The good guys win again

[Rooster7]

Fishsqueezer,

 

I agree that we should not attempt to put God in a box. However, I think those who embrace evolution tend to do so because they have done exactly that. They cannot comprehend a God so omnipotent that He could create the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. Yet, they can easily imagine a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs. Go figure.

 

Please point me to a trustworthy resource that concurs with this thought Evolution, while greatly argued right after Origin of Species, was accepted as mainstream by science, the public, and most religious publications by around 1865.

 

This is a pretty wild assertion. I doubt that the science community had widely accepted it at that point in time, much less the general public and most churches.

 

[Scoutndad]

Firstpusk, the question was not directed to you individually, but a great response nonetheless.

 

And no pun intended, but I was not fishing, Fishsqueezer. I believed my question to be neutral and not intended to dichomotize this discussion. (Otherwise we would be back in to the "he said - she said" debate)

 

From some of the postings (not just this forum), would you not agree that there may be serious religious differences that exist between leaders and scouts (especially given the title-anyone want to explain that to a scout that is reading this thread)?

 

My question is related to the extent that the BSA promotes a faith based program and the adverserial beliefs of some of the people involved with the program.

To further the neutrality, how would a leader portray their preference of tying a square knot when a bowline would be more appropriate? Both may work fundamentally, but if the court struck down the usage of the bowline knot being taught to everyone, how would the leader then approach the subject that knots are knots no matter what you do or what a court rules or opines. And that no knots are "superior" to others but an understanding of other knots are paramont to understanding "Why" the scout feels his knot is the best one for him.

whew....no more knot analogies.

 

 

[Fishsqueezer]

Rooster

 

Here are some sites you might peruse. I suppose the key word in your request is "trustworthy" since it is not likely you will trust anything that disagrees.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/index.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~jjkeggi/SOSc/ (Society of Ordained Scientists)

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/bowler.htm

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin/DarwinSem-S95.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

 

You might also read Evolution: The History of an Idea by Peter Bowler and Darwin in America: The Intillectual Response 1865-1912 by Cynthia Russett.

 

 

[firstpusk]

Rooster,

 

You and I have been down this road before - this question of putting God in a box. You claim I can't comprehend a God creating everything in seven days. I can comprehend the idea. The problem is, this doesn't fit any of the observations.

 

As for me easily imagining "a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs." I can't. That is because you don't understand how evolution is supposed to work. Evolution does not act on individuals but populations. The individuals that are best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. We have living examples of fish that move pond to pond breathing air when the environment requires it. I read an excellent article in Scientific American in December talking about recent finds and our improved understanding of this transition. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000

 

There were certainly a number of clergy that reacted with anger to Darwin's book. Bishop Wilberforce's reaction would be considered typical, but that is not the case. In general, the theory was pretty well accepted in Great Britain even among the clergy.

 

Darwin was trained as a parson although he never earned a living preaching. However, a significant group of the precursors of Darwin and early adopters of his theory were preachers. Many of the early fossil finds and work in geology was done by country parsons. Most educated folks in England understood that the world was ancient. Radiometric dating was a century away. So they didn't know how old but they knew it was much older than the Bible portrays. Darwin was able to explain many observations that made no sense before his theory. That is why it was quite widely accepted soon after it was proposed.

 

 

 

[evmori]

Define a day. 24 hours? That's a human day as defined by humans. A day to God might be the same but do we know? No we don't. As far as man evolving from apes I kinda doubt it. Things do evolve but not into other things.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Fishsqueezer]

Again there is a lack of understanding of evolution. Man did not evolve FROM apes. Man and apes share a COMMON ANCESTOR. How many times have we heard from creationists that scientists just won't look into the possibility of creation? I daresay that more scientists are open to the idea of God than creationists open to the idea of evolution. How many of you have read evolution articles or books from scientists recognized as experts on evolution? I've read the bible many times. I've read ID and creation science articles. I've discussed creation many times with people in my church and other churches. How much effort have you put into understanding evolution?

[packsaddle]

Back to earth, perhaps to stay now. Hi GopherJudy, nice to hear from you again.

 

I am involved locally with another of these attempts to corrupt science curricula in the public schools. There is a pattern to these attempts and the more the attempts are made, the clearer the pattern becomes.

As the decision pointed out, modern fundamentalism originated in reaction to Darwin's theory. Fundamentalism essentially views science as an anti-religion force but having capitulated in the physical sciences, fundamentalism clings to its declining ground in the field of biology. I understand how easy it is to have that view if one does not understand the philosophy of science. However, one pattern that I have noticed locally is a constant and explicit desire by those supporting ID not to discuss philosophy. Indeed, they are clear in their statements that philosophy should be kept out of the schools. This has puzzled me because philosophy is the place where the difference actually occurs. Why not address the problem at that level?

