NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html

His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to publish his thoughts on the theory of evolution:
This weekend's private retreat is an annual gathering of the Pope's former theology students to freely discuss one topic of interest, without the aim of reaching any set conclusion.

I personally think this is a good thing, hopefully this will start create more communication between science and religion. My view on evolution is that it exists, it has plenty of evidence supporting it. I also believe in the existance of god, and I believe that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.

EDIT: please refrain from posting the "ah jeez, not this shit again" picture...

Darwin would pwn Pope Benedict.

Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive; if anything, they complement each other. It would be great if Pope Benedict XVI supports the theory because it would be a significant bridge between the two and would show the Church as willing to accomodate both science and theology.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.

Darwin would pwn Pope Benedict.

Darwin was an idiot.

Darwin would pwn Pope Benedict.

Hmmm... Nah... Ben would pull Darwins beard.

Darwin was an idiot.

I'm intigued, do elaborate.

Darwin was an idiot.

I'm intigued, do elaborate.

Yes, do.

He'll probably go with the side that other popes have taken. Pope Pius was the first to say that evolution is fine as long as it doesn't try and get rid of ideologies like the existence of a soul. I will be very surprised and shocked if Benedict takes the crazy Kansas fundie route.

Darwin was an idiot.

Mind explaining why?

Mind explaining why?

Because his great-great-great-grandfather was a chimp?

Guys, please realize that there are two concepts about creation. It's the constant "Science vs Religion" arguement. They are completely different things and should be treated as such. Science is defined as something that can be proven. Something you can see, touch, and use the rest of your senses to determine what something actually is. Religion is far from that. The bible is NOT supposed to be considered completely truthful (although sections are plausible and some proven). It is usually considered to be a teaching tool, so we can learn and not make mistakes previously made. It exists to merely learn. The bible is NOT supposed to be taken literally down to the last sentence.

~Excalibur5

Guys, please realize that there are two concepts about creation. It's the constant "Science vs Religion" arguement. They are completely different things and should be treated as such. Science is defined as something that can be proven. Something you can see, touch, and use the rest of your senses to determine what something actually is. Religion is far from that. The bible is NOT supposed to be considered completely truthful (although sections are plausible and some proven). It is usually considered to be a teaching tool, so we can learn and not make mistakes previously made. It exists to merely learn. The bible is NOT supposed to be taken literally down to the last sentence.

~Excalibur5

i beg to differ, on behalf of all my friends that believe the world was created 6000 years ago. At teatime, I believe.

Begoner21;11643009']Because his great-great-great-grandfather was a chimp?

It wasn't. It was his great-great-great-great-great-great-great -great-great-great-great-great-... (400,000 generations later)-grandfather. At it wasn't a chimp, but a primate that was a common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Christianity and science are incompatible. Without the Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and without Original Sin, no need for Jesus.
Christianity is and will continue to be the greatest enemy of scientific progress in the Western World. The so-called “moderates” who try to blend science and religion are simply dishonest, both with others and themselves.

This is a VERY good turn of events. I approve.

Christianity and science are incompatible. Without the Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and without Original Sin, no need for Jesus.
Christianity is and will continue to be the greatest enemy of scientific progress in the Western World. The so-called “moderates” who try to blend science and religion are simply dishonest, both with others and themselves.

Thank you! I totally agree. Except that I'm a conservative Christian and so am an enemy of "scientific progress," but I'm okay with that.

Thank you! I totally agree. Except that I'm a conservative Christian and so am an enemy of "scientific progress," but I'm okay with that.

And yet, here you are, typing on a computer, sending messages through the internet. Oh the irony!

Christianity and science are incompatible. Without the Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and without Original Sin, no need for Jesus.
Christianity is and will continue to be the greatest enemy of scientific progress in the Western World. The so-called “moderates” who try to blend science and religion are simply dishonest, both with others and themselves.

Thing is... Guess what? I am a christian and a scientist of sorts and I disagree with that statement profusely.

I know there was no Garden of Eden. That's a load of rubbish. No-one was their to record it. My Boy's Brigade captain told me that and my local minister agrees. The world was not made in a week. There was the Big Bang, and the universe was created. Suns and planets etc. formed. Life grew on this planet and evolved. But what/who started the Big Bang? That was God.

As for Original sin? You don't need a serpent to trick you into eating an apple to commit sins.


In conclusion I am a christian who believes in evolution, not creationism.

There was the Big Bang, and the universe was created. Suns and planets etc. formed. Life grew on this planet and evolved. But what/who started the Big Bang? That was God.

And God started the big bang by exploding, or, preferably, asploding.

And God started the big bang by exploding, or, preferably, asploding.

Perhaps. We have yet to find out. :D

I know there was no Garden of Eden. That's a load of rubbish. No-one was their to record it. My Boy's Brigade captain told me that and my local minister agrees. The world was not made in a week. There was the Big Bang, and the universe was created. Suns and planets etc. formed. Life grew on this planet and evolved. But what/who started the Big Bang? That was God.
Behold the rationalization of the “modern” Christian. You say God started the Big Bang? Ha. No need for his intervention then. No way to prove he did, which goes against the rest of your world veiw. God is dead.
As for Original sin? You don't need a serpent to trick you into eating an apple to commit sins.
Yeah, but you certainly need the concept of inherited sin to explain Jesus. When did it become sinning and not just animal nature?
Thank you! I totally agree. Except that I'm a conservative Christian and so am an enemy of "scientific progress," but I'm okay with that.
You and your kind will inevitably fail.

Behold the rationalization of the “modern” Christian. You say God started the Big Bang? Ha. No need for his intervention then. No way to prove he did, which goes against the rest of your world veiw. God is dead.

There's no way to prove he didn't though eh? You can't prove he did start the Big Bang and you can't prove he didn't. Does that mean we throw science and God out the proverbial window? No.

Since God is as good a hypothesis as any on what caused the beginning of the Universe, I hold the belief he did. Now, I'm off to bed.

Science is based on observations perfomed by humans. Thus, if you define truth as that discovered by science you are saying that humans and their senses are perfect. Religion is in some ways higher than science because it acknowledges the imperfections of humans; however, it does not try to explain the "natural" world, the natural world here being what humans sense. To conclude: if you want to build something that you sense as a rocket, use science. If you want to try and uncover truth and other questions, stick with religion or philosophy.

As to the original item about the pope: The Catholic Church does not take the biblical creation as literal; most Catholic bibles mention the difference between literalism and analogy in the very beginning and often use the creation as an example. John Paul II said that not only was evolution not conflicting with evolution, but he said evolution was the best explanation for the evidence found. I doubt Benedict will change that stance.

There's no way to prove he didn't though eh? You can't prove he did start the Big Bang and you can't prove he didn't. Does that mean we throw science and God out the proverbial window? No. .
No, but we can't be absolutely sure that fairies didn't start the Big Bang either. Absence of Proof does not prove Absence of Existence, yes, but Absence of Proof is not enough to adapt a restrictive and inherently hypocritical lifestyle, while simultaneously poisoning the political landscape and destroying the viability of Democracy.

Most likely he'll give concessions to some minor points he can feel let slide, and come down with Force Lightning on the major theories of evolution.

P.S. I've always wanted to hear The Imperial March on pipe organ.

please refrain from posting the "ah jeez, not this shit again" picture...
i can't seem to find it anyvays.

Thank you! I totally agree. Except that I'm a conservative Christian and so am an enemy of "scientific progress," but I'm okay with that.
than why are you using the internet, whose existance is because of scientific progress.

this makes me wonder: are you bushanomics?

I blend Judaism and science. Judaism has no concept of "original sin".

There's no way to prove he didn't though eh? You can't prove he did start the Big Bang and you can't prove he didn't. Does that mean we throw science and God out the proverbial window? No.
That's silly, a lack of evidence certainly doesn't prove God did it. Fuck that, I could claim that I am God and have internet connection here in heaven. I can't really prove it, but you can't disprove it either. You might as well praise me now, just in case this claim is actually true. :rolleyes:
Since God is as good a hypothesis as any on what caused the beginning of the Universe, I hold the belief he did. Now, I'm off to bed.
No it's not a good hypothesis, or a hypothesis at all seeing as these are based on facts. So some old book says God is the creator, and some people say this book is holy. That does not count as proof. It is totally ridiculous saying that God caused the beginning of the universe is as good an explaination as the theory which respected scientists have come up with. The Big Bang has actual facts to back it up, the best that creationists can come up with is ''well, you can't prove that he didn't.''

Oh Yea! The Panzer Pope is going to comment on evolution.

I wonder what the former head of the Holy Inquisition will say about it.

I don't really care what this pope dude says, religious people always disagree. It's funny when people follow a religion when even people of the same faith can't even agree on what is the 'truth' or not.

Oh Yea! The Panzer Pope is going to comment on evolution.

I wonder what the former head of the Holy Inquisition will say about it.

As far as I know, it's been more than the best part of 2 generations since the Catholic Church disagreed with any of the important precepts of evolution (though it's been a while since I did any reading in this area - I could be wrong, apologies if so!).

I'd be astounded if the meat of what he says differs very much from 'the creation story is a non-literal way to explain the ways of God to all men throughout all ages, evolution was His means, evolution explains everything but the soul, which did not evolve but was gifted to us fully formed at one point'.

Christianity and science are incompatible. Without the Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and without Original Sin, no need for Jesus.

What about Jews?

I mean, they have the Garden Story but none of the illogical (and Biblically unsupported) nonsense about original sin and they're some of the biggest proponents of science and learning in the Western world.

It's nice to see the Church at least talk about it, rather than shoot it down without a thought like some radical fundies.

Even if the Church comes down a little hard, at least are trying to change the image of stubbornness.

Or, I'm falling victim to their propaganda. Whatever interpretation boats your float.

Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive; if anything, they complement each other. It would be great if Pope Benedict XVI supports the theory because it would be a significant bridge between the two and would show the Church as willing to accomodate both science and theology.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.
Actually, a pope by the end of IXX century said that God had created humans mentally in his image, by the fact that we're not guided (only) by instinct.
So the man wasn't fisically created at his image, but mentally.

Actually, a pope by the end of IXX century said that God had created humans mentally in his image, by the fact that we're not guided (only) by instinct.

So the man wasn't fisically created at his image, but mentally.

That was an important step; after all, it was impossible to look at God without being immediately killed so how could we be created in his physical image when:
A. We would die immediately
B. He had no physical form at the time
C. No one could have actually seen what God looks like to compare

It was an important way of reconciling faith, logic and scientific fact. Still, I consider the concept of Original Sin to be irrational, especially given the utter lack of mention in the Gospels and outright contradiction with statements in the Torah.

What about Jews?

I mean, they have the Garden Story but none of the illogical (and Biblically unsupported) nonsense about original sin and they're some of the biggest proponents of science and learning in the Western world.
Most of them aren’t religious, just traditional.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.
Can't see that happening, regardless of what the Pope says.
Nearly all those IDers and cretinists aren't Catholics anyhow. Most of them are JackChick-like and thus hate the Catholic Church almost (or even more) than they do evolutionists.
Popey coming out and saying evolution's fine within reason will just give them more excuse to dismiss and hate the Church.

Most of them aren’t religious, just traditional.

Even the religious ones are pretty supportive of science.

Can't see that happening, regardless of what the Pope says.Nearly all those IDers and cretinists aren't Catholics anyhow. Most of them are JackChick-like and thus hate the Catholic Church almost (or even more) than they do evolutionists. Popey coming out and saying evolution's fine within reason will just give them more excuse to dismiss and hate the Church.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the "middle-of-the-road" Protestants and Catholics who support ID; most creationists are so irrational that they've turned their hatred of the Church and science in to a religion in and of itself. Still, though, they get a lot of support from these more centrist people and losing them would do a lot of damage.

