Dan,

Cases you quoted where "but we know some cases where they (forensic science) appear to have really botched it (e.g. the case of Azaria Chamberlain)."

Were traversties of justice simply because there was no forensic evidence to prove the case. This is not the fault of forensic science, only over zealous prosecutors manipulating evidence.

With evolution the evidence is overwhelming, against evolution there is only denial.

Dan,
>>why is she (the Catholic Church) having this conference and affirming a priori the theory of evolution?<<
Because she thinks there is still a need to explain why and how the belief in God the Creator is COMPATIBLE with what evolution theories have to offer. The fact that there are scientists who are also believing Christians, some even theologians (who do not think that “anti-Biblical implications are inherent within the theory of evolution”) is a strong argument for this compatibility in spite of the fact that there are others who believe these things are not compatible: for instance most atheists and others who interpret the Book of Genesis verbatim.

I suppose the Conference organisers did not invite “creationist scientists“ for two reasons: (1) because whatever their scientific credentials they are considered marginal within the mainstream scientific community, and (2) because they never draw conclusions that would clash with what the Church stood for, hence no need to clarify anything.

I never claimed that ALL world-views were based on science. By those whose “world-views are based on science ONLY” I was just describing people for whom the only Reality is that which senses and instruments can access and science can model.

>> the Bible states clearly that he took dust of the earth and formed it into a man.<<
The exact quote in KVJ is “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ...” (Gen 2:7) Do you have to take the dust verbatim? What about the nostrils? How else would you explain to people at that level of “scientific knowledge” and philosophical sophistication (including the author) that man is made of matter (the “dust”) endowed with consciousness (the image of God or soul) that no other creature has?

>> It was not a continuation or upgrade from another animal <<
No, there is no mention of an “upgrade from animal”, neither is there a mention of many other things, e.g. that our body is made of cells, that consciousness “resides“ in the brain, etc.

david f,
Whilst we both agree on the basis for “randomness” in the universe, our approach to its underlying implication appears somewhat different. Dan may feel the ‘deeper’ echelon of science to operate from within a vacuum, through his literal observation, but as George and others allude, "Faith is perhaps stronger than reality, for faith itself creates reality." Now, that can equally work for the fanatic or those who are peaceful. Our response to ‘faith’ can be tempered, where our ‘memes’ are certainly not the ultimate determinate for behaviour, as perhaps Richard Dawkins may have us mistakenly believe. DNA is a building block but cannot be considered the only ‘key’ for the repair of damaged ‘goods’.

I would also wonder at the distance you suggest separating us from the insect world – I would have thought a more pronounced hierarchy exists. Evolution reveals a process where the irreducibly simple flows on to the incredibly complex. Our introversion, however, often mistakenly places us further down the chain than we need. Perhaps a question for another day.

My mention of Singer and the Rand Institute is an illustration of pure utilitarian thought – rationalism at its considered ‘best’. Both examples illustrate current and persuasive thinking, both are powerfully influential. One idea, through the symbolic, is destructive – the other is the inevitable logistic, leading to a catastrophic change, and one which environmentalists clearly avoid, not because the risk isn't real but because it's too undefinable.

You state your Jewish heritage, or at least appear to have some affiliation with Judaic belief, so perhaps you realise, the pre-condition for Israel being an ‘or lagoyim’, a light unto the nations, depends on it first being an ‘or layehudim’, a light unto the Jewish people. If you advocate that the Jewish people become a 'goy kechol hagoyim', or a nation like all the nations, then you confound its history where its very basis is founded on ‘am segulah’, or ‘a distinctive people.’

My apologies for a lazy post that points to a past article but on reading the above I think it might help.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6951

Peter Sellick

Dear Relda,

I don’t think we have a distance separating us from the insect world. The boundary between reason and instinct is unclear. I cited the bee’s sacrifice of life for the good of the hive as moral behaviour though it could be categorized as instinctive.

Certainly memes are no more deterministic than genes. However, both genes and memes are factors in our behaviour.

Actually evolution does not flow from the irreducibly simple to the incredibly complex. It may flow in either direction. Evolution has produced parasites. All parasites descend from free-living ancestors who had to move around to find sustenance and mate. Their parasitic descendants in many cases are reduced to a digestive system with an apparatus at one end that attaches to the host and sexual organs for reproduction. Parasites adapted to their environment by discarding unneeded capabilities and reducing complexity.

Evolution can also result in fewer metabolic options for life forms. One-celled prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus - bacteria) existed for possibly 2 billion years until the nucleated eukaryotes appeared. There was another long period before multicelled organisms appeared. Bacteria can survive by aerobic respiration, aerobic photosynthesis, anaerobic chemicoheterotrophy (fermenting bacteria), anaerobic chemicoheterotrophy (sulfate-reducing bacteria), anaerobic chemicoheterotrophy (methanogenesis), anaerobic photoautotrophs and many other means. The ‘more complex’ animals and plants depend only on aerobic respiration and aerobic photosynthesis.

Evolution can occur through symbiosis. Two symbionts can form a permanent association as in lichen or the eukaryotic cell. Read Lynn Margulis’ Origin of Eukaryotic Cells for an account of the process.

Read http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/evolving-the-single-daddy/index.html for an account of a clam, a tree and a stick insect which only get genes from the male parent.

The common picture of creatures becoming more and more complex until they result in the culmination of humanity is simply an idea we impose on the process. Stephen J. Gould has written several essays on the subject opposing the view of evolution as a ladder. We can think of the various pathways as a bush whose branches may unite.

Natural selection can take so many paths that it is difficult to generalize about the process.

Dear Relda,

You wrote: “If you advocate that the Jewish people become a 'goy kechol hagoyim', or a nation like all the nations, then you confound its history where its very basis is founded on ‘am segulah’, or ‘a distinctive people.’”

I belong to a Jewish congregation in Brisbane.

As I indicated when commenting on Lustiger's book I think the idea of a chosen people is a very bad one. I think setting standards for other people is arrogant self-righteousness. I object to Christians sending out missionaries and telling other people what they should believe and Jews lighting the way to proper behaviour for others. We can’t know enough to decide what is right for others.

I advocate that we recognise reality. We Jews are part of humanity.

We are a diverse people with diverse opinions. We encompass ultra-orthodox who refuse to shake hands with women they are not married to, rabbis like Kamins who preside over same sex marriage, Karaites who reject rabbinic Judaism along with the Talmud and only recognize the Jewish Bible as a sacred book, atheists, extreme conservatives, Marxists, Zionists, those opposed to ethnic nationalism, for complete separation of church and state and non-discrimination according to religion or ethnicity etc. Which light should we beam?

Re confounding history. The Zionist movement had as a goal to set up a nation so that Jews could be like the others.

Shakespeare with his humanity:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Read pp. 231-243 in “The Death of Sigmund Freud”