One answer is that having linked fundamentalism to the conflict, the conflict must thereby be maintained. "Teach the controversy."

 

But in the end, the essence of ID is quite simple.

ID states that certain phenomena are so complex, irreducibly complex, and beyond our understanding that their existence must have come about as a result of some kind of intelligence...the intelligent designer.

The problem with this is (as with rainbows, the aurora, and the apparent motions of celestial objects) as we gain sufficient understanding, our ignorance is diminished and most of us no longer embrace such ideas as geocentrism. This has also happened in the field of biology, Theodoric of York not withstanding (nice touch, Merlyn). As our knowledge and understanding of biological structures and processes increased, we abandoned or discredited certain ideas (such as the genetic ideas of T.D. Lysenko).

 

But ID, based on a doctrine of 'irreducible complexity', at one time also would have been applied to the rainbow, the aurora, or the apparent motions of celestial objects. As our knowledge and understanding grew, our ignorance declined and we are now able to explain these phenomena to the satisfaction of most critics. ID essentially derives its strength from ignorance and ID's strength increases with increased ignorance.

It is possible that ID supporters recognize their dependence on ignorance and fear the inescapable extension to faith in general. Indeed, this may be the genesis (pun intended) of the idea that science conflicts with religion.

[My wife at this point in the argument is fond of observing that if all those persons who reject science for religion would also simply reject all medical advances resulting from science, this would shortly be no problem at all.] Theodoric of York is waiting for all of them.

 

But the apparent conflict between science and religion is in the mind of the fundamentalist for the most part, not in the mind of persons who understand science. Science is unable to address the supernatural and therefore cannot address religion either positively or negatively.

 

Not all ID supporters are liars and engaged in a deception. But some are and some of them were discovered in the testimony in the Dover trial. Some others of them are now making political moves locally to circumvent that decision by merely using terminology such as 'critical analysis' and 'alternative theories' in writing new curriculum standards. The lie is apparent and another court case may yet occur as a result.

 

Science has nothing to fear from ID. ID is untestable and strengthened by ignorance. It is a nearly perfect confidence scheme. Science is designed to reject such things and can survive (and has) much greater threats. The attack may seem to be on science but science will survive nicely. The real threat is to science education for our children. Knowledge through ignorance will hardly make them ready to compete in a world where elsewhere real science occurs in science curricula. As another poster observed, looking behind the curtain makes it clear who is to gain from ID's success. And it has virtually nothing to do with good science education.

 

There is another problem for the faithful, however. I challenge all persons on this forum to come forward and state who or what the intelligent designer is, if it is not God. There are two risks in meeting this challenge:

First, if you think another intelligent designer exists, you explicitly deny God and his power over existence. Some might think this to be undesirable.

Second, if you do think the intelligent designer is God, then why don't you openly proclaim this instead of hiding behind 'intelligent designer' as a code for God? To do this is a cowardly denial of God - compounded by subordinating God's power to man's ignorance.

 

ID is a blasphemy that some persons promote fully knowing the deception. And that others promote because they are simply not thinking carefully about the consequences. Neither alternative glorifies God nor promotes good science education.

In the end, the real issue is intrusion by religion into science curricula. And if the ID and fundamentalist movement are successful, it is an iniquity that will indeed be visited on generations of our children. I for one will resist that end.

[Rooster7]

Fishsqueezer,

 

I appreciate the list of web sites. However, since these sites represent hundreds of pages of text, I really dont have the time. Can you provide a quote from a reliable, unbiased source that supports the assertion that the general public and/or the churches of the day in 1865 embraced evolution? Truly, this is an incredible claim.

 

Firstpuck,

 

I understand the concept. However, no matter how you chose to parse words, a segment of a species had to adapt to a changing environment. It matters not to me if this adaptation was serendipitous or self-induced as some sort of survival mechanism, whether it occurred in or out of the womb, or if it required one minute or one million years for it to transpire. The very idea is far-fetched and requires a tremendous amount of faith. Truth be told, evolution is more religion than science. It requires one to stretch his imagination at least as far as any other faith, and it gives many the peace they seek - to enjoy life as they please.

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

Thanks for the clarification. We now know that all supporters of ID are either ignorant or liars. Again, thanks for that enlightening rebuttal.

 

There is another problem for the faithful, however. I challenge all persons on this forum to come forward and state who or what the intelligent designer is, if it is not God.

 

Okay, I believe God is responsible. Someone else could say little green men. A third can claim some other source. What difference does it make? Science does not claim to answer every question.

 

Now its your return. Tell us exactly what caused the big bang. If you cant, perhaps you should abandon that theory.

