More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't know where to begin reading from your list, but can you sum up how, for example, scientists have proven macro-evolution?

It seems counterintuitive that someone could observe such a process, which, according to theory I was presented, takes place over thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it usually takes a long time. Current theories indicate that it generally takes about 3 million years, on average. Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition.

But certain organisms have very brief lifecycles, and for them, speciation has been directly observed (in nature and in labs): fruit flies, houseflies, flour beetles, worms, mosquitos, green algae, bacteria, and many more.

In fact, we've even directly observed speciation in mammals. Six instances of speciation have occurred in house mice within the past 500 years. Britton-Davidian, J., J. Catalan, et al. (2000) "Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice." Nature 403: 158.

See the "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ from Talk.Origins for more on this subject.

[Dan Mezick]

Creationists come in different brands:

Some are literalists regarding the Bible accounts.

Some consider the Bible stories to be allegorical and not literal.

I think all of them believe life was created by 'God' and that the spark of life was not some random event, but rather a creative event from a Creator.

Not all 'creationists' take the Bible literally. These guys certainly dont:

Cosmic Ancestry

Note that the origin of life and the origin of existence and matter are completely separate topics. It's somewhat sloppy to consider both at the same time.

The origin of life on earth in certainly something to ponder.

[arabie]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The theory that we evolved from a specific creature is theoritically based. Evolution patterns can be seen before your eyes, how much more evidence do you need?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a theory about the origin of life on earth?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about one? The origin of life on earth is generally referred to as "abiogenesis." I don't know that we have anything that qualifies as a theory yet, but there's some interesting speculation supported by experiments involving the the formation of amino acids.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly evolution is a flawed theory along these lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly gravity is a flawed theory along these lines as well. So?

[ QUOTE ]
Refining a species OK. Mutating new species, maybe, but on thin ice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations resulting in the formation of new species have been directly obvserved many times. To say that it's on thin ice is to betray your ignorance on the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Citing evolutionary evidence within a species, or the spawning of new species via mutation to support that same theory for explaining the origin of life is faulty logic on bad premises.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing nobody's done that, then.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a kind of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are using an extremely non-standard (and non-sensical) definition of religion.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is both.

<font color="blue">"Evolution" is like "gravity." It refers both to a) a fact, directly observable, and b) a number of theories to describe how it happens.

Evolution is a fact, directly observable. Even speciation events have happened within a recent human lifetime. Furthermore, evolution by artificial selection is entirely uncontroversial; nobody sane doubts that sweet corn, cauliflower, and broccoli are the products of a long time of selective breeding by humans.

Evolution by natural selection is a highly successful theory to explain the observed fact that it occurs without humans to guide it.

All theories are models, or guesses if you like. But the observed fact of evolution is not based on models, assumptions, or guesses. Rather, people invent the models in an attempt to explain the observed facts. All of them are approximations; the best you can say about a theory is that it is consistent with observation to the accuracy and precision of your measurement.

Gravity, like evolution, is an observed fact. Things fall; you can try this at home. People invent theories to describe these observed facts. Aristotle came up with a theory that was truly bogus but probably sufficient for people who didn't think too hard. Kepler came up with three laws that were a good theory for a while. Newton came up with a much better theory that explained Kepler's 3 laws in terms of 2 laws. Einstein came up with an even better theory. People have been trying to come up with still better ones but so far haven't had a lot of stellar success.

Saying that Einstein's theory of gravitation may not be the last word does not imply in any way that gravity isn't a fact.

-- Eric Pepke</font>

[maurile]

These paragraphs from St. Augustine are still eerily relevant today.

<font color="blue">Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.' (1 Timothy 1.7)

St. Augustine (ca 400AD)</font>

Sixteen centuries later, this same theme is expressed more colorfully, if less politely, in the following form letter Lenny Flank sends to people who email him with their religious views in response to his website on evolution.

<font color="blue">I apologize for the form letter. I get emails from so many fundamentalist wackos that I simply don't have time to respond to them all individually.

I am an ordained minister with a doctoral degree in divinity. Despite that, I have no interest at all in debating theology with you, for two reasons: (1) theology is simply not relevant to the scientific question of whether or not life evolves over time, and (2) since your pipeline to God isn't any more direct than mine or anyone else's, your religious opinion doesn't mean any more than mine or anyone else's.

You do, though, seem to be under the ignorant delusion that evolutionary biology is somehow anti-god or anti-religion. It isn't. Evolutionary biology is no more "atheistic" than is mathematics, economics, or the rules of baseball. That's why most biologists in the US identify themselves as Christians. That's why all but two of the 14 plaintiffs who filed suit in Arkansas to have creation "science" kicked out of public schools were ministers, clergymen and representatives of religious orders and denominations. That's why every mainstream Protestant denomination on earth accepts all of modern science, including evolutionary biology, and sees no conflict between it and Christian faith. In fact, the vast majority of Christians view creationists as doing tremendous harm to Christianity, by making Christianity look silly, stupid, backwards, ignorant, uneducated and simple-minded. Every time some fundamentalist fruitcake screams "science is atheistic!!!!" at the top of his lungs, he merely reinforces the popular stereotype that people have of Christians as half-educated backwoods redneck hicks who live in trailer parks in small southern towns and who probably married a close relative in a ceremony led by Reverend Billy Joe Bob.

If your religion says life doesn't evolve, then your religion is wrong. Just as it was wrong when it said the earth doesn't move. Of course, there are still Christians who refuse to accept that the earth does move, since their idol-worship of the Bible compels them to reject all of modern science. Just as you make the claim that a True Christian(tm) can't accept evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, they make the claim that a True Christian(tm) can't accept a moving earth because THAT conflicts with the Bible. Both creationists and geocentrists do nothing more than make Christianity look stupid and silly.

I do not know anybody who was won to Christianity as a result of creation "science". But I do know personally at least six educated people who were driven away from Christianity as a result of the silly things that creationists try to pass off on people. If "the tree is known by its fruits", then it must be said that creationism seems to be one of the most effective tools that Satan has to drive educated people away from Christianity.

It took some Christians four centuries to accept the fact that Copernicus and Galileo were right, and the earth moves around the sun. Apparently, it will take another four centuries for certain "Christians" to accept that Darwin was right too, and life evolves.

Stop making Christianity look silly and stupid. Stop driving educated people away from Christianity.

I am asking this as an ordained minister.

Lenny Flank</font>

I wonder what the 3600 A.D. version will look like?

[goldcowboy]

Thank you, Maurile, thank you! (I couldn't have said it better myself...)

[toots]

That really was a wonderful pair of quotes.

Thank you.

[CrisBrown]

maurile,

I will join the chorus of "thank you's" for your having done the work of finding and posting those quotes. It's nice to see the argument framed so eloquently.

Cris

[carlo]

Dear Maurile,
That in no way places Augustine in your or any other corner. It is certainly not a justification for the"science of evolution". Augustine as a thinker from a Manichean background took the jump to the church on faith in a total act of acceptance. In early Christianity there were those who were there and every man could refer to someone who had been there and could testify to the Christ apperance on the earth. This of course ran its course with traditon,belief, etc. following. This was carried on by the Catholic Church which of course was the Christian Church until the reformation. Make no mistake about it, Augustine was no scientific materialist by any stretch of the imagination.

To place Augustine and Flank on the same page is an egregious error and displays a total lack of understanding of Augustine or even what Flank is saying.

The only connection is that Augustine is counseling his brothers and sisters in the Church whereas Flank is displaying a one sided belief in his " religion of scientific materialism" under the guise of a frock.

regards,

carlo