re: Comments on evolution
So I was asked in this COMMENT a couple of questions... I will attempt to answer them here on my main page. I will post each answer up 1 at a time... (because I have a strong dislike for long posts).
BTW thanks for the reply Peter... I hope my answers at least partly satisfy you (I say partly because I would hate for someone to just believe me at face value.)
And yes... the post was "an impassioned attack on evolution"... perhaps not with the most diplomatic choice of words or eloquence... but it is motivated from a combination of amazement, anger and confusion at how evolution is claimed to be scientific fact when there is so much real science that contradicts it, conflicts with it and when there is in many scientists opinions no evidence for it. That and the fact that people that believe in creationism are given "pitiful" smiles in the academic world. There are discriminatory assumptions made that creationism is purely emotional and evolution is factual when in fact the opposite seems to be the case the more I look into it.
1. What is it about evolution that is so threatening to your view of God?
2. Are you a biblical literalist?
3. If so, how do you reconcile Genesis' internal inconsistencies? (Gen 1 and Gen 2)
BTW... Please keep in mind that my responses are to the blogging community and not aimed at you... I think it is a question that a lot of people want to ask but lack the "conviction" to do so.
I should also state that these answers are very quick answers and might leave many more questions. My hope is that others reading this are encouraged to look in deeper themselves where necessary... it is impossible for me to answer completely (there is a reason why entire books are written for and against evolution). I can at best wet peoples appetites or make enemies.
:)
BTW thanks for the reply Peter... I hope my answers at least partly satisfy you (I say partly because I would hate for someone to just believe me at face value.)
And yes... the post was "an impassioned attack on evolution"... perhaps not with the most diplomatic choice of words or eloquence... but it is motivated from a combination of amazement, anger and confusion at how evolution is claimed to be scientific fact when there is so much real science that contradicts it, conflicts with it and when there is in many scientists opinions no evidence for it. That and the fact that people that believe in creationism are given "pitiful" smiles in the academic world. There are discriminatory assumptions made that creationism is purely emotional and evolution is factual when in fact the opposite seems to be the case the more I look into it.
1. What is it about evolution that is so threatening to your view of God?
2. Are you a biblical literalist?
3. If so, how do you reconcile Genesis' internal inconsistencies? (Gen 1 and Gen 2)
BTW... Please keep in mind that my responses are to the blogging community and not aimed at you... I think it is a question that a lot of people want to ask but lack the "conviction" to do so.
I should also state that these answers are very quick answers and might leave many more questions. My hope is that others reading this are encouraged to look in deeper themselves where necessary... it is impossible for me to answer completely (there is a reason why entire books are written for and against evolution). I can at best wet peoples appetites or make enemies.
:)
posted by Gareth at 1:19 PM
2 Comments:
Ok, just want to lay out what I mean by evolution.
Darwinian evolution is the idea that species the we observe today have evolved from other species.
The mechanism for this evolution is postulated by Darwin to be 'descent with modification'. What this means is that offspring are not a perfect copy of their parents. Sometimes they differ marginally, other times they can differ quite dramatically. 'Natural selection'is simple the notion that some of these differences place the offspring at an advantage or disadvantage relativ e to other organisms. If they are at an advantage, they will be more successful (in evolutionary terms that means:they will have more kids than other organisms).
Speciation is the idea that all of these differences, compounded on top of each other,can eventually lead to the formation of seperate species.
Evolution says nothing more or less than this.
In terms of relating this to reality:
-Descent with modification is a demonstrable fact. Farmers have been using this knowledge to selectively breed crops and animals for generations.
-Darwin predicted a large number of the features of genes before they were discovered, based on the requirements of 'descent with modification'
-Speciation cannot be directly observed (as it is thought to happen to slowly for a single observer to see) but adaptation can be (eg. size on an animal eg. a breed of dog can be changed over the course of a few generations). Speciation can also be inferred. As an aside, subatomic particles cannot be directly observed either, but we know they exist. Quantum tunneling cannot be observed directly, but it makes your flashdrive work.
-The presence of homologous structures (structures that are variations on a similar theme) implies common ancestry. Bats, camels,dogs,cats,monkeys,humans all have a similar upper limb (arm/front foot). As wildly different as they are, these forms all have comparable bones, joints etc. that can be shown to be anatomically equivalent.
Once more, please take some time to read Dobzhansky- to whet your appetite:
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
DISCLAIMER- I don't share defender's views, don't know who he/she is.
Post a Comment
<< Home