[OldGreyEagle]

I posted this in 2002, I think this is a place for a repeat:

 

This is purely a fictionally made up account of how I understand adaptation. (or Natural Selection)

 

In a secluded area there may be a herd of antelope and a pride of lions. As the antelope are the lions prime food source, the slower antelopes fall prey easier than faster ones. Over time as the slower animals contribute less and less to the herd's gene pool.The average speed of the herd increase as only the fastest animals are around to breed. Each individual animal isnt thinking, gee, I got to make my child faster, the animals that are the fastest tend to live, mate with other fast antelope and have fast off spring. Being the fastest is an example of "Survival of the fittest

 

Now, of course the same thing may happen with the lions. Now that the Antelope are faster, its harder to catch them. Having a hide/skin color that best blends in with the native vegetation is an asset as it makes being spotted by the antelope harder. Over time having a lighter colored skin helps make the lion a more successful hunter. Over a period of years the prides hides lighten because its the most successful hunters that survive. The lions didnt learn it would be a good idea to have a lighten hide, the ones who had it were able to breed, the others didnt.

 

Now, antelope that have better eyesight than the norm are able to detect the lighten hided lions. As soon as they see them, they take off. Antelope that dont have as good eyesight get eaten. It could be the animals with the better eyesight arent as fast as the antelope they leave behind, but they get way first. Before, being the fastest was prized, now its having the most acute eyesight. Now, not being the fastest but having keen eyesight is an example of "Survival of the fittest".

 

Then the lions.... Ok, I think I can stop now. The animals didnt "learn" anything (the genes in the gene pool remain unchanged, its just that manifestations of some have a greater chance of survival). The environment in which the animals lived dictated what chacteristics were neccessary to survive. The fastest antelope, and then the lighter hided lions and then the sharp eyesighted antelope were natrually selected for survival

 

The above I see as natural selection, but it doesnt explain how a species becomes a differernt species. For example, Domestic dogs are a species and with all the breeding that has done, from toy poodles to irish wolfhounds, characteristics have changed, abilities have changed but the species, the DNA remains the same. I have heard that man and monkey/ape came from a common ancestor, but when? Where? What is the missing link? What natural evolving process gave man consciousness? Why has no other creature gained consciousness, or have they and we dont know? Just an inqusitive mind that wants to know

[Fishsqueezer]

Here you go Rooster

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1860.html

 

c. 1865: Evolution Accepted (Rise of Evolution) (Reconciliation)

Evolution accepted. Some prominent scientists

continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the

Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and

newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers

at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ...

that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation

from others widely different." Still, Darwin's theory for how

evolution happens (via the process he calls "natural selection") continues to be

doubted.

c. 1876: Warfare (Evolution Challenged)

Warfare between science and Christianity? Andrew Dickson White's History of

the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom is a popular but slanted

account. It is published in an era when there is

little hostility between scientists and theologians, and it overemphasizes

conflicts of the past. White, the first president of Cornell

University, is a passionate advocate of teaching science without reference to

religion, and he stresses points of controversy rather than reconciliation. His

work, first published as a slim pamphlet and later as an expanded book, may fuel

strife between evolutionists and fundamentalist Christians in the early 20th

century.

Project Spokespersons

Science Spokespeople

Dr. Kenneth Miller (evolutionary biologist)

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist and evolutionary biologist)

Religious Spokespeople

Reverend Canon Dr. Arthur Peacocke (physical biochemist and Anglican priest)

 

Reverend Dr. Arnold Thomas (minister)

From another page on the same web site entitled Science and Faith http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html

 

For many people of various faiths, support for the scientific theory of

evolution has not supplanted their religious belief. And throughout the modern

Judeo-Christian tradition, leaders have asserted that evolutionary science

offers a valid perspective on the natural world. They say that evolution is

consistent with religious doctrine and complements, rather than conflicts with,

religion. There are, however, some Christians -- in particular, fundamentalists

and some evangelicals -- who perceive a conflict between evolution and their

literal interpretation of the Bible. In this panel, we hear personal

perspectives from scientists and a historian of science -- religious people who

represent a range of faiths.

 

 

 

[evmori]

The above I see as natural selection, but it doesn't explain how a species becomes a different species.

 

I would agree, OGE. One more question, though. How did the speedy antelopes get that way? How did the antelopes with better eyesight get that way? What made the lions hide turn light to make them better hunters? Why haven't the antelopes used their greater numbers and turned on the lions to make them the prey? OK more than one question.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed, I am not sure how to break this to you, but I had thought I was sorta kinda inaway on your side in this debate. If you reread what I posted you will see that I don't think natural selection equals evolution. At least that was my intent, sorry to have confused you

[evmori]

OGE,

I know you are on my side. I guess I should have made it clearer. Those question weren't directed toward you. They are just more questions.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all

[Rooster7]

Fishsqueezer,

 

I see examples of individuals accepting the theory of evolution. But what I don't see is - a statement from one of these individual's indicating that the general public and most churches in 1865 accepted the theory. Some people...some churches...that I believe, but not most. There is a profound difference.