Can't see that happening, regardless of what the Pope says.
Nearly all those IDers and cretinists aren't Catholics anyhow. Most of them are JackChick-like and thus hate the Catholic Church almost (or even more) than they do evolutionists.
Popey coming out and saying evolution's fine within reason will just give them more excuse to dismiss and hate the Church.

True. The Protostent-Catholic thing is like the Sunni-Shihite thing. (sorryif I misspelled anything. Didn't use spell check.)

Even the religious ones are pretty supportive of science.
Which is why Judaism is not the biggest threat to the advancement of Western Society. Christianity is.

And yet, here you are, typing on a computer, sending messages through the internet. Oh the irony!

Who said I was for regress?

I understand that it's somewhat (if not totally) hypocritical for me to be on here and at the same time crying against science and technology. But I can't survive in the USA today without accepting those "advances" that are neutral: I can't really call any modern technology good with the exception of most medical advancements and not all of the other technologies are evil, though they certainly can be used so.

I would prefer we live like Hobbits, and if the opportunity ever arises, I will jump at it. Until then, I'll continue to use the technology. I'm accustomed to using it and so it is hard not to do so without being removed from Western society.

You and your kind will inevitably fail.

I can disagree with that, but if that were true, I can only say "Oh,well!" I'm commanded to fight (not necessarily physically) and I'm not told what the consequenses will be, only to fight.

I can disagree with that, but if that were true, I can only say "Oh,well!" I'm commanded to fight (not necessarily physically) and I'm not told what the consequenses will be, only to fight.

That's so very sad.

Who said I was for regress?

I understand that it's somewhat (if not totally) hypocritical for me to be on here and at the same time crying against science and technology. But I can't survive in the USA today without accepting those "advances" that are neutral:
The Menonites and Amish seem to do ok.

I can't really call any modern technology good with the exception of most medical advancements and not all of the other technologies are evil, though they certainly can be used so.
So you won't accept scientific principles but you'll gladly use its outcome, i.e. modern medicine? How can modern medicine be ok when it's basic and underlying principles, the scientific method and evolution, are wrong?

I would prefer we live like Hobbits, and if the opportunity ever arises, I will jump at it. Until then, I'll continue to use the technology. I'm accustomed to using it and so it is hard not to do so without being removed from Western society.
Modern Western society is based on European liberalism which is based on secularism and rationalism. Rejecting science and embracing Western society are ultimately incompatible positions. However, you don't reject science, you just say you do.

That's ok, just wanted to make you realize the contradictions in your position.

That's so very sad.

Why? Because I believe in something so much that I'll fight (again, not necessarily physically - that's only if the Nazis come to my door) for it no matter what may happen to me? Why is that so sad?

I would prefer we live like Hobbits, and if the opportunity ever arises, I will jump at it. Until then, I'll continue to use the technology. I'm accustomed to using it and so it is hard not to do so without being removed from Western society.
Move to Pennsylvania and become Amish if you feel so strongly about such things.

The Menonites and Amish seem to do ok.

I wouldn't be able to live with them. There are to many doctrinal differences.

So you won't accept scientific principles but you'll gladly use its outcome, i.e. modern medicine? How can modern medicine be ok when it's basic and underlying principles, the scientific method and evolution, are wrong?


What's wrong with the scientific method? I disagree with evolution, but I never said anything against the scientific method.

Modern Western society is based on European liberalism which is based on secularism and rationalism. Rejecting science and embracing Western society are ultimately incompatible positions. However, you don't reject science, you just say you do.

That's what I want to be removed from: Western society. But I'll take Western society over the current alternatives. Missionary work appeals to me because I am outside the West (among other, more important reasons), but the West is expanding. What use is it then to run?

That's ok, just wanted to make you realize the contradictions in your position.

Hmm... there aren't so many as you think. Paradoxes, but not contradictions.

Why? Because I believe in something so much that I'll fight (again, not necessarily physically - that's only if the Nazis come to my door) for it no matter what may happen to me? Why is that so sad?

No, because you do so unquestionably.

What's wrong with the scientific method? I disagree with evolution, but I never said anything against the scientific method.
Evolution is arrived at through the application of the scientific method. If there's nothing wrong with the scientific method, it follows there's nothing wrong with evolution. Sure, you could try to prove evolution wrong, but you would have to do it through the mechanisms of science and so far that has not been done.


That's what I want to be removed from: Western society. But I'll take Western society over the current alternatives. Missionary work appeals to me because I am outside the West (among other, more important reasons), but the West is expanding. What use is it then to run?
So, you are commanded to fight but won't give up your comforts because what's the use? Nice.


Hmm... there aren't so many as you think. Paradoxes, but not contradictions.
There may not be many, but the ones there are fundamental. The paradoxes would still have to be resolved one way or another.

Which is why Judaism is not the biggest threat to the advancement of Western Society. Christianity is.

I feel any religion that rejects science is a threat to advancement of society...

Interestingly, you don't see anywhere near the kind of hostility towards science in the polytheistic religions or the religions of Asia...one wonders where that hostility came from.

I feel any religion that rejects science is a threat to advancement of society...

Interestingly, you don't see anywhere near the kind of hostility towards science in the polytheistic religions or the religions of Asia...one wonders where that hostility came from.

The desert. It could only support a limited number of humans, and if you didn't belong to one of the groups on top you died. So, supporting your group was the most important thing for survival and that meant kicking all other groups' butts.

In nicer places you could have lots of groups living together or close to each other and dropping over for a chat and festivals and such, so it was much better to get along with them than bashing their brains out with a club. After all, there was plenty for everyone.

There still were wars and stuff, but they were more to extend some king's power or some such, not so much survival; the conquered were allow to live pretty much as before.

I feel any religion that rejects science is a threat to advancement of society...

Interestingly, you don't see anywhere near the kind of hostility towards science in the polytheistic religions or the religions of Asia...one wonders where that hostility came from.
No, but you do see resistances to other aspects of advancement in many of those religions.

The hostility from Christianity towards science is reactionary self-preservation. Science can explain the natural processes of the universe, eliminating the necessity of a practical belief in God, which, since at least the days of Charles Aquinas, had been an aspect of Christianity.
Also, science can eliminate the personal need for God in people’s lives. No longer do we need to reasonably fear random death by fever or a pox at the age of thirty. A good example of this is Mother Theresa, whose Houses for the Ill in India were little more than leper colonies. In their suffering, she reasoned, the sick would seek God for respite.

Also, science can eliminate the personal need for God in people’s lives. No longer do we need to reasonably fear random death by fever or a pox at the age of thirty. A good example of this is Mother Theresa, whose Houses for the Ill in India were little more than leper colonies. In their suffering, she reasoned, the sick would seek God for respite.
One thing science can't do is give promises of eternal bliss. People still cling to the idea of heaven or fear going to hell. So some people feel that they need religion because they need reassurance about the afterlife.

One thing science can't do is give promises of eternal bliss. People still cling to the idea of heaven or fear going to hell. So some people feel that they need religion because they need reassurance about the afterlife.

True, but those kind of people tend to just be "Sunday Christians" or even just "Chrismas and Easter" Christians. There is nothing wrong with the stupid having a simple faith. Otherwise, I wouldn't trust them to not just start killing willy nilly.

True, but those kind of people tend to just be "Sunday Christians" or even just "Chrismas and Easter" Christians. There is nothing wrong with the stupid having a simple faith. Otherwise, I wouldn't trust them to not just start killing willy nilly.
Simple faith never harmed anyone directly. But practising a particular religion makes it more widespread, which causes many people to be intolerant of those who's ideas differ. It causes politics and religion to mix, which in my view is a terrible thing. It can oppose science and progress, brainwashes people into accepting their ''truth.'' Things would be much better if people just kept their beliefs to themselves, and worshiped whatever magical being they wanted to in their own home. I am against organised religion, from what I see it does a lot of harm. Although I'm not extreme enough to want to ban those who wish to go to church from doing so, I just wish people would develop good judgment and realise that what they believe is silly and being actively involved in their religion causes much harm (although it is christianity and islam that causes the most problems).

Couple things I wanted to throw into this debate, mostly cause the science vs. religion thing is intellectually insincere and never ends up having any kind of debatable conclusion because it is comparing apples vs. oranges.

Religion or to be more fair Theology - Is the rational study of the divine and the eternal. It is based upon revelation and scripture (past revelations), its strength is explaining existential questions. Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? It is not so good at explaining why the crops grow or what is the cause of flooding and fire, at least in rational ways that humans in general can use.

Science - Is the rational study of the physical universe based upon repeatable experimentation and logical theory, which we have come to explain as the scientific method. It is great at explaining why crops grow, ways they could be made better, why humans need to eat, how the sun shines and other questions dealing with a finite physical universe. It does a crappy job of explaining in a satisfying way, why humans exist, what our purpose is, and what we should do about it.

ID or Creationism (most of the evolution issues can be resolved with the Theory of Relativity using the Creator as the only intelligence until humans after which Genesis bumps up with archealogy really nicely) is a theological explanation of the human condition.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation (ahem, not facts) which talks about how all animals came to be in their current states. It does not postulate to give a reason for it beyond its observations, and when people are using it to *cough* disprove God, all they are really doing is giving new work to the people over on the other side in theology. :)

For those of you who don't like this. Sorry you don't like Christians. We still love you. For those of you who don't like this for the other reason. Sorry you don't like science, someone will use it to make your life more comfortable and longer anyway. :D

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html

His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to publish his thoughts on the theory of evolution:


I personally think this is a good thing, hopefully this will start create more communication between science and religion. My view on evolution is that it exists, it has plenty of evidence supporting it. I also believe in the existance of god, and I believe that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.

EDIT: please refrain from posting the "ah jeez, not this shit again" picture...

... and that's been the view of the Catholic church for a couple of decades now. It's nothing new that the church agrees with the theory of evolution. The whole creationsim idea stems from Protestant groups in the USA.

Couple things I wanted to throw into this debate, mostly cause the science vs. religion thing is intellectually insincere and never ends up having any kind of debatable conclusion because it is comparing apples vs. oranges.

Religion or to be more fair Theology - Is the rational study of the divine and the eternal. It is based upon revelation and scripture (past revelations), its strength is explaining existential questions. Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? It is not so good at explaining why the crops grow or what is the cause of flooding and fire, at least in rational ways that humans in general can use.

Science - Is the rational study of the physical universe based upon repeatable experimentation and logical theory, which we have come to explain as the scientific method. It is great at explaining why crops grow, ways they could be made better, why humans need to eat, how the sun shines and other questions dealing with a finite physical universe. It does a crappy job of explaining in a satisfying way, why humans exist, what our purpose is, and what we should do about it.

ID or Creationism (most of the evolution issues can be resolved with the Theory of Relativity using the Creator as the only intelligence until humans after which Genesis bumps up with archealogy really nicely) is a theological explanation of the human condition.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation (ahem, not facts) which talks about how all animals came to be in their current states. It does not postulate to give a reason for it beyond its observations, and when people are using it to *cough* disprove God, all they are really doing is giving new work to the people over on the other side in theology. :)

For those of you who don't like this. Sorry you don't like Christians. We still love you. For those of you who don't like this for the other reason. Sorry you don't like science, someone will use it to make your life more comfortable and longer anyway. :D



You know, for a first post thats not too bad. Much applause goes your way.

You know, for a first post thats not too bad. Much applause goes your way.

