One of the things that interests me is the frequent assertion by some critics of Christianity that it is anti-science. It may be true of some of the smaller denominations, and some sects. It may also be true of some believers. But it is not true of the major denominations, nor of most theologians.

When I came across this link http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2009.htm about Evolution Weekend I thought it might provoke some better and more informed debate.

Evolution is a core belief of Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination. Anglicans (my brand) accept it, as do Uniting Church. Not sure about the Orthodox churches.

I see that our Christian-in-Chief, the Prime Minister, accepts it, but with an intelligent design gloss that could be worth discussing. Because if you don't have an intelligent design gloss (which I don't) where does that leave God? Does he just light the fuse and walk away - a prime mover, and not much more, with fewer gaps to fill? Or do we need a different concept of God?

Can God be in some senses a science project where hypotheses of what he/she might be are used to construct a better understanding? If this is the case, where does that leave the common protestant stress on the inerrancy of the bible as the received word of God?

It's ironic to me how Atheists are more than comfortable in describing what I believe based on preconceived misconceptions.

Because I'm a Christian they will tell you how I'm anti-abortion, anti-science and evolution, about how I think Church and State shouldn't be separated, about how I'm intolerant of Atheism, about how I'm anti-gay marriage and them having children, when funnily enough I'm exactly the opposite.

STG,

It is good to see that there are christians able to make rational judgements about science and society.

I was beginning to think that a lobotomy was a pre requisite for christian advocacy.

Was thinking the same about Atheism.

These are interesting questions Graham.

My first experience with this notion that some Christians believe that evolution is part God's grand design came from my Anglican neighbours.

It was the first time I realised that some Christians accept the science of evolution. And stories such as that of Adam and Eve serve, in their mind, as symbols rather than literal. Those writings came from a more primitive time but are still revered to being the word of God. Where does that leave the stories of Moses bringing down the tablets from the Mount?

Can one truly be seen as a Christian as defined by the stalwarts if they embrace the concept of evolution?

If Christians take that step of questioning old notions of Adam and Eve to accept the theory of evolution, why does that not also open a window to other questions about the integrity of the written word and the existence of God?

Some Catholic Priests have come out in the past admitting they did not believe in God (as we understand him), only that the world is a better place with (the concept of) God in it; and the setting of a moral framework, even if sometimes that framework can be distorted to its most ugliest as well as it's most beautiful.

It would seem that the discussion boils down to whether one believs a moral framework or agreed set of human values can serve the same purposes through means other than religion.

Dear Graham,

I found an interesting explanation in the
World Book Encylopedia, under the heading,
"Evolution and Religion." And I quote:

" Judaism, Christianity, and a number of other
religions teach that God is the sole guiding force
in the universe. According to the Bible, God is
the Creator, Sustainer, and Ultimate End of all
things. The wide variety of forms of life is
interpreted as a reflection of His love and
inspiration. The Bible also states that human beings
were created in the image of God and therefore were
elevated above all other forms of life.

Some people find it difficult to reconcile these
views with the concept that life on earth has evolved
through natural processes. These people feel that the
evolutionary theory conflicts with the Bible's teachings
regarding the reality of sin and of redemption from sin.
They believe that sin tends to become mere imperfection if
humans are seen to be in the process of evolving from
a lower state, and therefore the Gospel of redemption
from the guilt of sin tends to lose meaning.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious beliefs.
Biblical scholars tend to interpret the story of the
Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal, account of
of the origin of human beings and other living things.
They don't find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists. "

Religion, like art, is very subjective. Many people
don't accept the theory of evolution because they feel it
conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, when
all's said and done - I feel that the idea that
human beings evolved
from lower forms of life - shouldn't diminish the uniqueness
of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilisations.

From my POV regarding evolution from Adam and Eve. I have NO IDEA as to whether Adam and Eve is more symbolic towards the more Neanderthal version of us having moved to a more enlightened train of thought through a realization or ability to solve problems than actually just appearing out of a 'bolt of lightening', so to speak. Isn't it obvious - from a Christian POV - that the colour of people from various races is merely an environmental adaptation, or evolution...?.

I start having issues with religion when discussion becomes frowned upon.

You have made a very good point there StG...< "Isn't it obvious - from a Christian POV - that the colour of people from various races is merely an environmental adaptation, or evolution...?."

I grew up a Catholic Christian, and attended a Catholic girls high school for all my schooling. While we had Religion classes where we studied the bible etc, we also had Human Biology classes.

We were taught about evolution and the various theories of the time about the different stages of human development. It was my favourite subject!

At no time did anyone in our religion classes say anything against what was taught in the Human Biology classes or vice versa. Although, we were taught the biology by a lay teacher.

I have therefore had no trouble coexisting with both principles, and I believe that the bible has told us only symbolic stories about our human beginnings.
I now make up my own mind about the evolution of our species rather than believing what our ancestors and an ancient book believed in.

The thread will be a long one ,we talk a great deal once we start about this subject.
No harm in that, both sides feel they know the answers but I regret to say we truly do not.
Last night on my way home from a long day I tuned to ABC radio.
The talk was about us being hard wired to believe in superstitions, and act in certain ways, from childhood.
I mean no offense, but in posts from me, and other non believers I/WE get a bit rude at those who do not share our views.
I see some of that[ maybe I am wrong?] in STG and others in defense of their views.
What of God if evolution is excepted by Christians, what of Christ, did he exist.
Was he the son of the creator?
Why the very many Gods
Why so different.
We should not brand our God as the only/right one
Is it not evident they evolved in different environments just as different races and colors did.
If God made us he also made us different and just maybe himself different for different environments.
I think we Will see trench's being dug by both sides in this thread and occupied as people dig in defending their views.
If I say Catholics have been evolutionary in their belief it is just because they have.
Remember what they did to a man who told them about the movement of planets .
Yet now the are evolutionists.
One thing I do believe mankind needs to believe , in the sometimes unbelievable.
If God ever existed my view is he/she is not truly known to us.

I know lots of practising Christians, and most of them seem to have little difficulty in reconciling evolution by natural selection with their faith. However, they are not biblical literalists - although I have had the odd interesting conversation about "intelligent design" with some. Most seem willing to regard the Bible as something that has to be interpreted in order to be understood properly, which leaves intellectual space for rationalisation in which religious belief defers to science when they are in conflict.

I agree that this could become an interesting discussion, despite the fact that it seems to me that the subject has been done to death on OLO. It could even be amusing - where's runner, by the way?

I guess, as a Christian with the ability to think you kinda consider the non-literal side of the teachings as being open to interpretation. The bible was sold to me as lessons for interacting with the world around me and the people in it. Probably more or less an extension of traditional family morals. Possibly as a kid I took the teachings of the bible as parallel to being the sort of person my parents wished me to be. The bible is full of examples of lessons we learn as a person stumbling our way through this life. For me, I guess, those stories reassure me that I'm not the only person having gone through those trials. You're not alone, so to speak, when sometimes it feels like it.

As for the bible itself I'm fully aware that through history people in power with varying degrees of agenda were the only ones with access to the teachings and those very people saw the value in control of the masses and the power that fear and faith really does have. Suicidal Muslims and people like the followers of David Koresh are classic examples. Probably this is why I question the bible in the literal sense of blind faith and run with "treat others as you wish to be treated" way of thinking. IF this way of living isn't good enough for God, then so be it, but I gave it my best. I'm human, and I'm fallible, I'm sure God knows this.

