Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Evolution theories

Marcus, perhaps I'm dense (I tried to take a nap, and it didn't work, and now I'm feeling kinda foggy), but I don't see what you mean.

and I believe God created the universe to have rules (physics, etc) and has been letting it run according to those rules. And we've been testing and exploring and figuring out those rules, which is encouraged. For us to do that, the rules have to remain constant. Yes, I believe in miracles, which is when God temporarily suspends or overrides the rules, but those are definitely exceptions. So I guess I don't see the misleading part. Ambiguous, yeah. God gave us free will, and he's seriously committed to that. So there aren't overwhelmingly obvious incontrovertible proofs floating around. We have the choice whether to believe or not.

A more general point -- there is a difference between "organized religion" and God. Whenever you get human beings mixed up in something, they're gonna mess it up. Some get it a lot more wrong than others, but nobody's got it 100%.

Ann, I know there are some churches which are more of a social club than anything. That's not the way it's supposed to be, though, and it hasn't been the case in my personal experience. Fellowship is important -- God knows we need other people -- but it's supposed to be more of a by-product.

I may come up with something more interesting to add later but this is about the best I can do for now...

PJ

That's pretty much what I was saying I don't object to - a theory that God created the initial conditions for life but is otherwise leaving it to proceed without interference, apart from rare special circumstances.

It isn't a theory I share, but I don't regard it in the same light as "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", both of which seem to be saying that nothing happens without God's intervention, that all of the processes of evolution science sees are actually God fine-tuning creation, and that God is deliberately making the results indistinguishable from those that might be expected from random natural processes.

This (a) makes God into a con-man and (b) makes God responsible for every disease, parasite, and unfavourable genetic accident that happens. And yet it's apparently felt to be more desirable than natural processes.

I really doubt that we're going to convince each other on this one.

I wasn't actually trying to convince you of anything I just didn't quite see where you were coming from, so thanks for the clarification. That's not a perspective I've heard before. I may actually agree with you on this one. Stranger things have happened I'll have to think about it for a while...

PJ

The con-man thingie sounds a lot like "Discworld", there the fossils are only put into the ground to confuse the humans.

You may also want to look at Pratchett's non-Discworld (but extremely funny) SF novel Strata, which is about (amongst other things) a corporation that builds human-habitable worlds complete with fossil records so that colonists won't feel that they haven't got a past.

If you want to find out how silly this sort of theory can get, try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

He is Catholic according to an interview in the Sept. 06 Awake
============= a couple of quotes =====
*** g 9/06 p. 11 An Interview With a Biochemist ***

Critics have accused him of allowing his religious convictions—he is Roman Catholic—to cloud his scientific judgment.

*** g 9/06 pp. 11-12 An Interview With a Biochemist ***

AWAKE!: WHY IN YOUR OPINION DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

PROFESSOR BEHE: Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications—that it seems to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous. However, I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In my view it is a failure of nerve to back away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications.

AWAKE!: HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO CRITICS WHO CLAIM THAT ACCEPTING THE IDEA OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN PROMOTES IGNORANCE?

PROFESSOR BEHE: The conclusion of design is not due to ignorance. It’s not due to what we don’t know; it’s due to what we do know. When Darwin published his book The Origin of Species 150 years ago, life seemed simple. Scientists thought that the cell was so simple that it might just spontaneously bubble up from sea mud. But since then, science has discovered that cells are enormously complex, much more complex than the machinery of our 21st-century world. That functional complexity bespeaks purposeful design.

===================================================



biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of the book Darwin\'s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution;
Lehigh University

Anna,
You asked for alternate views of our origins. A great website for Creation Science is AnswersinGenesis.org. Now to share a pet peeve of mine....

I am not out to force anyone to my way of thinking. Yes, I am a "Christian fundamentalist wacko". And everywhere I go I am persecuted by the media and the mainstream for being different and weird. They belittle me for believing the Bible is true and that a loving God literally created the world in six days, that Noah's flood really happened, that Jesus really is the son of God and the savior who died for the sins of the world. I am held up as ignorant and unlearned. Rosie O Donnel lumped people like me in with the terrorists on national tv, and no one cared. It seems in the world today you can believe anything you want and be accepted--as long as it's not fundamentalist Christianity.

Do I believe the corporate church was right to hinder the advancement of science in earlier times? Certainly not. I am not afraid of the methods of scientific inquiry and investigation. I teach my children about evolution, and we talk about the evidence that supports it, but we also discuss the Bible and the evidence for Creation.
All I wish for is the right to live my faith and teach it to my children and for people to be as respectful and tolerant of my views as I am of theirs. And I am respectful. I may not agree with you, but I do not force my opinions on anyone else. Nor do I resort to namecalling or belittling another's IQ (by alluding that Creation scientists are "ignorant" or unlearned)to try to bully someone in to agreeing with me.

I hate discord, and I am not out to start war on the boards. I think honest discussion and debate of topics is healthy for the growth of individuals and society. What I can't stand is being dismissed out of hand by those with opposing views. Because in the end, whatever view or theory you hold to about our origins, there is no definitive answer this side of the grave. Any belief you have-- be it ID, evolution, big bang, or a literal six day creation--has at some point to be taken on faith. Just don't act like my views are the only ones that work that way, or they are less scientific because that's how it works.

I wasn't a member last year when this started, but since it has opened up again....

interesting
that is precisely the whole premise behind ID...
(Speaking as a Roman Catholic, myself)
the Vatican teaches that in such as creation and evolution etc., we cannot be certain of the actual means by which creation occurred. And given that Genesis was written at least 500 (if not 5000) years after creation of man (according to the evidence we have where it was written by Moses, and biblical recordings of time between Adam and Moses...) we must take Genesis itself with a grain of salt...

I mean, Eve being created out of one of Adam's ribs....


the point is so long as we believe it was God's will that man existed in the first place, then there is nothing contradicting this in any scientific explanation offered...


whether or not we originated in a cesspool, from a monkey, or from a complex chemical reaction, including the big bang theory, all these are just theories about the mechanical mechanisms of creation, and separate from the intended purpose of creation...


this is the point of ID, not whether or not DNA exists, nor is it whether or not we evolved at all, but that it was still God who put us here...

thus, I agree, it is not a scientific theory, nor should it be taught as one. It is a religious article of faith, whereby one acknowledges God's influence over creation and humanity as a whole