Except for the "fact" that Christians like to announce something isnt one, when it becomes an inconveinience to them.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation (ahem, not facts)

Science deals with explanation of what is observed. Facts are declaring absolutes and science does not do that.


which talks about how all animals came to be in their current states. It does not postulate to give a reason for it beyond its observations,


Observation is the foundation of knowledge.


and when people are using it to *cough* disprove God, all they are really doing is giving new work to the people over on the other side in theology. :)


Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God(s).

You know, religions often state that once you attempt to become religious, you will see the light, or some such nonsense. I'm living proof that does not happen. I have tried to be religious many times in my life. I've saught Buddihsm, Christianity, Islam, various forms of paganism, and all others in my life. Yet, every SINGLE TIME, I always return to what I believe is my natural state: atheism. The fact is, humanity has grown beyond the need for a security blanket. That's really all religions are anymore these days: security blankets. Big invisible friends to help you cope with one form of stress or another. Hell, I'm one of those kinds of people that should be a hardcore religious man precisely BECAUSE I am insecure, because I could use that kind of security and safety. I have my own forms of it as it is. And yet, I am an atheist. Why?

It's simple. Let's face rational, logical facts: religions make no damned sense whatsoever. God, gods, what have you cannot POSSIBLY exist, simply for the reason that they have to have come from somewhere. If the Creator created the universe, what created the Creator? It can't have just magically appearead out of nothing. It also cannot have "always existed." We may certainly be aware of the fact that our normal laws of physics and causality probably don't apply to times before the universe was born in the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that God exists. Think about it. Omniscience is impossible. The Heisenburg Principle alone is proof enough of this. Furthermore, every single religious text is riddled with constant meddling by God, or the gods, or some such. If God was perfect, how could He make mistakes? If God is all-powerful, why not just force everyone to worship Him? Take the time to write it into our genetic coding. To give an example, albiet one from fiction: take the Founders in Star Trek. A race of Changlings that founded the Dominion--hence the term Founders--and created both the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar. Both species see the Founders as gods. It was written into their genetic coding. So why not write a love and worship of God or the gods or what have you into our own?

Frankly, I am convinced that the more we continue to make scientific discoveries, gain new knowledge, and further our understanding of the universe we will all, entirely as one, eventually come to the obvious and correct conclusion: there is no God or gods. We were not "created." Religion is fiction. Nothing more.

So you won't accept scientific principles but you'll gladly use its outcome, i.e. modern medicine? How can modern medicine be ok when it's basic and underlying principles, the scientific method and evolution, are wrong?


Evolution is an underlying principle of modern medicine? That all depends on your definition of evolution. If you mean things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and antigen variability in HIV, then this is a form of evolution that IDers would agree with, and anyone with a firm literal belief in a six day creation. However, if you are referring to the sort of evolution whereby some people think accounts for the development of microbes to man, then I suggest that you are quite wrong to assert that modern medicine is based on this sort of evolution. It most certainly is not.

Thus, you appear to have false impression that a clash exists between a literal belief in the Bible and a so-called clash with modern medicine and technology.

Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive; if anything, they complement each other. It would be great if Pope Benedict XVI supports the theory because it would be a significant bridge between the two and would show the Church as willing to accomodate both science and theology.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.

But the Roman Catholic Church already said that evolution was compatible with Gods plan....

You know, religions often state that once you attempt to become religious, you will see the light, or some such nonsense. I'm living proof that does not happen. I have tried to be religious many times in my life. I've saught Buddihsm, Christianity, Islam, various forms of paganism, and all others in my life. Yet, every SINGLE TIME, I always return to what I believe is my natural state: atheism.

Your lack of success to find God/reality in various religions equals proof that God does not exist? Your conclusion is not very convincing. Not very 'scientific' of you.


The fact is, humanity has grown beyond the need for a security blanket. That's really all religions are anymore these days: security blankets. Big invisible friends to help you cope with one form of stress or another. Hell, I'm one of those kinds of people that should be a hardcore religious man precisely BECAUSE I am insecure, because I could use that kind of security and safety. I have my own forms of it as it is. And yet, I am an atheist. Why?

If you are an atheist, it is because you chose to accept the governing assumptions that goes along with atheism. A more neutral position would be neither religious nor atheist (nor agnostic), on that grounds that you simply do not have enough information to know either way.

That you have found religion to be 'empty' is not good evidence that it is empty. It may have meant that you have never really abandoned your position as an atheist, even while convincing yourself that you 'really tried'.



It's simple. Let's face rational, logical facts: religions make no damned sense whatsoever. God, gods, what have you cannot POSSIBLY exist, simply for the reason that they have to have come from somewhere. If the Creator created the universe, what created the Creator? It can't have just magically appearead out of nothing. It also cannot have "always existed."

Why must God come from somewhere? If the definition of God is an eternal being, then the requirement for an origin no longer applies. Or if God does have an origin, a religious person does not need to know it in order to believe in God's existence. It is simply information that the religious don't know, and currently do not need to know.

And I don't see any indication of the 'rational, logical facts' that you are referring to.


We may certainly be aware of the fact that our normal laws of physics and causality probably don't apply to times before the universe was born in the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that God exists. Think about it. Omniscience is impossible. The Heisenburg Principle alone is proof enough of this. Furthermore, every single religious text is riddled with constant meddling by God, or the gods, or some such. If God was perfect, how could He make mistakes?

Is that like asking the question of why the universe appears rational? I.e., how did it just come to be such a rational place governed by a relatively few simply laws (given how large it appears to be and how much complexity is apparent). Such questions do little more than point to the world view of the one asking the question.

Lack of knowledge will never be proof for or against God. The point of religion is that it offers the path by which we may know God. Trying to find God or evidence for God outside of the given path (e.g. as described by Jesus Christ) is certainly not guaranteed to be successful.


If God is all-powerful, why not just force everyone to worship Him? Take the time to write it into our genetic coding.

Perhaps because he thought it more important to include the option of CHOICE in our genetic code, wherewith we truly have the option to worship or not. Only with such a choice could the element of love be present in our worship.


To give an example, albiet one from fiction: take the Founders in Star Trek. A race of Changlings that founded the Dominion--hence the term Founders--and created both the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar. Both species see the Founders as gods. It was written into their genetic coding. So why not write a love and worship of God or the gods or what have you into our own?

Some would say that we do have something like this written within us, and that it manifests itself as a hunger or longing for something more than just the everyday ordinariness of e.g. the average school day or working day. For example, the modern Christians have a well developed theory on this 'longing'. C.S. Lewis describes the longing for God as the most obvious evidence of being made by God.


Frankly, I am convinced that the more we continue to make scientific discoveries, gain new knowledge, and further our understanding of the universe we will all, entirely as one, eventually come to the obvious and correct conclusion: there is no God or gods. We were not "created." Religion is fiction. Nothing more.

As you please, but I still do not see any convincing reasons why your conviction is any more reasonable than my own--that a loving God and creator does indeed exist and is responsible for the existence of the universe. I suspect that scientific discoveries will never find scientific proof of God, or against Him. However, I do like science and support scientific progress.

Evolution is an underlying principle of modern medicine? That all depends on your definition of evolution. If you mean things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and antigen variability in HIV, then this is a form of evolution that IDers would agree with, and anyone with a firm literal belief in a six day creation. However, if you are referring to the sort of evolution whereby some people think accounts for the development of microbes to man, then I suggest that you are quite wrong to assert that modern medicine is based on this sort of evolution. It most certainly is not.

Thus, you appear to have false impression that a clash exists between a literal belief in the Bible and a so-called clash with modern medicine and technology.

Evolution isn't split into those "sorts". Opponents of evolution have created an artificial split between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because changes in organisms over a chort time can be conclusively demonstrated. Long term change cannot be as conclusively demonstrated, due to deficiencies in the fossil record, so opponents of evolution maintain the split so that they don't appear stupid in acknowledging short term change while attacking long term change.

t's a false split; evolution is not seperated into different types of evolution by different periods of elapsed time. The same process works over any period of time, through ten generations of cells or the history of life on the planet.

Some would say that we do have something like this written within us, and that it manifests itself as a hunger or longing for something more than just the everyday ordinariness of e.g. the average school day or working day. For example, the modern Christians have a well developed theory on this 'longing'. C.S. Lewis describes the longing for God as the most obvious evidence of being made by God.



Interesting point. How would you explain agnostics and atheists, then? Mutations?

I was brought up religious, and I can honestly say I never had that feeling to assign additional meaning to everything.

No, because you do so unquestionably.

Actually, I've questioned it a lot.

The fact that you stereotype me with those who have a blind faith shows that you don't question very much.

Evolution is arrived at through the application of the scientific method. If there's nothing wrong with the scientific method, it follows there's nothing wrong with evolution. Sure, you could try to prove evolution wrong, but you would have to do it through the mechanisms of science and so far that has not been done.


So, you are commanded to fight but won't give up your comforts because what's the use? Nice.


There may not be many, but the ones there are fundamental. The paradoxes would still have to be resolved one way or another.

I am not commanded to reject modern society. I think that to follow the commands given to us, it would be much easier without modern society. Also, many of modern society's advances are becoming more and more contradictory to the commands given us.

So I was talking about being commanded to fight in a different context than my anti-technology. I realize I didn't make that clear, though.

And evolution is not arrived at by pure scientific method. There are a lot of "stretches of the imagination" for lack of a better word in it. And, arguably, there are many of the same in Christianity.

Interesting point. How would you explain agnostics and atheists, then? Mutations?

I was brought up religious, and I can honestly say I never had that feeling to assign additional meaning to everything.

The presence of a sehnsucht (desire) for God is not always going to result in obedience to such a desire. The issue is complicated by a plethora of other desires, plus the ability to choose one over another (in the case of conflicting desires). Thus, an atheist, for example, may choose to commit to his world view because of (or despite) his desire for God. If he is angry with God, he may choose to commit to a belief that rules out God's existence (as a way of punishing God). This, in turn, might be mixed with a suppressed desire to have a good relationship with God (presumeably there might be an element of this if anger is present). However, this is all highly speculative.

The desire for God is not necessarily the desire to assign additional meaning to everything. It is a bit hard to describe, since it may manifest itself in a variety of ways among different people, even within a single individual. For me, it has been a longing to know something greater than the sleepy drowsiness of my own life, or or to wake to a glorious reality of a deeper meaning, while at different times it has been a longing for some sort of music that I felt I have just caught whispers of while waking from a wonderful dream. At other times it has been to know the source of such simple elegant beauty in a common flower. Of course, I have considered a range of explanations for such desires, and the only one that consistently fits is a desire for God (in my view).

Having said that, I am in no wise claiming that such a desire for God is ubiquitous, that it must be found as such in each and every person. I really don't know that much about it, personally, apart from what I know about my own life, and even that is rather confusing.

The presence of a sehnsucht (desire) for God is not always going to result in obedience to such a desire. The issue is complicated by a plethora of other desires, plus the ability to choose one over another (in the case of conflicting desires). Thus, an atheist, for example, may choose to commit to his world view because of (or despite) his desire for God. If he is angry with God, he may choose to commit to a belief that rules out God's existence (as a way of punishing God). This, in turn, might be mixed with a suppressed desire to have a good relationship with God (presumeably there might be an element of this if anger is present). However, this is all highly speculative.

Aethists are, in my experience, never angry with god, or any god-hole in their heads, but with people who insist or speculate they have to have one. And frankly 'angry' is pushing it too far - mystified is a better word. This is, I think, one of the few areas where British culture wins over American - religion isn't nearly as big a deal here as it is there, in the political or any other major cultural sphere, and a big irrational debate does _not_ get in the way of running the country or regulating society. Aside from what individuals do, it's largely been a non-factor throughout my lifetime; I only hope that doesn't change with a growing islamic population, and any christian counter-movements.