As for God. I take "him" as a cosmic energy over some old bloke.

Church?, I find the churches full of hypocrites, and probably the biggest lesson I have learned from the bible was via Thomas: Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

lol I guess I could write a book on what I believe, but one thing's for sure, it's ever evolving.

Graham:

It's not only Christians who have problems with evolution.

Most Jews are secular – like me. We have no problem with evolution. Neither, on the whole, do "Liberal", "Reform" and "Conservative" Jews. Orthodox Jews are split. Some reject evolution. Others have found ways of interpreting the Torah to accommodate it.

Sects like Chabad reject evolution outright. Some of their rationalisations are quite funny. "Dinosaur" bones are really the bones of lizards that swelled up as a result of being submerged by the flood! Yes, really! That's what kids attending a Chabad kindergarten have told me in all solemnity.

Muslims on the whole find it difficult to accept that apes, dogs, pigs and humans could have a common ancestor. The most prominent Muslim creationist writer seems to be Harun Yahya. Here is a link to his website:

http://www.harunyahya.com/

However here's the kicker.

THE PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO HAVE THE GREATEST PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION ARE ATHEIST LEFTIES.

If you entirely reject evolution you have no ideological problems. Whatever research on human evolution turns up has no affect on your ideology.

However, many on the Left have great difficulty accommodating the IMPLICATIONS of recent findings about human evolution to their ideology. The modern "evolution wars" appear to have started with the publication of Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265930515&sr=1-1

The definitive account of this early skirmish is "Defenders of the Truth" by Ullica Siegerstrale. See:

http://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Truth-Sociobiology-Ullica-Segerstrale/dp/0192862154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265930672&sr=1-1-spell

Since then, especially in the last decade, matters have gone from bad to worse for the Left

Graham,

If you are not disturbed by what we now know about human evolution then you don’t understand the problem.

But that's probably a topic for a different thread

Steven,

I find it interesting that you are more than comfortable with "pigeon holing" people and their beliefs when the gauge you use to box them is the beliefs of others that you agree with. Surely the existence of this thread indicates like a full moon in the dark on over an ocean of theology and ideology that "pigeon holing" in such a topic is oxymoronic, at best.

Be curious to know what YOU think, as opposed to what you agree with.

GrahamY: "If this is the case, where does that leave the common protestant stress on the inerrancy of the bible as the received word of God?"

Spirituality is a basic an instinct as sex. You can even add or remove it via surgery:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-surgery-boosts-spiritual

Given there are actually parts of the brain devoted to it, it must have some evolutionary benefit, otherwise we would not devote the energy to creating those areas of the brain. Thus it is no different to love, pain, greed and empathy.

This leaves those "common protestants" in the position of following their instincts. Nothing more. Mind you, their are many ways you can follow your instincts, some more productive and some less. In our society those common protestants seem to taking the less productive route.

From page 19 of "Fungi" by Roy Watling:

"The reasons for the lack of scientific knowledge of fungi compared with groups such as mammals, fish, birds and flowering plants originate with the early naturalists. They usually considered the fungi to be connected with the devil, and studying them at all was frowned upon by the church, right up to the 19th century, when the rest of natural history was blossoming. As a result of this taboo, scientific understanding of fungi, and especially their classification, has been hindered so much that it is no exaggeration to say that it lags almost 100 years behind that of many organisms. Thankfully, this unfortunate state of affairs is now rapidly changing as biologists appreciate the importance of these remarkable organisms and are searching for them in previously unexplored habitats."

Dear Graham,

Mainstream Christianity has accepted science at this time. However, in the past it was not safe for a scientist to question religious doctrines.

Michael Servetus (1511–1553) was theologian, physician, cartographer and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in medicine and theology. He later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. The Protestant John Calvin had him burned at the stake.

Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), was an Italian philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and occultist best known as a proponent of heliocentrism and the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies. The Catholic Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and had him burned at the stake.

Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity either. He was more circumspect in his beliefs than Bruno or Servetus. After his death his heresy was discovered in the writings he left.

Considering that Christian fundamentalists have a strong voice in the US Congress I suspect NASA scientists do not feel free to announce unorthodox religious beliefs.

The problem with Jews and Christians who believe in evolution is that the theory is inconsistent with the account of the origin of species in the book of Genesis.

(But if what the scriptures teach is a matter of 'interpretation', how could the standard of picking and choosing be anything but arbitrary? Since it does not take its authority from scripture, why would any part of the belief system need have any part of its basis in scripture?)

>Because if you don't have an intelligent design gloss (which I don't) where does that leave God?

It leaves God as a disproved or at best unproved hypothesis.

>Does he just light the fuse and walk away - a prime mover, and not much more…

… an explanation that is neither consistent with scripture nor with evolutionary theory.

>Or do we need a different concept of God?

As to the origin of species, you haven’t established that you need any concept of God.

Contrary to popular theological claims, the proposition that God created the world, including all species of life, is a scientific hypothesis, on which the panoply of scientific inquiry is capable of being brought to bear. It’s just that the evidence for it is very thin on the ground, and the reasoning entirely circular, and there are enormous evidentiary difficulties with it.

I have yet to meet a creationist or ‘intelligent design’ist who has actually read Origin of Species. All arguments as to intelligent design that I have seen are basically re-runs of arguments Darwin has refuted, or exploded, in his magnum opus. Its critics should at least read it and have some intelligent response, before trying to re-vivify the dreary corpse of mediaeval theology in modern garb.

If you share my view man invented Gods, do not see it as a weakness.
Or as a need for a reason to live, a crutch or straw to cling to.
See it as I do, proof we want to be better, want rules to live by and while our invention is a crutch for some it is a road map of life for far More.
ABC radio again today on the road heard most of an interesting story about Spanish book burning in the name of God.
Mayan books ,as late as 1970 the surviving few books in print had protection prays in the front, ideas that other Gods may exist was seen as the work of the devil by Catholic Spain.
Evolution in Church's, yes for sure but in my view Church's must continue to update the story because man learns more each day.

You knocked my socks off Belly; my philosophies exactly over past years posing those queries to myself. You are the first person I have come across in life raising and posing these lateral thinking points to raise. Wonderful free lateral thinking, highly intelligent individual.

StG

Individuals are infinitely variable in their beliefs. For example, it is hardly controversial to state that Baptist Church doctrine rejects evolution. Yet I know people who describe themselves as Baptists who have no difficulty with evolution.

So, no, I do not claim to know what an INDIVIDUAL believes about evolution based on his religious denomination. If that is what you mean by "pigeon holing" I plead "not guilty".

On the other hand I suspect that MOST people who profess to be Baptists would reject evolution just as I suspect that MOST people who self-identify as Muslims would have difficulty stomaching the notion that humans share a common ancestry with dogs, apes and pigs.

However, StG, I come back to the comment I made in my first post on this thread. In my experience the people who have the greatest difficulties with evolution are Lefties who purport to be atheists. They find the IMPLICATIONS of human evolution hard to accept.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

It's standard Marxist theory to accept evolution in human development up to a point. After humans develop a social matrix Marxist theory takes over and replaces evolution. Humans are then supposed to be sufficiently plastic so that our evolutionary history can be disregarded in the creation of a new society. Of course not all lefties are Marxists.

Graham: "
Evolution is a core belief of Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination. Anglicans (my brand) accept it, as do Uniting Church. Not sure about the Orthodox churches".

