it?

[Alamo-Girl]

Darwinist evolution theory, of course, "has no need of the God hypothesis." Indeed, for many, this is its chief appeal. That is why I described it earlier as a "reduction": Reductions generally involve important omissions. Darwinist theory, for example, has no theory of the origin of life, does not come to grips with the origin of intelligence or consciousness, assumes randomness (without defining what randomness is or giving evidence for it), has no good account of "irreducible complexity," and does not explain/account for the information-intensive basic structures of life at the level of DNA, nor demonstrate any principle that could account for how the amazingly complex higher biological forms organize and integrate their astronomical number of internal parts -- at the organic, cellular, molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels -- into an organized, dynamic, singular whole that is submitted to a sort of "global governance."

Jeepers, this looks like "biology-lite" to me.

Yep, me too. Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post!

[curiosity]

I didn’t write that statement. Where did you find it?

Near the end of the article.

[neverdem]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention and forcing me to look up the definitions. I hadn't paid it much mind when I read it. I didn't watch the debate/inquisition. I posted the story because I was unaware that the topic of evolution was involved in the attempt to denigrate the religious right.

So why wouldn't macro? Macroevolution is just evolution above the species level. It no more rules out a creator than does quantum physics.

I agree. Maybe the author, Kathleen Parker, meant just that there wasn't any argument about microevolution.

"Microevolution and macroevolution can't be properly distilled in this space, but broadly speaking, micro allows for the possibility of a creator."

Anyway, I like the author.

[curiosity]

Maybe the author, Kathleen Parker, meant just that there wasn't any argument about microevolution.

She just seems confused, but that doesn't make me think less of her given that she's not a biologist. The rest of the article was good.