Evolution isn't split into those "sorts". Opponents of evolution have created an artificial split between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because changes in organisms over a chort time can be conclusively demonstrated.

The split (if there is one) simply divides the observed from the non-observed, the documented from the hypothetical, the real from the imagined (in the case of those who argue for microevolution and against macroevolution).

While we know that organisms can be selected upon, we also believe that organisms cannot develop past their genetic 'boundaries', determined by the level of genetic variation in the genome, without a sufficient imput of genetic variation. Thus, for example, while we can breed a wolf into a poodle, we don't think we can breed a poodle into a chicken or a cat, or even back to a wolf without supplying the necessary genes. The dispute is (partly) over whether random mutations are a sufficient source of genetic variation.


Long term change cannot be as conclusively demonstrated, due to deficiencies in the fossil record, so opponents of evolution maintain the split so that they don't appear stupid in acknowledging short term change while attacking long term change.

The limitations that prevent us from observing the long term changes are rather annoying, in my view. They appear to be a 'blanket' that prevents us from finding out the real truth. Perhaps with time we shall get there. Perhaps not. Until we do, anyone who claims that 'long term change' is a fact, or that modern medicine is based on this is making a false claim, in my view.


t's a false split; evolution is not seperated into different types of evolution by different periods of elapsed time. The same process works over any period of time, through ten generations of cells or the history of life on the planet.

You can make such an assertion, and support it with the assertion of a million other people, but until you can present convincing evidence for this, it remains nothing more than a hypothesis. It might be right. Then again, it might not be. Until then, I can easily understand when people divide evolution into that which is observed, and that which is simply hypothesised.

Couple things I wanted to throw into this debate, mostly cause the science vs. religion thing is intellectually insincere and never ends up having any kind of debatable conclusion because it is comparing apples vs. oranges.

Religion or to be more fair Theology - Is the rational study of the divine and the eternal. It is based upon revelation and scripture (past revelations), its strength is explaining existential questions. Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? It is not so good at explaining why the crops grow or what is the cause of flooding and fire, at least in rational ways that humans in general can use.

Science - Is the rational study of the physical universe based upon repeatable experimentation and logical theory, which we have come to explain as the scientific method. It is great at explaining why crops grow, ways they could be made better, why humans need to eat, how the sun shines and other questions dealing with a finite physical universe. It does a crappy job of explaining in a satisfying way, why humans exist, what our purpose is, and what we should do about it.

ID or Creationism (most of the evolution issues can be resolved with the Theory of Relativity using the Creator as the only intelligence until humans after which Genesis bumps up with archealogy really nicely) is a theological explanation of the human condition.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation (ahem, not facts) which talks about how all animals came to be in their current states. It does not postulate to give a reason for it beyond its observations, and when people are using it to *cough* disprove God, all they are really doing is giving new work to the people over on the other side in theology. :)

For those of you who don't like this. Sorry you don't like Christians. We still love you. For those of you who don't like this for the other reason. Sorry you don't like science, someone will use it to make your life more comfortable and longer anyway. :D
Hurra! Great post. A first one, none the less - and without gun smilies.
And in addition, something I can whole-heartedly agree with. That deserves somthing special, like this
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Pergament.jpg

Good article in the OP as well. Looking forward to hear what the Pope has to say about things, although I'm a Protestant myself.

Aethists are, in my experience, never angry with god, or any god-hole in their heads, but with people who insist or speculate they have to have one. OK But that isn't my experience. I have met all sorts of atheists, and even call some of them that I know my friends. Of course, I understand that they might be angry when someone tries to push them into belief. But I can see the difference between this anger and that which they might have towards God. And frankly 'angry' is pushing it too far - mystified is a better word. This is, I think, one of the few areas where British culture wins over American - religion isn't nearly as big a deal here as it is there, in the political or any other major cultural sphere, and a big irrational debate does _not_ get in the way of running the country or regulating society. Aside from what individuals do, it's largely been a non-factor throughout my lifetime; I only hope that doesn't change with a growing islamic population, and any christian counter-movements. I agree that the dominance of the Christian culture in America has tended to produce quite a lot of anger directed towards Christianity. One only has to look at the discussions on NS to find evidence for this. Personally, I have never felt so much anti-Christian feeling as during my time in America (a brief four months). My experience of people who are angry with God comes from my time living in Europe (two years) and my time in Australia (all the other years).

Edit: I am a long way from asserting that all atheists (or even most) are atheistic because they are angry with God. I simply brought that up as an example to explain why some people are atheists despite wanting to be friends with God.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html

His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to publish his thoughts on the theory of evolution:


I personally think this is a good thing, hopefully this will start create more communication between science and religion. My view on evolution is that it exists, it has plenty of evidence supporting it. I also believe in the existance of god, and I believe that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.



Positive communication of course is welcome between science and religion. But too be quite honest most religions are talk a lot of crap when it comes to evolution. It sickens me that millions of people around the world will hang onto every word some old guy says just because of his position. :mad:

Evolution is an underlying principle of modern medicine?
And of biology. Without those foundations it would have been very difficult to arrive at causes and cures for all sorts of disease, understand how virus and bacteria adapt and effect the body, why some organisms do and others don't, and how resistance and immunity develop.

That all depends on your definition of evolution. If you mean things like antibiotic resistance in bacteria and antigen variability in HIV, then this is a form of evolution that IDers would agree with, and anyone with a firm literal belief in a six day creation.
There's no such division. Only in the minds of creationists.

However, if you are referring to the sort of evolution whereby some people think accounts for the development of microbes to man, then I suggest that you are quite wrong to assert that modern medicine is based on this sort of evolution. It most certainly is not.
Care to explain how the principles of natural selection, adaptation and evolution don't apply to modern medicine?

Thus, you appear to have false impression that a clash exists between a literal belief in the Bible and a so-called clash with modern medicine and technology.
When you start to analyze the basic fundaments under Bible literalism and modern technology there is a clash in that the methods and reason that have given you modern technology and comforts also give you evolution and a history of the Universe that contradicts Biblical account. Bible literalists ignore this clash either by not thinking about it or by rationalizing an explanation.

And of biology. Without those foundations it would have been very difficult to arrive at causes and cures for all sorts of disease, understand how virus and bacteria adapt and effect the body, why some organisms do and others don't, and how resistance and immunity develop.

My point is that modern medicine has made progress due to our understanding of how natural selection and mutation work, and not because of our hypothesis that all of modern life has a common ancestor. Unfortunately, in this debate, both tend to get labeled as 'evolution', which is why people feel the need to separate them into microevolution and macroevolution.


There's no such division. Only in the minds of creationists.

The division is between the observed and the hypothesised (the non-observed). Anyone who cannot see this is blind, ironically.


Care to explain how the principles of natural selection, adaptation and evolution don't apply to modern medicine?

I have no dispute with that. However, you may like to explain how the concept that all of modern life is related to a common simply ancestor has helped modern medicine?


When you start to analyze the basic fundaments under Bible literalism and modern technology there is a clash in that the methods and reason that have given you modern technology and comforts also give you evolution and a history of the Universe that contradicts Biblical account. Bible literalists ignore this clash either by not thinking about it or by rationalizing an explanation.

Are you asserting that evolutionary theory gave rise to technology? That's stretching it too far, isn't it? Care to explain that in a little more detail. And don't go resorting to ''natural selection, adaptation and evolution'' and all that other rheotoric. I want to see some direct contributions here, a little more detail, if you please.

Meanwhile, I could point you towards several notable inventors (like Isaac Newton) who were not evolutionists (some who lived before Darwin) and who made major contributions to our modern technology. That being said, although there have been many evolutionists who have also made contributions to our modern technology, it would be quite a significant point if you could demonstrate how it was the hypothesis that all of modern life was related that actually brought about such discoveries. Most technological advances, e.g. the computer, seem to be quite unrelated to the theory of evolution, and are more to do with physics than biology.

You guys are missing two key points of Science. I am a Biology student at the University of Central Oklahoma and my professor made a very good point when it comes to God.

1.Science does not set out to "prove" anything.
2.Science can not acknowledge or refute the existence of God.

Science is a tool to help us figure out how our world and universe works. Some of you guys are turning science into a religion by arguing with the Christians.

I think it's sad that anybody actually gives a shit what one bitter old man with terrible taste in clothes thinks about the theory of evolution. :(

My point is that modern medicine has made progress due to our understanding of how natural selection and mutation work, and not because of our hypothesis that all of modern life has a common ancestor. Unfortunately, in this debate, both tend to get labeled as 'evolution', which is why people feel the need to separate them into microevolution and macroevolution.
People feel the need, but there is no need. In fact, there's no point to that division. Through the mechanisms of adaptation, mutation and natural selection a single organism can branch out into different species. This entire process is known as evolution, whether the changes are small over a short period of time or large over long periods. Evolution is the entire process; adaptation, mutation, and natural selection are the mechanisms through which the process works.

The hypothesis of a common ancestor is reached through observation and comparison. Speciation has been observed now, and you can see the signs of evolution in the DNA of modern species.

The division is between the observed and the hypothesised (the non-observed). Anyone who cannot see this is blind, ironically.
So, anything you can't measure directly is a mere hypothesis? No one has observed electricity, or the electrons running from one way to another. I guess electricity is an hypothesis.

You see, we may not be able to see electricity, but we can observe and measure its effects. You detect a magnetic field around a cable, you know there's electricity running through it. The same with evolution. You find common traits in different species, you find fossils with those common traits, plus traits exclusive to each species, and you know there's a common ancestor.

Due to gaps in data sometimes the evolutionary path of particular species has to be assumed, and the exact mechanics of evolution derived at. But evolution is certainly supported by observation, it's more than an hypothesis.

I have no dispute with that. However, you may like to explain how the concept that all of modern life is related to a common simply ancestor has helped modern medicine?
Evolution and its concepts have helped modern medicine to understand the causes of disease, the whys of virii, bacteria, and parasites. By studying simpler organisms related to others more dangerous, medicine can test and derive cures.

In the field this may not seem too important. The doctor watches the symptoms, makes a diagnostic and chooses a treatment. But it's fundamental in research and pharmaceutical development.

Are you asserting that evolutionary theory gave rise to technology? That's stretching it too far, isn't it? Care to explain that in a little more detail. And don't go resorting to ''natural selection, adaptation and evolution'' and all that other rheotoric. I want to see some direct contributions here, a little more detail, if you please.
No, I'm asserting that science and the scientific method gave rise to evolution and big bang theory, as well as electronics and modern medicine. They all use the same principles of observation, hypothesis and experimentation. So it's quite contrary to think "I'll accept this product of science because it makes my life more comfortable, but I'll reject this other one because it goes against my beliefs, even though it helps other people create products that make my life more comfortable."

Meanwhile, I could point you towards several notable inventors (like Isaac Newton) who were not evolutionists (some who lived before Darwin) and who made major contributions to our modern technology. That being said, although there have been many evolutionists who have also made contributions to our modern technology, it would be quite a significant point if you could demonstrate how it was the hypothesis that all of modern life was related that actually brought about such discoveries. Most technological advances, e.g. the computer, seem to be quite unrelated to the theory of evolution, and are more to do with physics than biology.

Already clarified above, but you should know that product development is moving towards an evolutionary model, in which a company will create several different products and then track which ones did best in the market, take those traits and create the next generation of products, and so on. Other disciplines, like economics and computer science, also use concepts introduced by evolution to advanced their fields.