Congratulations on the wonderfully black and white world you live in. Evolution is not even a "core belief" among evolutionists; it's the best "theory" to date that accounts for the "subtle" diversity of species and their success or failure in the world.
If it is a "core belief" of the institutional religions, then they've bastardised it; it's undergone a great deal of revision over the years and will undergo a great deal more (it's the same with AGW btw; it's not black and white, though it's definitely looking grey!).
But I don't believe it is, "core" that is; I don't believe the vast majority of the priests, or their "flocks" "believe" in it (though who cares if they do "accommodate" it within their "purview"?). The mainstream churches are institutions precisely because they are "adaptable"--they're chameleons, parasites; able to adapt symbiotically with whichever earthly power is most likely to prevail; their primary function is to support hegemony.
One has at least to respect the loony fundies for their sincerity--their stupendous credulity. The mainstream churches are as worldly and as cynical as any government, more so! (my uncle was the bishop of Nottingham byw, the established church of course, supped with the Queen--I could tell you some stories! Nothing that would shock of course; we're all desensitised to the evils of the mainstream churches by now).
As for Rudd, Howard et al, they may of course believe in the merit of their "convictions", though I doubt it--more likely they believe in the sincerity of their hubris (an easy accomplishment). But the truth is, they know how to harness the "popular" electoral/electrical current.
The mainstream churches also "believe" in AGW, do they not?

Is there anything left in the world that some people won't divide into left and right / athiest and thiest?

To suggest that people who hold a "left" wing view on some matters (and who decides what's left, right or centre anyway?) - must automatically be athiests - is pure gibberish.

Are there no right-wing athiests in the world?

I thought Jesus was executed for speaking out against authority.

I know of several right-wing extremist groups who claim to be doing God's work but I think they would be in the minority.

Since Christianity has about 30,000 separate sub-groups - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_meta.htm - I'm not surprised there is no consensus on evolution.

Hindus have their own creation beliefs too but they don't seem to be making any noise about the alternative.

wobbles,

You're right, and I agree. Some people are just more comfortable if they have somewhere to place you in their order of things. Maybe this stems from Universities or something, I don't know, but some people are REALLY OCD about having somewhere to place you. Possibly it's a sort of elitist thing where if you're labelled it makes it easier to look down on you. To me it's like the Astrology of Sociology with Libra, Scorpio etc etc defining everything about you, where partially they are right in some respects but it doesn't allow variations in beliefs based on experiences and personality.

Just a quick question, given Graham's assertion that Christianity is not anti-science:

Why is Creationism/Intelligent Design being taught in schools, such as throughout Queensland?

This mash-up of mythology and misinformation is undermining the concept of science - our children deserve better.

It matters not what you believe but how you treat your fellow man.
How can be have a concept of any superior being when we are incapable of controlling our own excesses and continually rape,pillage,murder and enslave our own kind?

Our concept of god is nothing but a manifestation of our own vanity.Man created god in his own image to serve his own purposes of power over others and alley his insecurities.Man wanted a father figure who was supposed to be infallible.

If there was a god based on our concepts, he would be no more bothered with us,than we the ants beneath our feet.

Measure your godliness by how you treat other people,then you have a starting point to progress.

One of the most fascinating aspects of my study of the law has been the way it has evolved from a Strict Mosaic Law, the Lex Talionis of the Jews and Moses, to what should be the Lex Misericordiae, the Law of Mercy which was introduced by Jesus Christ.

It evolved and transformed itself after the Media started calling for revenge again, and cheering heavy sentences for criminals, and out of all proportion sentences for minor offenders. Jesus Christ with his Lex Misericordiae, the law of forgiveness, on repentance, was the very foundation of the Law of England. Repentance was proved when a criminal paid a fine cheerfully to avoid jail. Those stupid media people who call for harsh sentences which you and I pay for, by maintaining expensive prisons, should do some serious homework, and go into the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) a Commonwealth law, that converts all sentences short of murder, to a monetary figure, and suggest that every prisoner be offered a cash payout instead of jail, and a chance to pay it off instead of serving in a jail at our expense.

The States have evolved into Quasi Gods. A Quasi God, is the God you have to have when Almighty God is no longer respected. Everyone must have a God or society does not function as a whole. The Commonwealth is a God, and Centrelink is it’s St Vincent de Paul society.

The problem we have is that two Justices of the Peace have evolved into a Magistrate. The Magistrate is paid by the same Paymaster as the Police, and the God of the State sets his discretion. This is retrograde evolution, within which a huge number of lawyers are becoming disillusioned. They call the Magistrates Court the sausage factory, where meat is processed on behalf of the State.

I cannot wait for the Australian Federal Police to start getting an education, and start enforcing S 268:10-12 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) against Judges and Magistrates to supply honest and fair services at reasonable cost to a hungry and frustrated public

Peter the Vexacious,
what you talk of is indeed the final hurdle! Why should we cloud legal issues with morals when a monetary solution is ready at hand? But what about the fact that O J Simpson can easily cough up and Chopper Read can't? But sorry, let's not cloud the issue with nonsense about equity, besides, you did say "short of murder". So what about the ATM hacker and the insider trader? I'm sure the latter would be happy to hand over a percentage of his million or billion dollar take to pay off the justice system, but the disillusioned ATM guy already spent his on drugs, and the take wouldn't cover it anyway?
Was God ever respected (I'm not talking lip service)?
Centrelink is the small price spoiled buffoons pay to maintain the lifestyle to which they've (blundered in to) become accustomed.
Congtatulations on your fatuous Latin, but you're a bit short on substance: "retrograde evolution" is a contradiction in terms and lawyers can't get "disillusioned", surely?

Dear Peter Vexatious,

The Lex Talionis (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) of the Jews and Moses was never literally applied since the Torah forbids maiming as punishment. It means there should be appropriate penalties for various actions - generally specified fines. Let the punishment fit the crime. A heavy sentence out of proportion to the offense is a violation of the lex talionis. After punishment the matter is considered settled. This was a great advance over the situation existing at the time. At the time there would be an act of revenge from the victim's family for the wrong and corresponding retribution from the other family. Such blood feuds could go on for generations after the original act was forgotten. The Lex Talionis replaced the blood feud.

I think it is a bad idea to lessen criminal penalties due to a show of remorse. That rewards hypocrisy and punishes sincerity. A hardened criminal can be quite effective at showing remorse. A war protester who has been convicted of destroying draft or conscription files would in general feel that he or she had done nothing wrong and would not feel or show remorse. Justice should be tempered with mercy, but extenuating circumstances should not include showing remorse after conviction.

Peter Vexatious also wrote:

Those stupid media people who call for harsh sentences which you and I pay for, by maintaining expensive prisons, should do some serious homework, and go into the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) a Commonwealth law, that converts all sentences short of murder, to a monetary figure, and suggest that every prisoner be offered a cash payout instead of jail, and a chance to pay it off instead of serving in a jail at our expense.

Dear Peter,

Rehabilitation usually involves confinement along with providing psychologists and other professionals to cope with the antisocial attitudes of the offender and possibly giving the offender training so that he or she is equipped to make an honest living.

Some offenders should be locked up because they are a danger to the community.

The expense for the above is justified.

It appears this thread could be hijacked by another theme.

The topic is Christianity and evolution. I am a Christian believer as taught and demonstrated in the life of Jesus and reasercher of the Biblical text.