So it is the concept, much more than the biological fact that has influenced and helped modern technology. It was observed first in nature, like flight, studied, theorized, and then applied to our world.

This debate has been going on for years and is starting to get old... in my opinion, I think we should just stop blabbing on about it and agree that creationism is not scientifically provable and we make a decent stab at proving evolution. In my mind its settled, the evolution theory explains our exsistence... we may need to straighten out some kinks but I think it is in decent shape. The debate starts again for me when someone writes a scientific paper on Adam and Eve and how after two thousand years or so, they found their DNA.

People feel the need, but there is no need. In fact, there's no point to that division. Through the mechanisms of adaptation, mutation and natural selection a single organism can branch out into different species. This entire process is known as evolution, whether the changes are small over a short period of time or large over long periods. Evolution is the entire process; adaptation, mutation, and natural selection are the mechanisms through which the process works.

The hypothesis of a common ancestor is reached through observation and comparison. Speciation has been observed now, and you can see the signs of evolution in the DNA of modern species.

The hypothesis of a common ancestor is reached through interpretation of the data, since the data does not explain itself. Interpretation of the data depends upon the governing assumptions of the researcher. Thus, the conclusions will depend on the governing assumptions.

We do see small changes in nature, but the hypothesis that these small changes can account for large changes is actually not supported by any direct data, but rather inferred or supported indirectly by data that can be explained to support it.
Speciation itself is not necessarily evidence for a common ancestor. For example, if we take a population of fruit flies and separate them into two populations, place them under different selection pressures, and then mix them together again only to observe that they can no longer interbreed, and are thus considered two separate species, this observation does not support a common ancestor (although some people seem to think that it does). Such an observation is only consistent with a common ancestor. But given that creationists could also account (and predict) such an observation, it would hardly be evidence for a common ancestor. Anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics could understand this, without relying on evolutionary theory.


So, anything you can't measure directly is a mere hypothesis? No one has observed electricity, or the electrons running from one way to another. I guess electricity is an hypothesis.

Not really. Because we understand something of the nature of electricity, we are able to make predictions, and perform experiments to test those predictions, and then repeat those experiments. This is something we can't do with macroevolution, due to the limitations involved (e.g. requiring a lot of time). So, macroevolution and electricity are quite different.


You see, we may not be able to see electricity, but we can observe and measure its effects. You detect a magnetic field around a cable, you know there's electricity running through it. The same with evolution. You find common traits in different species, you find fossils with those common traits, plus traits exclusive to each species, and you know there's a common ancestor.


Common traits can often be explained better in terms of practical use in survival, rather than sharing a common ancestor. A classic example is the duck bill and a platypus bill. I don't think anyone would assert that this common trait is due to a common ancestor. Thus, the finding of common traits can only be assumed (rather than observed) to be due to common ancestry, but unlike electricity, this cannot be tested and re-tested. It is simply just concluded based on interpretation, which in turn is based on a governing assumption.


Due to gaps in data sometimes the evolutionary path of particular species has to be assumed, and the exact mechanics of evolution derived at. But evolution is certainly supported by observation, it's more than an hypothesis.


The so-called support for evolution boils down to assumptions. For example, when someone finds a fossil that looks like a missing link, there is no way to demonstrate this, other than to point to similarities. However, everyone knows that similarities are caused by all sort of things, not just genetic inheritance. Thus, evolution is not supported by objective observation, but by observation that is interpreted according to a particular set of governing assumptions. There is no such thing as an objective researcher, because every researcher needs a hypothesis with which to perform his research. Plus, he generally makes his money by doing research.

Observing a fossil will tell us nothing. It will need to be interpreted with respect to other available information, and the hypotheses that are available. If I don't share your governing assumptions, it is possible that I will observe the same set of data and come away with a completely different conclusion.


Evolution and its concepts have helped modern medicine to understand the causes of disease, the whys of virii, bacteria, and parasites. By studying simpler organisms related to others more dangerous, medicine can test and derive cures.

In the field this may not seem too important. The doctor watches the symptoms, makes a diagnostic and chooses a treatment. But it's fundamental in research and pharmaceutical development.


It is very debateable that the theory of evolution has helped modern medicine to understand the causes of disease. Rather, it is the understanding of adaptation, of genetic modification, of molecular biology, microbiology, and biochemistry that have helped. It is possible to have a thorough education in each of these fields without learning anything about evolutionary biology. Thus, it isn't evolution that has helped modern medicine, but the scientific method. These are two entirely separate concepts. The modern fields of microbiology and biochemistry and so forth are dependent on the scientific method, not evolutionary theory.


No, I'm asserting that science and the scientific method gave rise to evolution and big bang theory, as well as electronics and modern medicine. They all use the same principles of observation, hypothesis and experimentation. So it's quite contrary to think "I'll accept this product of science because it makes my life more comfortable, but I'll reject this other one because it goes against my beliefs, even though it helps other people create products that make my life more comfortable."


You are creating a strawman by associating a rejection of evolutionary theory with the rejection of the scientific method. Isaac Newton was the fellow most credited with developing the scientific method, according to some, and he didn't know much about evolutionary theory. Modern scientists who reject evolutionary theory are quite capable of using the scientific method.

It is the very principles of the scientific method which helps me to criticise much of evolutionary theory as speculation, quite useless to the progress of technology and modern medicine.


Already clarified above, but you should know that product development is moving towards an evolutionary model, in which a company will create several different products and then track which ones did best in the market, take those traits and create the next generation of products, and so on. Other disciplines, like economics and computer science, also use concepts introduced by evolution to advanced their fields.

Evolutionary theory does not have copyrights for 'survival of the fittest'. And companies have been developing along these lines a good deal longer than the theory of evolution has been around.

And any company that develops along the principle of 'survival of the fittest' to the exclusion of values such as integrity, fairness, etc is evil. That is, if they justify ripping off little old helpless ladies in the name of 'survival of the fittest', they deserved to be boycotted.

Observation of the survival of the fittest in nature is not evidence for the theory of evolution, since creationists also predict and explain it quite satisfactorily consistent with their assumptions.


So it is the concept, much more than the biological fact that has influenced and helped modern technology. It was observed first in nature, like flight, studied, theorized, and then applied to our world.


Sorry, but that doesn't support evolutionary theory. That is as bad as pointing to church buildings as evidence of God, or to temples as evidence of Budda.
All that says is that modern technology is influenced by the understanding of nature, which is not necessarily evolutionary theory. Perhaps one could argue that evolutionary theory has helped us understand nature. But that is precisely what is under dispute here, so making such an assertion will not go far to further your argument here.

Christianity is and will continue to be the greatest enemy of scientific progress in the Western World.
Not at all, even if only for lack of power. Big business often impedes progress. And it is powerful.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.
It would probably just "prove" to them that the Pope is the anti-Christ. :rolleyes:

I would prefer we live like Hobbits, and if the opportunity ever arises, I will jump at it.
Hippies live like hobbits, so join one of their communes.

Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive; if anything, they complement each other. It would be great if Pope Benedict XVI supports the theory because it would be a significant bridge between the two and would show the Church as willing to accomodate both science and theology.

It would also deal a huge blow to the IDers and the creationists and firmly place them out of the mainstream; Christainity needs to present itself as working with science rather than against it.

Yes, going from Truth to unsubstantiated scientific tomfoolery. Evolution as a modern observation is certainly viable, applying this theory of assumption to the beginning of life is irrational. I'm surprised that so many who support rational thought and reasoning would support such an outrageous and ridiculous assertion that life evolved from a single prokaryotic cell, though the premise is only to counter the religious view of creation.

And yet, here you are, typing on a computer, sending messages through the internet. Oh the irony!

Quaint. Science as philosophy is not what we observe and interact with on a day to day basis. Especially considering that computers are man-made, and what we're dealing with is the creation (one way or another) of life.

Science is based on observations perfomed by humans. Thus, if you define truth as that discovered by science you are saying that humans and their senses are perfect. Religion is in some ways higher than science because it acknowledges the imperfections of humans; however, it does not try to explain the "natural" world, the natural world here being what humans sense. To conclude: if you want to build something that you sense as a rocket, use science. If you want to try and uncover truth and other questions, stick with religion or philosophy.

As to the original item about the pope: The Catholic Church does not take the biblical creation as literal; most Catholic bibles mention the difference between literalism and analogy in the very beginning and often use the creation as an example. John Paul II said that not only was evolution not conflicting with evolution, but he said evolution was the best explanation for the evidence found. I doubt Benedict will change that stance.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."--Robert Jastrow

Frankly, I am convinced that the more we continue to make scientific discoveries, gain new knowledge, and further our understanding of the universe we will all, entirely as one, eventually come to the obvious and correct conclusion: there is no God or gods. We were not "created." Religion is fiction. Nothing more.

My response to you is the same as the scientific response to ID: just because you don't understand how it works in reality does not make your theory correct.

Christianity and science are incompatible. Without the Garden of Eden, no Original Sin and without Original Sin, no need for Jesus.
Christianity is and will continue to be the greatest enemy of scientific progress in the Western World. The so-called “moderates” who try to blend science and religion are simply dishonest, both with others and themselves.

Not aware of the existence of metaphors, eh?

Yeah, but you certainly need the concept of inherited sin to explain Jesus.

No, you don't. You just need the concept of sin itself - the idea that all human beings are fallible, we all make mistakes - we all do bad things.

Or, perhaps, the more Abelardian idea of a God who did not want to be followed in fear, but instead in love...

When did it become sinning and not just animal nature?

When does a child become responsible for his actions? When he can understand that they have consequences and what those consequences are?

There is nothing wrong with evolution, just like there is nothing wrong with reason.

Of course when the members of the French revolution started treating reason as a goddess you really have to wonder about their sanity. The same is true for those who somehow hold evolution up to some sort of godlike standard.

In the course of debate, it is often common (although regretable) for one side to set up strawmen of the other side, so they can better set them on fire to prove their superiority. There are plenty of strawmen in this thread as it is and while they burn brightly, they don't really need pointing out.

There are also the examples of assumptions that are thrust into the level of revealed dogma (a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds). Dogma isn't something unique to the religious side, the notion that science implies athiesm, for example is a dogma of the athiests.

P.S. Catholics don't teach in creationism. It might even be considered a heresy because it suggests that God desiged the universe to look older than it is. God does not deceive nor can be be deceiced. Therefore creationism is heresy, scientifically and religiously.

There is nothing wrong with evolution, just like there is nothing wrong with reason.

Of course when the members of the French revolution started treating reason as a goddess you really have to wonder about their sanity. The same is true for those who somehow hold evolution up to some sort of godlike standard.

In the course of debate, it is often common (although regretable) for one side to set up strawmen of the other side, so they can better set them on fire to prove their superiority. There are plenty of strawmen in this thread as it is and while they burn brightly, they don't really need pointing out.

There are also the examples of assumptions that are thrust into the level of revealed dogma (a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds). Dogma isn't something unique to the religious side, the notion that science implies athiesm, for example is a dogma of the athiests.

P.S. Catholics don't teach in creationism. It might even be considered a heresy because it suggests that God desiged the universe to look older than it is. God does not deceive nor can be be deceiced. Therefore creationism is heresy, scientifically and religiously.