I remain unconvinced that the Christian fundamentalists six day creationism and evolution by natural selection can give us all the answers to life and beginnings. Though there may be some insights into the original Genesis text. Life began in a localised place with springs of water to form a garden. The Biblical text only uses the word "bara" meaning to create from nothing three times and it indicates new material. On all other occasions the same material is used to form new developments.
1. Creation "bara" of universe at the beginning of time - this contained all the current chemistry of our universe.
2. Creation "bara" of moving and warm blooded creatures - this indicated a self consciousness to creatures.
3. Creation "bara" of intelligent humanity. Formed from the basic chemistry but implanted with an intelligent and moral consciousness.

On all other developments the existing materials were permitted or ordered to produce as identified by the term "amar" and the word "Let" in our English Bibles. For example "Let the land produce vegetation" which in effect means the land already had the conditions and power to produce vegetation and the diversity of species. This could imply an evolving nature.

However the Genesis 1: 1 - 2: 3, text is not consistent with monotheistic revelation as it uses Elohim (plural) as the sourse of creation and may be from ancient Chaldean, Egyptian, or Babylonian origins which the Hebrews incorporated into the Torah as an introduction. The Septuagint, written for Greek speaking Jews about 284 - 247 BC, overcomes this purality by the common Greek word Theos a single God.

Philo every thread is high jacked.
And your post did not try to return us to the subject.
I am extremely interested in the idea Christianity now believes in evolution.
My views remain As they are in my last post here, and evolution of belief is something I can see, clearly.
We do evolve, even in just one lifetime we rarely end life the same as we started it.
I however would like opinions about the idea Catholics believe in evolution, yes I understand that now some Church's embrace the idea.
But what place in time can be pin pointed as the time evolution and Christianity came together?

David f

It's not only Marxists who have difficulty with the implications of evolution. Most people on the Left seem to have a problem.

Belly,

I don't think it correct to say that "Christianity now believes in evolution."

Rather it seems that the LEADERSHIPS of many Churches – including the Catholic and Anglican Churches – accept the reality of evolution.

LAY PEOPLE are another matter. I know many Catholic and Anglican lay people who vehemently reject evolution.

I also know Baptists who, notwithstanding the official position of their church, believe in evolution.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I disagree that most people on the left have difficulty with the implications of evolution. I agree that some people do. I think the fact is that most people, whatever their political persuasions are, are ignorant of the sociobiological implications of evolution. Of course both right and left are elastic terms. What are your definitions of right and left?

Sigh.... I just wish that Intelligent Design was consigned to bin of deliberate artifice and not continue to be taught as legitimate in our schools.

For all of Graham's claims that the majority of Christians see the bible as allegory rather than literal; our politicians, schools, legal system and so forth continue to be distorted by a significant minority who believe in Genesis and other myths.

As for atheists not cognisant with the theory of evolution, WTF? Stevenlmeyer, what are the statistics on your claim? While I am certain there exists a curmudgeonly knot of disaffected atheists, I posit that their numbers are negligible to the point of zero impact.

Steven, I've been very familiar with the debates around sociobiology and biological determinism since the early 1980s. I'm sure you'd classify me as of the 'Left'.

However, I have no idea which "implications of evolution" you're suggesting I "have a problem" with. Please elucidate.

So what's the connection, stevenl? Why do you believe that those you describe as 'left' have a problem with evolution?
I would guess many people would describe me as being a bit left; I'm certainly not a (economic) libertarian, and I certainly don't have a problem with evolution, or the the scientific (Popper) method.
I would describe myself as a de facto atheist. I don't believe God is impossible; to the contrary, I believe an evolved God (or Gods) to be an inevitable consequence of evolution. I refuse to believe, however, in a personal God who plays favourites, and -like the Holy Men in the parable of the Good Samaritan- spending all His time crossing the road; ignoring the suffering of billions for the sake of a handful.
If such a God could be proven to exist, I still wouldn't worship Him.

Those who are concerned about the teaching of "intelligent design" to Queensland schoolkids might gain some consolation from the fact that they are apparently also being simultaneously and surreptitiously brainwashed into "evolutionism" via the widespread use of Apple Macintosh computers in schools:

<< The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values". But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness. >>

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html#APPLE

stevenlmeyer,
I'm still getting over your description of Marxism as a "totalitarian system", which you didn't care to elaborate on when my friend Squeers asked.
So yes, do please elucidate on why leftists, and Marxists (what's the distinction?), should have a problem with evolution; bearing in mind that, as I say above, it's not an item of faith, merely a compelling evidence-based theory.

CJ Morgan

ROFL!

If the Apple consortium is communist, then what does that make Linux?
But I still think what is happening in QLD is beyond a disgrace and I am still waiting for an explanation from our dear chief editor how such superstitious codswallop is being seriously taught in schools in the 21st century.

Grim
Excellent points regarding the existence or not of god - but where does this leave the christian who believes that their religion is the only true path? Son of god, resurrection of self-claimed son of god, and so on; if the Christian god exists, what an abuse of power from a celestial psychopath!

Stevenlmeyer

Clearly people who are somewhat left-of-centre (whatever that really means) we at OLO are waiting for evidence that atheists don't get evolution any more than christians. Most arguments in favour of evolution tend to come from the 'left'. Besides evolution is not a belief system it is a validated explanation for the diversification of life on earth. While there is a certain appeal to right-wing-nuts of social-Darwinism - a born to rule type justification, this does not immediately translate to rejection of survival of the best adapted to their environment by socially minded people - quite the opposite.

I am left of center and do not get the reference at all.
I understand most churches do not except evolution, but did want evidence of those who do.
Man did in vent God, every one of them, that too is the reason we have so many and that some no longer represent the best in us.
Those over seeing the evolution of belief are not always our best.
This thread has me stumped, truly, so many who haunt such threads have not put in an appearance.
Has the rapture taken place?

The majority of discussion on a topic such as this is likely to be pointless. Religion being nothing more than primitive superstition and the 'worship' of a 'god' or 'gods' being nonsensical in the extreme - by definition many of those responding cannot be taken seriously. In fact, it shouldn't really matter - it should be enough to leave the deluded and irrational to their inane rituals. I, for one, would be happy to do so. Unfortunately, our society is still unduly influenced by the harmful influence of church on state and the clearly false assumption that religion provides the base for morality and ethics. All taxpayers are forced to support religious institutions because of their [inappropriate] tax exempt status] and our political leaders - wanting to maximise the religious vote - cosy up to church leaders and participate in silly services and such.

The only really valid evidence I see that could lead me to question the clear veracity of evolution is the continued existence of something as cretinous as religion and particularly christianity and catholicism.

yorkshire_pudding,
What a misrepresentative and illinformed personal view of others spirituality you have. How about posting comments of your own about evolution that formulate your world view.

Who or what is god, what colour is it, There's that many of them around it's unbelievable. Imagine the serenity in the world we would have without the greatest con on earth. The Romans were told to pray while Rome burned, and it did. That should have told you something.
The unborn having their preferences nominated for them. The first violation of human rights.
Religion has a lot to answer for.

Graham Y,
I think the posts by yorkshire_pudding and Desmond should sufficiently illustrate why you cannot expect here a serious discussion of the questions you (and pelican) pose. There are books written to deal with your questions, nevertheless let me try some brief (hence superficial) answers.

God “lighting the fuse and walking away” is a God of deism, that many - including some non-Christian scientists - subscribe to. For me it is even less convincing than the position of outright atheists. The concept of God - like any other concept - evolves: Within Christianity the biblical concept of God was enriched by Hellenistic insights, and it is probably going to be enriched again in view of the emerging insights from physics (that would unite quantum theory and relativity theory), evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. An enrichment that must remain compatible with (though not reducible to) the biblical concept, however, on a higher level.

God - at least as I understand Him - cannot be a “science project” since by His very nature he is not reducible - only “projected” - to the physical world. God in this sense belongs to a realm where the objective and subjective are intertwined, unlike the realm investigated by science (despite the Copenhagen School). He is the answer to the question of purpose, for those for whom the question makes sense, and who cannot accept the belief that the physical world - us within it - is its own purpose, or that its existence has no purpose at all. Philosophers (not scientists) can investigate God only in the sense you investigate the shadows of an object that you cannot see (nor the light source) directly. For Christians the Bible is a guideline, not a replacement, for critical (metaphysical, ethical) thinking. Like observation and experiments are important for a scientist, but cannot replace critical thinking and theory-building.

Also, evolution - like Quantum Mechanics, Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc - is not a “core belief of Catholicism”, but simply a scientific insight compatible with what the Church stands for (although there were some irritations until mid 20th century).

Well thanks George - but my post isn't the problem. The problem with this topic is its premise - that religion or the religious make any sense. In reality, religion is a bad joke and a sad indictment on the failure of the human race to make real intellectual progress. Unfortunately, the joke, bad or otherwise, just isn't funny. Religion is and has been too destructive and only when the human race wakes up and rids itself of churches and their priests will we have any real chance of achieving our potential for a just and peaceful world.

And to answer another contributor, religion has nothing to do with spirituality - for which I have every respect. Religion is about ignorance, superstition and power and, by definition, those that practice it are either foolish or self serving. Of course they want to have it both ways - to pretend to scientific objectivity whilst worshipping fairies at the bottom of the garden - but it doesn't wash. 'Christian' has its origin in the swiss 'Cretin' which is fairly apt.

George, thanks for your contribution. I might have over-stated the Catholic Church's position on evolution, although given its general position on science, perhaps not. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but they have a very interesting entry on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

And I think something comes out of this on the issue of whether God can be a "science project". Catholics, and I think mainstream Christian churches are similar, see reason as being one way of approaching God. Science is really just reason applied to the world. So I can't see how we can say that science can't be used to understand God.

There are some things that you must accept because reason says they are true, and these must feed back into our understanding of God. For example, we know that in the world pain and suffering happen. This then gives rise to a theological debate about the problem of pain and how to reconcile this with the idea of a good god. Although one shouldn't kid oneself that this is a new debate - it is essentially what the book of Job is about.

There are probably a lot of text books I could look these things up in, but I prefer to argue them out with others. There is nothing to say the text books are right, and even if they are, where's the fun in just reading them?

These conversations do veer around, but I think one of the useful "veerings" is a challenge to say exactly what we mean when we talk about "God". I suspect I use the term in ways that most would find very uncoventional.

"Catholics, and I think mainstream Christian churches are similar, see reason as being one way of approaching God. Science is really just reason applied to the world. So I can't see how we can say that science can't be used to understand"

By definition, belief in fairies is neither rational nor reasonable and if science equates with reason then it would be pointless applying it to gain some understanding of them - a fiction. The same applies in relation to 'god' or 'gods' because, by christ, there have been an awful lot of them and all with as much claim as one another to rule.

As Herodotus said - and I paraphase: If there is a god, either god is not omnipotent or god is malevolent, for a good god who was omnipotent would prevent the horrors of the world.

In fact, we know, as Herodotus did, 2000 years ago, that the whole god thing is a farce perpetuated on the masses by those who would control them for their own ends. Priests have always been in league with rulers and their authority as stupidly bizarre as is the notion of a hereditary monarchy ... funny that!

Yorkshire pudding
I do not believe in any God.
And yes some miss used God, any of them to control others.
But as Gods evolved ,and they mostly do, different hands at at the controls.
You can find much more than control in the Christian Bible.
Look and you will see that road map for life I see, not control but a clear direction for a better life.
GY your contributions confirm my view, even religion is evolving.
It must, as we gain understanding we move on bringing our toys with us.
We each know, at some level how great it would be, if we could place our problems in the hands of a higher being.
Or that a funeral was just a gateway, in the strangest way we need something to believe in.
I believe in humanity, we wrote every book of every God.
And we continue to evolve.

Hey Graham, I agree with your views on the 'science project'. I would suggest if a God exists, and he did have a hand in creating, or 'evolving' Humanity, it must logically be so his creation would one day understand Him/Her/It, since that appears to be what we do best.
As I mentioned in another post, it is impossible to deny at least the possibility of a 'God of the Gaps', at least until we have perfect knowledge of the 'why' of the Cosmos, as well as the 'how'.
At which time, we will have effectively become God, since mere mortals can always hope to learn more.
George, you have provided an interesting echo to the Platonic ideal, but I feel you have not addressed the paradigm that humans have laboured under since the very first 'scientists'; the shamans who first came up with convincing explanations for the why of thunder and lightning, sunny days, the beauty and the callousness of nature; and what impels humans to do the wrong things, even when they know them to be wrong.
This is the paradigm the vast majority of us have grown up with, and find almost impossible to shake, no how much reason we apply.
I believe it subconsciously defines not only our philosophy, but also to some degree, our science; although this is perhaps finally changing.
We are all prisoners of our own preconceptions.

Graham Y,
Your Wikipedia link does not seem to contradict what I was trying to say, in particular that “hostile comments were made (only) by local (Catholic) clergy”. I am old enough to remember those who - like some contemporary fundamentalists - opposed statements like “Darwin was right on evolution, ergo God does not exists” by attacking the premise instead of the implication.

>>Science is really just reason applied to the world<<
This is is more or less the definition of what the Germans call Wissenschaft, in distinction to the more narrow “Naturwissenschaft”, i.e. natural science, which is what in English “science” usually means. With your definition also mathematics, philosophy, economics, anthropology - and if you like also theology - are “science”, although the corresponding Departments are not found in the Faculty of Science (except for mathematics). Admittedly, if you subscribe to sociobiology (E.O. Wilson) then the distinction between science and humanities is blurred.

>> I can't see how we can say that science can't be used to understand God<<
I suppose it can, if you equate science with any “application of reason”. I objected only to God seen as the subject of a “project” of (natural) science.

The “the problem of pain and how to reconcile this with the idea of a good god” is what theodicy is all about. Again, books have been written about it, because it is a paradox that has occupied many thinkers, Christian or not, over centuries. It is more complicated than e.g. Russell’s paradox which also cannot be that easily resolved, and mathematicians have to live with it .

I do not think you can “argue out” a religious believer into a non-believer or vice versa. However - ignoring the zealots on both sides of the divide - you can enrich other people’s world-views by comprehensibly presenting, if not explaining, your own position. So in that sense I agree with you.

Grim,
Thanks. Indeed, I have not “addressed the paradigm that humans have laboured under”, as well as many other things. As I said, my brief responses to Graham’s questions were necessarily superficial

Dear Grim,

Possibly a God exists, and creation is still going on. It is spiritual arrogance to posit humanity as the finest fruit of creation. We can be replaced by a more advanced form of life that has a more rational approach to life and regards technology as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. That form in turn can be superseded. Creation can continue until life on earth ends with the heat death.