I agree with most of your post and concede that assumptions are the basis for much of this argument. However, I do have qualms with that last part: Creationism is heresy. God does not deceive, as you have pointed out. Yet perhaps it is not deception of an older Earth, but a misconstrued idea of age itself. We can only conjecture that the Earth was made 10,000 years ago or 4.6 billion years ago. Observing what is around us is not the appearance of a billion year old Earth or a thousand year old one, but more perception. The truth is, we have no idea how eons effect the Earth, except as we observe it today. There is no reason to believe that the Earth as it changes today (ie, tectonic plates moving apporximately 6 cm every year) is exactly how it occurred in the past. Thus, deception, while compelling, is more the naive assumption that God is trying to deceive.

the notion that science implies athiesm, for example is a dogma of the athiests.

Since when?

You know, religions often state that once you attempt to become religious, you will see the light, or some such nonsense. I'm living proof that does not happen. I have tried to be religious many times in my life. I've saught Buddihsm, Christianity, Islam, various forms of paganism, and all others in my life. Yet, every SINGLE TIME, I always return to what I believe is my natural state: atheism. The fact is, humanity has grown beyond the need for a security blanket. That's really all religions are anymore these days: security blankets. Big invisible friends to help you cope with one form of stress or another. Hell, I'm one of those kinds of people that should be a hardcore religious man precisely BECAUSE I am insecure, because I could use that kind of security and safety. I have my own forms of it as it is. And yet, I am an atheist. Why?

It's simple. Let's face rational, logical facts: religions make no damned sense whatsoever. God, gods, what have you cannot POSSIBLY exist, simply for the reason that they have to have come from somewhere. If the Creator created the universe, what created the Creator? It can't have just magically appearead out of nothing. It also cannot have "always existed." We may certainly be aware of the fact that our normal laws of physics and causality probably don't apply to times before the universe was born in the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that God exists. Think about it. Omniscience is impossible. The Heisenburg Principle alone is proof enough of this. Furthermore, every single religious text is riddled with constant meddling by God, or the gods, or some such. If God was perfect, how could He make mistakes? If God is all-powerful, why not just force everyone to worship Him? Take the time to write it into our genetic coding. To give an example, albiet one from fiction: take the Founders in Star Trek. A race of Changlings that founded the Dominion--hence the term Founders--and created both the Vorta and the Jem'Hadar. Both species see the Founders as gods. It was written into their genetic coding. So why not write a love and worship of God or the gods or what have you into our own?

Frankly, I am convinced that the more we continue to make scientific discoveries, gain new knowledge, and further our understanding of the universe we will all, entirely as one, eventually come to the obvious and correct conclusion: there is no God or gods. We were not "created." Religion is fiction. Nothing more.


You are indeed a sad little man.

Hippies live like hobbits, so join one of their communes.

Hippies are generally heretics or blasphemers.

Hippies are generally heretics or blasphemers.

Hippies are dying off.

Hippies are dying off.

Thank heaven!

I mean, Oh what a shame.

:p

Who said I was for regress?

I understand that it's somewhat (if not totally) hypocritical for me to be on here and at the same time crying against science and technology. But I can't survive in the USA today without accepting those "advances" that are neutral: I can't really call any modern technology good with the exception of most medical advancements and not all of the other technologies are evil, though they certainly can be used so.

I would prefer we live like Hobbits, and if the opportunity ever arises, I will jump at it. Until then, I'll continue to use the technology. I'm accustomed to using it and so it is hard not to do so without being removed from Western society.

Jules: I'll just walk the earth.
Vincent: What'cha mean walk the earth?
Jules: You know, walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Nothing is preventing you.

Jules: I'll just walk the earth.
Vincent: What'cha mean walk the earth?
Jules: You know, walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Nothing is preventing you.

That's not quite true: we are something. So if we prevent ourselves, there is something preventing us. Maybe a bit of a paradox, but I think it's very true.

I love technology. But I hate it. Work that one out. I can't.

That's not quite true: we are something. So if we prevent ourselves, there is something preventing us. Maybe a bit of a paradox, but I think it's very true.

I love technology. But I hate it. Work that one out. I can't.

It's easy. It's hypocritical.

hypocritical
adj : professing feelings or virtues one does not have

I don't mean to be insulting but that is how it appears.

It's easy. It's hypocritical.

hypocritical
adj : professing feelings or virtues one does not have

I don't mean to be insulting but that is how it appears.

What if I have them both? It might (emphasis on might) be contradictory, but if I hold both opinions, then it can't be hypocritical.

What if I have them both? It might (emphasis on might) be contradictory, but if I hold both opinions, then it can't be hypocritical.

It still appears to be hypocritical. What it actually is and how you actually feel about it may not be what it appears to me to be. But to denounce Western society and science but at the same time embrace it because it would be harder not to... I mean, it's pretty clear what that looks like.

It still appears to be hypocritical. What it actually is and how you actually feel about it may not be what it appears to me to be. But to denounce Western society and science but at the same time embrace it because it would be harder not to... I mean, it's pretty clear what that looks like.

Well, I was drunk last night (not alcohol-drunk, too-tired-to-think-straight-drunk) so I can see that I didn't represent myself as clearly as I ought to have.

I want to live a simple a life as possilbe. That would solve many problems that have been presented by modernity.

At the same time, modernity solves many of the problems presented by primitiveness (?).

There is an allure to both the primitive and the modern. I'm torn between the two. My head says to go primitive, but my heart refuses to choose. Sounds like a very creepy and stupid romance novel, but that's the only way I can explain it.

The presence of a sehnsucht (desire) for God is not always going to result in obedience to such a desire. The issue is complicated by a plethora of other desires, plus the ability to choose one over another (in the case of conflicting desires). Thus, an atheist, for example, may choose to commit to his world view because of (or despite) his desire for God. If he is angry with God, he may choose to commit to a belief that rules out God's existence (as a way of punishing God). This, in turn, might be mixed with a suppressed desire to have a good relationship with God (presumeably there might be an element of this if anger is present). However, this is all highly speculative.

The desire for God is not necessarily the desire to assign additional meaning to everything. It is a bit hard to describe, since it may manifest itself in a variety of ways among different people, even within a single individual. For me, it has been a longing to know something greater than the sleepy drowsiness of my own life, or or to wake to a glorious reality of a deeper meaning, while at different times it has been a longing for some sort of music that I felt I have just caught whispers of while waking from a wonderful dream. At other times it has been to know the source of such simple elegant beauty in a common flower. Of course, I have considered a range of explanations for such desires, and the only one that consistently fits is a desire for God (in my view).

Having said that, I am in no wise claiming that such a desire for God is ubiquitous, that it must be found as such in each and every person. I really don't know that much about it, personally, apart from what I know about my own life, and even that is rather confusing.


I think you may be confusing human desires here. Humans have an instinctive desire to explain and understand the world around them. God is one possible explanation, and a relatively simple one at that, one that can be adjusted to each individual's capacity of understanding and comprehending the more complex concepts.

As to the original item about the pope: The Catholic Church does not take the biblical creation as literal; most Catholic bibles mention the difference between literalism and analogy in the very beginning and often use the creation as an example. John Paul II said that not only was evolution not conflicting with evolution, but he said evolution was the best explanation for the evidence found. I doubt Benedict will change that stance.

Oh, look! Somebody piped in with relevant, concise, and correct information about the situation at hand...let's ignore them! Who cares if Catholicism accepts the theory of evolution as probable (which is, for all real scientists, exactly what science has done...and, by the way, being a former Catholic, I can vouch for the accuracy of the info), and thus is obviously not the hard-core-literal-interpretation-creationist element that is being so demonized in this debate?

It's more fun to argue when you ignore the facts, isn't it?

The hypothesis of a common ancestor is reached through interpretation of the data, since the data does not explain itself. Interpretation of the data depends upon the governing assumptions of the researcher. Thus, the conclusions will depend on the governing assumptions.

Which, if the assumption is good, will then be supported by more observations.

You are under the impression that evolution can not make predictions, but it can, in a different way than in other fields of science, since experimentation would be rather difficult. Whale evolution is a very good example. For decades it had been assumed that the whale had evolved from a land dwelling animal, because of the vestigial hips and hind legs. The prediction is that a fossil would be found that shared characteristics of both a land animal and a whale.

For a long long time there were no such fossils found, until around 15 to 20 years ago. From then on many whale transitional fossils have been found, confirming the initial assumption.

You are still also confused equating with this:


For example, if we take a population of fruit flies and separate them into two populations, place them under different selection pressures, and then mix them together again only to observe that they can no longer interbreed, and are thus considered two separate species, this observation does not support a common ancestor (although some people seem to think that it does). Such an observation is only consistent with a common ancestor.
That experiment does not mean that all species come from a single ancestor, but it confirms that a species can branch out into different ones, therefore giving the hypothesis of a single ancestor more strength, i.e. it can happen, it's not impossible.

Taking each bit by itself won't reveal much, it's when all the data is taking together and the systems worked out that the picture is revealed. It's still fuzzy, but we can pretty much make out the contours now.


Not really. Because we understand something of the nature of electricity, we are able to make predictions, and perform experiments to test those predictions, and then repeat those experiments. This is something we can't do with macroevolution, due to the limitations involved (e.g. requiring a lot of time). So, macroevolution and electricity are quite different.

As I said, predictions can be made. Either by predicting what's missing in the fossil record and by what you're going to find in DNA.


Common traits can often be explained better in terms of practical use in survival, rather than sharing a common ancestor. A classic example is the duck bill and a platypus bill. I don't think anyone would assert that this common trait is due to a common ancestor.
You are confused here again. The platypus' bill and the duck's bill are only superficially similar, they are actually very different organs. There are many other differences between both animals and you can't take one single trait to relate one to the other. For example, the platypus lays eggs, and has a single orifice for reproduction and waste, but it has four legs, hair, lactates and a mammalian circulatory system and bone structure. When all those traits are taken together it makes more sense to group it with mammals than with birds, but it also tell us that at some point there is a bird-mammal connection.

After all birds lay eggs, have bones and regulate their temperature like mammals do, although their system is different, their digestive system is also different and have feathers.

Is there a connection? Making a prediction based in evolution one assumes there is, perhaps through amphibians. And guess what? There is. And if you compare mitocondrial DNA you can find it. And if you go look into the fossil record you will find it too (although apparently amphibians branched out into proto-mammals and reptiles, then the dinosaur branch separated from reptiles and then evolved into birds)

So, there are the assumptions, the predictions and the confirmations through observations.


The so-called support for evolution boils down to assumptions. For example, when someone finds a fossil that looks like a missing link, there is no way to demonstrate this, other than to point to similarities. However, everyone knows that similarities are caused by all sort of things, not just genetic inheritance.
That's why one doesn't look at just one or two similarities, but at groups of them. One similarity is a coincidence, same with two or three. But a whole bunch of them... c'mon.

All science boils down to assumptions that either get confirmed through observation and interpretation of the data, or they don't. Evolution is no different to any other science.

Thus, evolution is not supported by objective observation, but by observation that is interpreted according to a particular set of governing assumptions. There is no such thing as an objective researcher, because every researcher needs a hypothesis with which to perform his research. Plus, he generally makes his money by doing research.
Of course. They start by trying to prove their hypothesis, but they throw it out there where other scientist who also get paid for research try to disprove it. Let the best one win.


Observing a fossil will tell us nothing. It will need to be interpreted with respect to other available information, and the hypotheses that are available. If I don't share your governing assumptions, it is possible that I will observe the same set of data and come away with a completely different conclusion.
Exactly. Get all the assumptions together, compare all the observations that have been made, get all the scientists in one room and let them go at it. That's what science does.