However, considering that a large number of people called Buddhists have an intense spiritual life without needing either the concept of God or a soul it is obvious that neither concept is integral to spirituality.

If we can have perfect knowledge of the 'why' of the Cosmos we may no longer need to create God or gods.

When we do the wrong things that we know to be wrong it may be a survival mechanism. We are prey if we always do what is expected of us. Predators count on that. What we know to be wrong may be actually what is right since it is unexpected.

Our literature, morality and art very much depends on the fact that our species has two sexes.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/unorthodox/?ref=opinion contains:

"As if that wasn’t enough strangeness, here’s one other peculiar detail. Many ciliates have more than two sexes (or “mating types”) and some — Stylonychia mytilus, for example — have as many as 100. This doesn’t mean that 100 individuals have to gather for sex to take place. Rather, it means that you can mate with anyone not of the same mating type as yourself. In principle, it gives you more choice: with more mating types, more individuals are eligible mates."

Assuming a God, soul and two sexes limits us.

Truly, we are all prisoners of our own preconceptions.

Thanks Graham Y and George for putting some sense and balance into this topic.

to All,
In shooting you have to focus on the target to have any chance of hitting the target consistantly. All seem to be focused on the opinions and words of man. If God is the target you will never even see the target focusing on the creation for they are only sign posts.
Desmond The Word of God clearly says that Jesus a descendant of King David, is the creator. John 1-3. John 1-1 says that he was God. So if you want to find God focus on Jesus. As he no longer is here on earth we only have his recorded word and the Holy Spirit given on the Day of Pentecost after Jesus ascended to heaven, to focus and rely on. Do not take my word for the answers for God does not have grandsons {religious
knowledge}, only sons {relationship}.
Richie 10

Notwithstanding the fascinating theological debate, I'm still waiting to read stevenlmeyer's response to the requests from a few of us as to which "implications" of evolution are problematic for the so-called "Left".

So what you're saying is that the Catholic church is an evidence-based organisation?

You have to be joking. This is the organisation that has done more to debunk science and hold back the march of progress than any organisation in history.

The lastest example of it's scientific bankrupcy is the elevation of Mary McKillop to godhead status, based on the evidence that a woman with terminal cancer was healed when she prayed to a figurine of the said divine Miss McKillop.

Not only do these people not understand science they don't understand logic.

Anyone who bases their understanding of nature on the nonsense in the Jewish Book of Faery Tales is dreadfully ignorant. Anyone who brainwashes children with the dreadful philosophies of Yahew and Paul is committing a fraud worse than a ponzi scheme.

Frank Blunt

Frank, We certainly know your hostile view about Christians but it adds nothing to the debate on Christianity for or against the theory of evolution. How do christians view evolution? I mix amongst several denominations and find people hold to both old Earth and young Earth views. Those Christians that hold to old Earth believe God is author of the creation of all matter, time and space at a distant past and is mentioned in Genesis 1: 1 - 3.

I have a theory that: However there seem to have been catastrophic natural events about 6,000 years ago (maybe a nearby meteorite implosion) that indicates that there has been a establishment of human society in the Middle East. Hense the record of Adam and Eve the survivors of the radiation impact and their location on the Tigrus and Uphrates River system.

As human beings we are very good at making our own rules or we cherry pick the rules that suit our predisposed view on life. Spirituality is no different and that is why someone can still claim to be a Christian but reserve the right to disagree with some aspects such as contraception, abortion etc. We all cherry pick - atheists and theist alike.

The fact that many people seek a higher spriritual force/energy/icon whatever you wish to label it, seems to suggest that this may be just one part of our complicated human psyche and maybe fits somewhere in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If one understands spirituality in this way, evidence in the form of concrete substantial physical matter, becomes irrelevant. The most important aspect is the outcome - how we decide to treat others ie. to be known for our fruits.

Spirituality for the most part, however we define it, will always be an 'internal' construct to suit the particular individual. The construct may evolve itself with maturity, time and will be dependent on experiences and changing needs.

Idealistically this should not pose a problem as long as the State retains its independence. And of course providing those beliefs cause no harm to another person.

The way I see it, sometimes the problem with religion (and not only religion) is that people try so hard to convince others of the 'rightness' of their point of view, that the dogma becomes more important, while the spirituality aspect falls to the wayside.

If a Christian (or any other) person wants to embrace the idea of evolution as being part of God's grand design then so be it.

One thing is certain,theoretically, when we die we will all be the wiser.

Well at least the rapture has not taken place.
See we are getting visitors so that is clear.
Yes I too want to know why I a lefty have had thoughts put in my head that do not exist Steven.

I'd have to endorse Grim's observation that "We are all prisoners of our own preconceptions", though there's a fatality to it that we ought to reject. As David F says, Buddhists (at least Theravada Buddhists) get by without a God, their motivation being enlightenment, freedom from ideology, from preconceptions. There's no doubt that fundamentalism holds sway on both sides of the debate today. The rationalists seem to think they've arrived at humanity's consummatum est: "reason", "techne", "Progress" (as distinct from "evolution"), but the truth (figuratively) is that their own "faith" is as far removed from "reality", here on the ground, as that of religious fundamentalists. Liberal rationalism has no end-goal, no noble aspirations and is untroubled by ethics (though happy to politicise them). Rationalism works hand in glove with capitalism’s obsession for growth; neither purview is directed or sustainable, merely compulsive. Meanwhile faith, traditionally associated with humility, love and asceticism, is denigrated by the other side as the antithesis of reason--and indeed is bastardised in practice by a resurgent, worldly and reactionary fundamentalsm that treats it like the ultimate commodity, the get out of jail free card.
Your catholicity, Graham Y, or that of the Catholic church, looks populist, and the extremists on the other side, by virtue of their current ascendency, look like pedants. I'd love to dismiss one side or the other, ex cathedra, but the more I ponder the more uncertain I become.
The middle ground, agnosticism, for me.

Hey David, I agree (and thanks for the link, btw, fascinating stuff).
One of the problems I have with intelligent design is that preconception about evolution being somehow 'progress'; getting better all the time, or teleologically moving toward some form of perfection.
To my eye, evolution is quite different. The more 'evolved' an organism becomes -ie more perfectly adapted to it's environment- the more vulnerable it becomes, should that environment change. I would suggest many extinctions occur because of this vulnerability.
I guess arguably all extinctions, -if you include competition or over predation by 'less evolved' species.
I would further argue that the great success of Humanity is largely due to us being peculiarly unevolved. We're not particularly fast runners, not great climbers, we don't have well developed teeth or claws, and (without our technology) we are certainly more at the mercy of the elements than even our domesticated animals.
It seems it is our weaknesses, rather than strengths, that have made us great.
Taking a fractal view of our species (comparing our species to a single individual) I would think we are barely into our -male dominated- adolescence; still confident of our immortality, secure in the knowledge that no matter how brave (stupid) we are, we will survive...
I would like to think that age will bring wisdom, but considering the average age of our politicians, and their persistent inability to make long term goals or decisions, I really have to wonder.
Is doing the 'wrong thing' simply preferring personal gratification, to the long term survival of the group? Are these the social implications stevenl is referring to, the idea that 'survival of the fittest' is an intensely selfish philosophy? If so, he has overlooked the facts of nature; the very real existence of maternalism and paternalism, the willingness of parents to sacrifice their lives for their children, and the equally real -if perhaps slightly more rare- existence of altruism. These traits do have survival benefits for the species, rather than the individual.

Mitchell(12feb):

Evolution is very much a core finding of modern biology. *some* resort to theistic evolution. Most (I suggest the vast majority) of biologists have no issue with biological evolution as normally described.

Your "best theory" comment is a little odd. It has been about a fair while now. It is the conclusion drawn from the fossil evidence. Darwin proposed a mechanism that has become regarded as the core mechanism. Population and Molecular biology has made the observations more extensive and detailed, but not weakened the case. Evolution, like electricity, is a fact. The theories are about how it works. A
theory that gets better *without* challenging the founding basis is hardly at risk of being holistically revised.

I agree that the bigger churches probably don't hold with evolution in their heart. They have a vested interest in not being risible. If evolution were to be "magicked away" those same churches would fall over themselves to evict the relevant doctrinal appendices.

One *does not* have to respect the determination of the "looney fundies". Most are determined because pastor whips them into a frenzy, sells them any number of dodgy books and magazines and the zealots within the church police all the others. Closer investigation shows that the stuff in (say) creation research quarterly (or whatever) is pretty weak stuff. Just because a junkie "wants" his fix, and is genuinely distressed if not able to score, do we "respect" his determination?

StG (11feb):
If you are not a biblical literalist, don't you *also* get annoyed by fundies who don't think you're a "real" christian? Don't those fundies *also* make assumptions about all athiests (and other hobby horses), who they blame for all the worlds faults? (note pelican).

Wobbles(13feb):
Are you sure there is no consensus on evolution? I would suggest that virtually no working biologists and few other scientists contest the broad picture of biological evolution (and neo-darwinism). This would be in stark contrast with the large number of differing religions, let alone the diversification of christian sects, itself a "cute" reflection of adaptive radiation.

Rusty

Philo(14feb):
Just which parts of evolution,particularly our understanding of biological evolution, do you not find convincing? Just interested.

I would suggest that the sort of deity that "just lights the fuse" is exactly the sort that is remotely possible and very significantly, does not require worship, or answer "prayers". One worth it's salt (!) would not *want* such trivialities. As the instructions say "light fuse and *stand back*"

Foxy(11feb):
Religion may be subjective. Science strives for objectivity. If objective science impinges on religious ground, it is simply time for religion to step (further) back.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter,
As I've stated earlier - the level of the human spirit and in asthetic and conceptual creative thought, self consciousness and moral conscience. This places man with more responsibility than any other creature. However in these areas man has failed in his social responsibility when not given or even given guidelines and made accountable.

So, philo,

How do these exceed the likely capacity (and neural shortcuts) of neural systems based on known biological systems known to have been evolved biologically?

Just wondering....

Philo <"I have a theory that: However there seem to have been catastrophic natural events about 6,000 years ago (maybe a nearby meteorite implosion) that indicates that there has been a establishment of human society in the Middle East. Hense the record of Adam and Eve the survivors of the radiation impact and their location on the Tigrus and Uphrates River system."

An interesting theory there Philo.
How then do you explain the human remains dug up with plant matter and animal skeletons that existed much, much earlier than 6000 years ago?

If you don't believe in what many scientists can prove by carbon dating and many other proven ways of determining the age of ancient human, animal and plant life, then you are just in denial.

People living in the world when the bible was written still believed the Earth was flat.
I take it then that you expect to fall off the edge of the earth eventually?
If not, why not- if the bible told you so?

Rusty,
I agree almost entirely that evolution is tantamount to a "fact", as we define things. Evolution remains a theory, however, and facts remain subject to parallax. Also, my "respect" for the fundamentalists, and "their stupendous credulity", was plainly rhetorical.
The real problem with evolution from the human perspective is self-consciousness; but more than that, with the fact that each one of us is conflicted with values and "higher" thoughts. We have aesthetic registers from the tawdry right up to Kant's idea of the sublime. And we are capable of love, empathy, compassion--abstract agape as well as self-love or love of our own. Equally we're capable of hate and visciousness and cruelty as well as guilt, depression and thanatos. And why do we aspire beyond our Earthly lot? Beyond the clay we're made of that we "can't" escape--the rationalists (extropians for instance--they're deluded btw) too? We are earthbound in any biological sense, and in the context of our remoteness in the vast reaches of space, and yet we dream of transcending it, analytically as well religiously. Why?
Some stick doggedly to the question, "hmmm, what evolutionary purpose do these feelings serve ?", or "how and why did culture instil these sensibilities".
Others stick Goddedly(?) to their faith in something beyond blind and senseless phenomena--the product of a big bang, which invented beauty and love and music and all the physical wonders too---all some stupid, random, pointless accident?
There is something decidedly vulgar about the purely rational view of things; ditto with the religious fundamentalist view.

Mitchell,
Can I tentatively join your club? I couldn't agree more.

the problem with philosophies that try to explain or organize the human condition is that they tend to do so in generalities.Generalities depend on averages and conditions or circumstance. Which is of themselves limited and therefore incomplete and therefore flawed.

Philosophies of this type tend ,unlike hard science don't acknowledge their limitations and to compensate man's nature for understanding/order or indeed control we tend dogmatise. Ultimately this tends to create one size fits nobody properly. Consequently we end up with versions and conflict. Often the most violent,vicious and contradictory actions are internecine as well as inter philosophic.
In short, We as a species have evolved extraordinary skills, abilities and capacities but internally (human nature) hasn't yet left the trees.

“People living in the world when the bible was written still believed the Earth was flat.”

Suze, you’ve made the statement. Can you back it up? Who believed the world was flat in those times (or any other times)?

I understand that the ancient Greek philosophers used some fairly basic and practical reasoning to conclude that the earth was spherical. And some even made a stab at calculating the circumference, which turned out to be surprisingly accurate by modern standards.

Susie, You asked.
"How then do you explain the human remains dug up with plant matter and animal skeletons that existed much, much earlier than 6000 years ago?"

There was preexisting life before Adam just that to Adam it seemed he was the only living human after the catastrophe.

Quite a few, apparently, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Who believed the world was flat in those times [when the bible was written]<<

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth" Isaiah 11:12

Just one of many biblical references to an earth which has corners, and "ends".

"...the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth" Jeremiah 16:19

Not to mention, of course, the ability to see the whole of the earth from a single vantage point.

"...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" Matthew 4:8

Of course, we shouldn't take the Bible at all literally, should we?

I’ve never said we should take the Bible literally. We should understand it correctly in its proper literary context.

None of the passages you’ve quoted above refer to the earth’s geology or topography. The ‘ends of the earth’ or the ‘four corners of the earth’ are idioms. In similar fashion, today’s ships go to ‘all compass points’, or current weather forecasters refer to the time the ‘sun rises’, knowing full well that it doesn’t rise or fall.

I hope Suzeonline will still be online to give an answer.

If the basic components for life have been actually found in a meteorite, doesn't that mean we don't really know anything about our origins?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

Aren't we just one of many insignificant rocks out in the back blocks of space that has been randomly seeded with the stuff of life and then quietly left to go our own way.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/

Of course we should be proud of ourselves for coming this far, but not so proud that we think we know everything about everything.

Many of us are beginning to realise that the mythical stuff of old is just that - myths, not truths. The stories are just that, old stories of how people used to live and think, important historically, but a lot of it not actually truths.

In reality surely the truth of our origins is yet to be found, and no one knows what that might be.

The truth will probably be much more incredible that any story we have made up so far and I really hope we find out something more in my lifetime!