You are creating a strawman by associating a rejection of evolutionary theory with the rejection of the scientific method. Isaac Newton was the fellow most credited with developing the scientific method, according to some, and he didn't know much about evolutionary theory. Modern scientists who reject evolutionary theory are quite capable of using the scientific method.
Newton wasn't around when the theory of evolution came out, so it's quite stupid (forgive me, but it is) to put him as an example. He didn't know quantum theory either, that doesn't meant quantum theory is not valid science.

When you apply the scientific method correctly, you come up with evolution. That's what the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts, and those who don't most of the time is because they're not applying the scientific method correctly.


Evolutionary theory does not have copyrights for 'survival of the fittest'. And companies have been developing along these lines a good deal longer than the theory of evolution has been around.

And any company that develops along the principle of 'survival of the fittest' to the exclusion of values such as integrity, fairness, etc is evil. That is, if they justify ripping off little old helpless ladies in the name of 'survival of the fittest', they deserved to be boycotted.
Did I say that? Did I mention that evolutionary product development has to be unethical? No, I did not. I said that evolutionary concepts are used to develop better products faster, it has nothing to do with the practices of the company in the marketplace.

Observation of the survival of the fittest in nature is not evidence for the theory of evolution, since creationists also predict and explain it quite satisfactorily consistent with their assumptions.

It is the philosophical principles that I'm discussing here, not using it as demonstration for evolution. Of course it's not. Just another example of how science and the concepts derived from it, including evolution (as a concept) have helped technology.

How about this? Evolution wins the intellectual debate. There is no better intellectual answer out there and this is including Independent Design. To believe anything else, requires faith. Every person has every right to have faith in whatever they want no matter how much it contradicts with what is perceived as reality. It takes faith to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and in the Church of Alternate Mathematics, this faith is perfectly reasonable. In a math class, this type of faith gets you a failing grade.


What am I talking about? Have you all finally driven me mad?


I am still on painkillers. It is not an excuse, it is a reason.

Goobley Boogley.

Hippies are generally heretics or blasphemers.
Hobbits are atheists, and they live quite like hippies.

Hobbits are atheists, and they live quite like hippies.

Reread Tolkien.

He was quite the theist, if you don't want to go so far as saying he was a Christian. Gasp! Perish the thought!

Though God is not mentioned overtly in connection with the Hobbits, it is obvious that they had knowledge of Him. Him being Iluvatar, who no sane person could argue does not remind one of the orthodox Christian God (orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox).

No, but you do see resistances to other aspects of advancement in many of those religions.

The hostility from Christianity towards science is reactionary self-preservation. Science can explain the natural processes of the universe, eliminating the necessity of a practical belief in God, which, since at least the days of Charles Aquinas, had been an aspect of Christianity.
Also, science can eliminate the personal need for God in people’s lives. No longer do we need to reasonably fear random death by fever or a pox at the age of thirty. A good example of this is Mother Theresa, whose Houses for the Ill in India were little more than leper colonies. In their suffering, she reasoned, the sick would seek God for respite.

Who the hell is Charles Aquinas?

Who the hell is Charles Aquinas?

ROFL

the bizarro thomas aquinas

ROFL

the bizarro thomas aquinas

I was guessing that, but honestly if one can't get the guys name right one should think twice before opening one's mouth.

It's a good thing these clergy remove themselves from the gene pool.

It's a good thing these clergy remove themselves from the gene pool.

For saying that evolution and religion are not mutualy exclusive?

For saying that evolution and religion are not mutualy exclusive?

I think, for not partcipating in the Ol' In an' Out.

I think, for not partcipating in the Ol' In an' Out.

Oh, I got that its quite similar to an old Sagan quote, what I don't get is why he would post it in a thread about a time where the clergy is actualy being reasonable.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1516073,00.html

His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI is prepared to publish his thoughts on the theory of evolution:


I personally think this is a good thing, hopefully this will start create more communication between science and religion. My view on evolution is that it exists, it has plenty of evidence supporting it. I also believe in the existance of god, and I believe that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.

EDIT: please refrain from posting the "ah jeez, not this shit again" picture...

You could believe in deism...God created the universe and let it take its course.

You could believe in deism...God created the universe and let it take its course.

I thought that was an aspect of agnosticism, isn't deism's main idea "god exists and i can prove this with reason"?

I thought that was an aspect of agnosticism, isn't deism's main idea "god exists and i can prove this with reason"?

No deism is not part of agnosticism, which is basicly not being sure if there is or isn't a god, while deism is more of a watchmaker view of god.

No deism is not part of agnosticism, which is basicly not being sure if there is or isn't a god, while deism is more of a watchmaker view of god.

I misrepresented myself I though his statement was a mistake and he was thinking of agnosticism, I though Deism is the belief that god exists, and that it can be proven through logic and reason

I think you may be confusing human desires here. Humans have an instinctive desire to explain and understand the world around them. God is one possible explanation, and a relatively simple one at that, one that can be adjusted to each individual's capacity of understanding and comprehending the more complex concepts.

A desire to explain and understand the world around me is completely different to the desire to be loved, for example. The concept I am presenting is that humans have the desire for perfection, for love, for meaning, for peace, etc., BECAUSE they have been designed to have these desires. Thus it is perfectly normal for people to experience these desires.

It also means, of course, that they might look in the wrong places for the fulfillment of such desires. Looking for perfect love in imperfect humans, for example, will always result in disappointment, which is why looking for perfect love in a perfect God is the answer. And yet the desire for God is not always recognised as such. If, for example, the desire for God is confused with the desire to be caught up in a great romance, one may pursue romance instead of God.

Of course, I also know the desire to understand and explain my world, but I would say that comes from a genuine curiosity and wonder at the marvelous detail and complexity and beauty that surrounds me----plus the desire to be in control of my own circumstances, in order to be happy.

It also means, of course, that they might look in the wrong places for the fulfillment of such desires. Looking for perfect love in imperfect humans, for example, will always result in disappointment, which is why looking for perfect love in a perfect God is the answer. And yet the desire for God is not always recognised as such. If, for example, the desire for God is confused with the desire to be caught up in a great romance, one may pursue romance instead of God.

I could just as easily turn this argument around : Humans, being the social animals that they are, are looking for acceptance and love in other humans. If they find that love to be "imperfect", and not adequate to their perceived needs, they might invent themselves a perfect god and imagine the perfect love from him/her. The desire to be loved would suddenly become religous desire.

EDIT: please refrain from posting the "ah jeez, not this shit again" picture...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/11100726758447cd.jpg

You are under the impression that evolution can not make predictions, but it can, in a different way than in other fields of science, since experimentation would be rather difficult. Whale evolution is a very good example. For decades it had been assumed that the whale had evolved from a land dwelling animal, because of the vestigial hips and hind legs. The prediction is that a fossil would be found that shared characteristics of both a land animal and a whale.

For a long long time there were no such fossils found, until around 15 to 20 years ago. From then on many whale transitional fossils have been found, confirming the initial assumption.


Of course one can make predictions based on evolutionary theory. I never meant to deny this. What I wanted to point out is that confirmation of these predictions must rely on finding data that can be explained consistently with the prediction, since the data itself doesn't speak. However, in the case of electricity (referring to your previous analogy), it can be measured and the experiments repeated, while the major changes that the theory of evolution hypothesises, like whales evolving from land animals cannot be observed in this way. Rather, one must rely such data as the discovery of fossils that appear to match the prediction.

My objection to using such data as evidence for the support of evolutionary theory has a lot to do with the way such data is treated. And I suspect that the researchers are guilty of seeing what they want to see--a typical human problem. Plus, just finding similarities and making a big deal of them falls a long way short of convincing the true skeptic. The discovery of such fossils and interpretation as missing links convinces only those who already accept the hypothesis as being more than likely true. However, the true skeptic would always remain skeptical of arriving at such a conclusion based on 'similarities', and particularly those found by 'believers'. The truth is the life is full of similarities, many of which are known to be unrelated. Bacteria and plants, for example, produce many of the same polysaccharides. However, the organisms between bacteria and plants (on the evolutionary scale), such as algae and fungi are capable of producing completely different polysaccharides. Another example of an inconsistency in evolutionary theory is the 1-3 beta glucan. Some bacteria produce it, as do most plants. The genes responsible for the production of this glucan share some homology between plants and bacteria, leading some researchers to think that they are genetically related. However, very few fungi and algae produce this glucan, and the ones that do appear to have absolutely no homology with the bacterial or the plants genes whatsoever. This leads some people to conclude that homology (or similarities) is not a good indication of inheritance. An evolutionary tree has been constructed on the basis of homology between the genes responsible for this glucan, and the result is almost chaos, bearing little resemblance to evolutionary trees based on different genes. The conclusion is that one needs to be very very careful with 'similarities' found in nature. However, this warning appears to be lost on many people.


That experiment does not mean that all species come from a single ancestor, but it confirms that a species can branch out into different ones, therefore giving the hypothesis of a single ancestor more strength, i.e. it can happen, it's not impossible.


No, not that it is not impossible, because we don't know if macroevolution is possible simply by observing microevolution. It is simply asserted to be possible, but there is actually no evidence to say that it is possible. This is the basic point in contention here, and a common mistake made by the supporters of evolutionary theory. In my view, a true scientific approach will not assume something is possible unless it has been demonstrated. Thus the theory of evolution should be recognised as a hypothesis, there being not sufficient evidence for it to be considered a theory.


Taking each bit by itself won't reveal much, it's when all the data is taking together and the systems worked out that the picture is revealed. It's still fuzzy, but we can pretty much make out the contours now.


Yet another assertion. The truth is that the 'contours' rely more on what is imagined to be possible rather than what is demonstrated to be possible. The power of explaining the data is not the same as demonstrating, which is what we can do with electricity.


As I said, predictions can be made. Either by predicting what's missing in the fossil record and by what you're going to find in DNA.


But predictions are not demonstrations, and even finding something that seems to fit the prediction is also not necessarily good evidence that the prediction or the theory on which the prediction is based is correct. The world is a far more complicated place, and simply finding what you predict still does not make the grade. For example, based on evolutionary theory, some people predicted that we would find some races of humans to be less 'evolved', i.e., less intelligent, more 'animal-like', and upon the discovery of the Australian Aboriginies, those predictions appeared (at first) to have been correct. However, nowadays we can see the folly of such conclusions. Australian Aboriginies are not more 'animal-like' than any other human. We are not even sure if human races (plural) exist, and the 'less-evolved' appearance of the first discovered Aboriginies is more to do with our own notion of civilisation and culture and less to do with genetics. In other words, it was a load of bullshit, but which was accepted by many of the most intelligent and 'scientific' minds of the day. This embarrassing situation for the scientific community is a very good argument against drawing fuzzy conclusions based on fuzzy data using a fuzzy sense of scientific approaches, and a blatant disregard for other explanations.......I'm beginning to rant.......


You are confused here again. The platypus' bill and the duck's bill are only superficially similar, they are actually very different organs. There are many other differences between both animals and you can't take one single trait to relate one to the other. For example, the platypus lays eggs, and has a single orifice for reproduction and waste, but it has four legs, hair, lactates and a mammalian circulatory system and bone structure. When all those traits are taken together it makes more sense to group it with mammals than with birds, but it also tell us that at some point there is a bird-mammal connection.


Of course the similarities are superficial!!! That's the point. We can see the superficiality because we think that they cannot be related, due to the great number of other differences. The mistake I am pointing to is to assume the similarities are due to genetic relatedness without knowing if the similarity is superficial or not!! Surely you can see the folly of associating similarities with relatedness. This is one of the great follies within evolutionary theory, and makes it look unconvincing.



Is there a connection? Making a prediction based in evolution one assumes there is, perhaps through amphibians. And guess what? There is. And if you compare mitocondrial DNA you can find it. And if you go look into the fossil record you will find it too (although apparently amphibians branched out into proto-mammals and reptiles, then the dinosaur branch separated from reptiles and then evolved into birds)


Using mitochondrial DNA is simply another example of assuming that similarity equals genetic relatedness, instead of looking at other things like the type of environment where the organism lives, and the type of requirements the organism needs. For example, both humans and bacteria need some sort of gluconeogenesis and glycolysis. Since glucose is common to these organisms, it does make sense to expect that many of the enzymes are going to be similar. In fact, we could even predict this. But does that mean therefor that humans and bacteria are genetically related because of this homology? Or that a higher homology between them suggests a closer relatedness than to, for example, insects. Most likely not. Rather we should look at the type of bacteria in question, and see if the homology has more to do with the environment in which the bacterium is found, for example, the human gut. Homologies can have more to do with homologous biochemical pathways, rather than genetical relatedness. Simply put, homology does not always equal genetic relatedness.


So, there are the assumptions, the predictions and the confirmations through observations.


Yes, but one does need to be very careful with the data before claiming that it supports one's favourite theory.


That's why one doesn't look at just one or two similarities, but at groups of them. One similarity is a coincidence, same with two or three. But a whole bunch of them... c'mon.

For every 'coincidence' that supports evolutionary theory, I would not be surprised if there were several more that did not (which does indeed appear to be the case as far as I have discovered), which is one of the reasons why it does not convince me as being representative of the real world.


All science boils down to assumptions that either get confirmed through observation and interpretation of the data, or they don't. Evolution is no different to any other science.


Evolutionary theory will never be proven, nor disproven, for that matter. It is simply a way of explaining the data, which is why people call it a theory. The reason why I am skeptical of the theory is that I don't believe that it does a very good job of explaining what I see. That doesn't mean that I won't respect a point of view that does include evolutionary theory. But I simply take a skeptics approach--that is, I remain to be convinced, and oppose those who try to assert evolutionary theory as fact.


Of course. They start by trying to prove their hypothesis, but they throw it out there where other scientist who also get paid for research try to disprove it. Let the best one win.


But throw in a complicating feature which means that anyone that does not support evolutionary theory does not get funding, and then you have disagreement between various forms of evolutionary theory, but not an outright criticism of it as a valid theory. Is it a coincidence that this is precisely what we see today?


Exactly. Get all the assumptions together, compare all the observations that have been made, get all the scientists in one room and let them go at it. That's what science does.


A pity that they don't appear to tolerate much criticism of evolutionary theory as a valid approach. Now that would be far more interesting.


Newton wasn't around when the theory of evolution came out, so it's quite stupid (forgive me, but it is) to put him as an example. He didn't know quantum theory either, that doesn't meant quantum theory is not valid science.


Oh, I was quite aware that Newton lived before Darwin. I was addressing your point of how evolutionary theory and the scientific method go hand in hand, and was pointing out that actually, they don't, since Newton, who made a great contribution to scientific method actually didn't know much about evolutionary theory BECAUSE he lived before Darwin. I was never meaning that anything Newton didn't know about was not valid science (it seems you are confused about my point). What I was trying to do was establish the scientific method as being quite independent from evolutionary theory, and that it is the scientific method that has brought us the comfortable modern technology, not the theory of evolution.



When you apply the scientific method correctly, you come up with evolution. That's what the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts, and those who don't most of the time is because they're not applying the scientific method correctly.


I disagree. If you apply the scientific method correctly, you end up being skeptical of any and every theory that cannot be confirmed, plus you are very careful with the definition of the word 'confirmed'. Ironically, it is precisely those who are most supportive of evolutionary theory, and who are so quick to label the critics as being stupid or confused or 'unscientific' that are demonstrating a rather poor understanding of the scientific method, and who are perhaps being least scientific in this regard.


Did I say that? Did I mention that evolutionary product development has to be unethical? No, I did not. I said that evolutionary concepts are used to develop better products faster, it has nothing to do with the practices of the company in the marketplace.


No, you didn't say that evolutionary based product development has to be unethical. Unfortunately, though, in the real world, it would appear to encourage it at times. Although I suspect that product development has been operating along these lines quite some time before the rise of evolutionary theory. Perhaps the greatest benefit of evolutionary theory has been to give it the label 'survival of the fittest' and to justify it as simply being our 'animal instinct'--the only 'ethic' that seem to have come from evolutionary theory.


It is the philosophical principles that I'm discussing here, not using it as demonstration for evolution. Of course it's not. Just another example of how science and the concepts derived from it, including evolution (as a concept) have helped technology.

I actually don't think that it has helped technology very much. Values such as honesty and integrity and fairness go a good deal further to help technology than 'survival of the fittest'. Remember that 'survival of the fittest' could also result in a suppression of technological advancements. One example would be the oil companies buying the patents for oil-free power sources, and bloody sitting on them.

I could just as easily turn this argument around : Humans, being the social animals that they are, are looking for acceptance and love in other humans. If they find that love to be "imperfect", and not adequate to their perceived needs, they might invent themselves a perfect god and imagine the perfect love from him/her. The desire to be loved would suddenly become religous desire.

(chuckles) By Jingos, you are right! It could be turned around. So then we need to look at the possibility of God being a human construct, rather than an independent reality. One approach would be to compare all the various religions of the world, and to gain enough information to make some generalisations. If we found one some good generalisations, and yet found that Christianity (or some other religion) did not fit with these generalisations, would it be possible that this would suggest that Christianity was invented by God rather than by humans? C.S. Lewis writes a great article about this.

Alternatively, going back to our original point, perhaps we could already rule out the possibility of inventing a god to fill our desires (e.g. for perfect love) since human desire for perfection might be evidence that perfection does indeed exist. The argument is that why would we want love and perfection in the first place if we did not know that they existed?

Perhaps one could view many of the pagan religions as expressions of human desires, e.g. to be immortal, powerful, etc. Maybe these could be taken as human inventions, because living a long time and being stronger than your opponent are obvious advantages. But the desire to give yourself completely to God (Christianity) is not so easily explained in terms of advantages. Or is it?

(chuckles) By Jingos, you are right! It could be turned around. So then we need to look at the possibility of God being a human construct, rather than an independent reality. One approach would be to compare all the various religions of the world, and to gain enough information to make some generalisations. If we found one some good generalisations, and yet found that Christianity (or some other religion) did not fit with these generalisations, would it be possible that this would suggest that Christianity was invented by God rather than by humans? C.S. Lewis writes a great article about this.


I don't believe that the mere fact that one religion being radically different from all other religions would automatically be a prove for it to be inspired by a supernatural being.
Religions are philosophies about supernatural beings and/or the afterlife. The one religion that is in fact radically different is Buddhism, as it doesn't focus on any form of god or gods. It's the only know atheistic religion. Does that make it the only true religion, then?


Alternatively, going back to our original point, perhaps we could already rule out the possibility of inventing a god to fill our desires (e.g. for perfect love) since human desire for perfection might be evidence that perfection does indeed exist. The argument is that why would we want love and perfection in the first place if we did not know that they existed?

An ideal is an abstraction. The capability of abstract thought is what creates the desire for ideal in humans.

And the desire for something can hardly be prove for its existance, I think. No proof of gods existance there, sorry.


Perhaps one could view many of the pagan religions as expressions of human desires, e.g. to be immortal, powerful, etc. Maybe these could be taken as human inventions, because living a long time and being stronger than your opponent are obvious advantages. But the desire to give yourself completely to God (Christianity) is not so easily explained in terms of advantages. Or is it?

I think as mankinds understanding of the world around them grew, religions had to grow with it and become more and more abstract. What used to be perceived as divine action can now just as easily be explained as a natural phenomenon. Religion moved away from explaining, and from offering concrete help in this world and started to focus on the next world. Just have a look at the old testament : the rewards for following god there were just what you describe as typical for pagan religions. He granted long life, he gave offspring, he gave power, he protected.
I'd say Christianity is merely the next step in the evolution of religions, taking away all those aspects that could be explained without god and might therefore be used as a prove that the whole belief structure is flawed. It focuses instead on the psyche, or the soul if you want.
And I would say that yes, there are advantages in that for people who feel the need for religion. My guess is that you create for yourself a sensation of being accepted, loved, taken care of, being meaningful and important and of being special to someone or something. All very basic human desires that can be fulfilled that way.

I don't believe that the mere fact that one religion being radically different from all other religions would automatically be a prove for it to be inspired by a supernatural being.

Heck, no. I never said anything about automatic proof. Mere speculation, or evidence that makes a possibility seem a little more likely, not proof.


Religions are philosophies about supernatural beings and/or the afterlife.

I would say that genuine religion is man's attempt to find God (whatever He/She/It is).


The one religion that is in fact radically different is Buddhism, as it doesn't focus on any form of god or gods. It's the only know atheistic religion. Does that make it the only true religion, then?

But what makes Buddhism so similar to many of the others is this concept of having to earn your way into an acceptable state (in this case peaceful oblivion, or karma). Christianity is radically different from all the others in that the price of arriving at the acceptable state (relationship with the Father) is already paid by Christ, and does not require our hard work to achieve it.

But you do have a point. How are we to determine what is radically different, since perhaps each religion can be described as having something different from all the others? We would need to look at the type of difference, and whether it could be conceivably be a human invention--or if it seems to run contrary to all human inventions.



An ideal is an abstraction. The capability of abstract thought is what creates the desire for ideal in humans.

And the desire for something can hardly be prove for its existance, I think. No proof of gods existance there, sorry.


There you go with that proof thing, again.

The presence of such desires will not necessarily prove that they are placed there by God, but they certainly fit with Him. Naturally, simply because they fit does not make them proof, or even believable evidence. However, what can be done is to put such an idea to the test--to see if it works in one's own life. My testimony is that it really does, and far better than I ever expected. But my testimony cannot be taken as proof either, at least not for anyone other than myself.


I think as mankinds understanding of the world around them grew, religions had to grow with it and become more and more abstract. What used to be perceived as divine action can now just as easily be explained as a natural phenomenon. Religion moved away from explaining, and from offering concrete help in this world and started to focus on the next world. Just have a look at the old testament : the rewards for following god there were just what you describe as typical for pagan religions. He granted long life, he gave offspring, he gave power, he protected.
I'd say Christianity is merely the next step in the evolution of religions, taking away all those aspects that could be explained without god and might therefore be used as a prove that the whole belief structure is flawed. It focuses instead on the psyche, or the soul if you want.
And I would say that yes, there are advantages in that for people who feel the need for religion. My guess is that you create for yourself a sensation of being accepted, loved, taken care of, being meaningful and important and of being special to someone or something. All very basic human desires that can be fulfilled that way.

I can understand the rationality of such an argument, however, I can also see that it doesn't fit with my experience. Thus, I have good enough grounds to reject your explanation as not representing reality that I perceive. The thing is, when one encounters Jesus, one's life becomes changed. The commitment to faith in God is not closing ones eyes to the other possibilities, since I can easily see your way of looking at things too. Rather, it is the commitment to live one's life consistently (as best as one can) to something that one believes is true.

Confirmation of the rightness of such a commitment comes along the way, just as Christ promised. The old way of looking at things is discarded because one can see more clearly. The sensation of being loved and cared for is not one of my own making, since I can easily see that I really am cared for in so many more practical ways, in comparison to those who do not follow Christ. That's why I can say without a doubt that Jesus really is the answer for the world, or at least, I can see how he has been the real answer to my desires, and when I see the same desires in the people around me, I can't help but encourage them to look in the same direction.