Its just my personal opinion folks, I certainly make no claim on the truth, so no offense meant to those of faith.

Mitchell,

I am not sure that the purely rationalist view is truly vulgar. The type of enquiry you use as a model has served very well. When we are able to draw parallels with other organisms, or confirm with appropriate model "games" we gain more insight. If our ability to plumb these aspects of ourselves are limited, what we have still throws up *real* information. Given that it is still early days in understanding cognition, given that the tools we use are becoming far more effective, who is to say what the "vulgar" will not discover?

I am interested in Philo's position to some extent. I don't think his answer to my question was really very good: "the level of the human spirit and in asthetic and conceptual creative thought, self consciousness and moral conscience". He *seems* to be suggesting that this was "implanted" at some late stage of human evolution, Presumably by an already existent (evolved?) agency.

This seems to be exercise in resurrecting "irreducible complexity". The implantation of something that did not exist in "lower" animals but flowers fully-formed in us.

Is Philo asserting that these features in principle *could not* evolve?

Are there *no* indications of rudiments of these in *any* animals? Do these features vary in our present population? What impact does different mental capacity or damage have on these, or are they independent? Are there *no* fossil indications of this awareness in early humans? Of an increase parallel to the expansion of human culture? Was the human mind conveniently evolved to accomodate these capacities upon "implantation", or did it first express a rudimentary version and evolve to explore this new vector of growth?

Happy to brainstorm, you see.

Rusty

Dan S de Merengue< "Suze, you’ve made the statement. Can you back it up? Who believed the world was flat in those times (or any other times)?"

Pericles gave you a few examples Dan. Here are a few more:
Job 38:13 NIV) "...that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"

Does our spherical earth have 'edges' Dan?

(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV)"...when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,"

A circle is a flat round object. Apparently the ancient Hebrews also had a word for sphere or ball that was used in the bible, so why wasn't this word used to describe the Earth if those writers 'knew' about how God 'made' the earth?

(Job 11:9 NRSV) "Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."
This sounds like they were describing an entity with a length, rather than a circumference, right?

Philo <" There was preexisting life before Adam just that to Adam it seemed he was the only living human after the catastrophe."

What? Are you joking or what?

I have a question.
We debate Christianity often, two active threads now.
Christianity is one of many reildgions, why just them.
Islam must have views on this subject.
I firmly thing the thread is evidence Christianity has evolved,and continues to do so.
Just as we did/do

Belly,
The Kor'an has generally copied the Catholic text of the 7th Century and in detail believes in a literal 6 day Creation.

During the history covered by the Bible there is evidence of brain development; as at the beginning there were few words in a single language and communication between men seemed to happened in a psychic or telepathic mode. Written language happened in simple phrases. By the time of building of the tower in Babel there was confict in language and this project was abandoned (Gen 11). Though before Babel the arts, musical instruments, and iron tools had been created.

Still no defence by stevenlmeyer of his preposterous claim that

<< THE PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO HAVE THE GREATEST PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION ARE ATHEIST LEFTIES >>

Unusual for him to be so reticent, particularly when he made the claim so strongly and subsequently repeated it in this thread:

<< In my experience the people who have the greatest difficulties with evolution are Lefties who purport to be atheists. They find the IMPLICATIONS of human evolution hard to accept. >>

<< It's not only Marxists who have difficulty with the implications of evolution. Most people on the Left seem to have a problem. >>

I guess he must have realised what indefensible bulldust he'd written and decided to let it go.

<< If you are not disturbed by what we now know about human evolution then you don’t understand the problem >>

I get the distinct impression that stevenlmeyer doesn't understand Darwinian evolution himself.

Suzeonline, thanks for your response.

Circumferences and diameters are measures of length, aren’t they?

And how would anyone draw a sphere on the face of something?

Job 38 is talking about the morning light spreading over the earth at dawn. So yes, when daylight spreads over the earth, the divide between day and night has an edge.

Generally, while we are thankful for the increase in technology brought by our accumulated knowledge, it is wrong for us modern people to assume that the ancients were stupid or ignorant. Many ancient civilisations used some advanced technology. For example, we wonder how the pyramids were so well built to stand for these thousands of years.

The idea that the ancients thought the world was flat is a post enlightenment fiction invented to make us moderns feel better about ourselves.

"Tis a dying thread and I've been delayed, but Rusty, vulgarity of course isn't a sin; Joe Gargary was vulgar and so was Cicero, yet one was illiterate and the other sophisticated. Vulgarity, like veracity, changes its spots and goes in and out of fashion.
What I object to about rationalism's ascendency is it's superciliousness, its political indifference and its credulousness---precisely the points I object to about religious fundamentalists. What on Earth makes the empiricists so sure that they're getting to the reality of anything, rather than translating their perceptions into exotic equations or formulations of language which tell us nothing about phenomena and everything about ourselves. Science only measures our "perception" of phenomena.
Which is not to abuse reason, which is vital to perception; it just can't transcend it?
I do think we underestimate the thinkers of the past, who after all had just as much conviction as any of us and were benighted.
The important question for me is; if reason is our new, unchallengable God, what are it's plans for us?

But it's all a bit stale now I should think.

Squeers, reason isn't the same thing as science - although it's an essential ingredient of it. Reason is also an essential aspect of religion, which is why religion is not necessarily irrational. I suppose that's why they can coexist in the minds of contemporary individuals, and thus persist.

It's also why rational people can invest so much energy in denying the evidence before them that negates their rational conclusions. I think that AGW is the most obvious contemporary example of that process in action. Lots of intelligent and reasonable people will expend enormous amounts of intellectual energy in rationalising their deeply felt convictions, in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

Of course, there are political dimensions to this conundrum - which is why some people can apparently get away with making outrageous assertions under the cover of what is essentially a philosophical debate, and then just run away when challenged.

Like stevenlmeyer, for example.

C J Morgan,
I couldn't agree more old chap.
The current ascendency of the anti-AGW lobby reminds me of the legendary unsinkable Titanic. The good ship Minimifidian is also in dangerous waters but---it's full steam ahead!

CJ Morgan, you're not wrong about irrationality, except it is your side in the AGW debate that is ignoring the empirical evidence and resorting to faith-based arguments which appeal to authority. The fact that CO2 appears, on all the evidence over the entire history of the earth, to be a bit player in climate change is denied.

I do agree about rationality and religion. Someone made the assumption earlier on that I was Roman Catholic. I'm not. It's just easy to tie down the Catholic church's position on things because they have a legalistic approach to doctrine which frequently means there is a document that says what the faithful are to believe. Protestantism doesn't work in the same way, so can be a lot more slippery to tie down.

As a protestant I find the Catholic church relatively speaking superstitious and irrational, compared to protestantism generally (although not to fundamentalist Protestants). Thomas Aquinas said that God wrote two great books - the Bible and the book of nature. Within the constraints of its history and structures I think the Catholic Church has done a pretty good job with the latter, and its position on evolution is evidence of that.

However, perhaps to move this thread on, I find the requirement that saints perform miracles to be medieval and irrational. It's also curiously clerical in that once you get your paperwork correct down here, and the church puts its imprimatur on it, then God somehow assents, but not before. Protestants have saints, but only in a generalised sense, and they don't perform the heavenly courtier role that Catholic saints do.

So you can imagine my views on Mary McKillop's canonisation, and the fact that an Australian PM involved himself in lobbying for it!

Dear Dan,

You asked me to give one example of evolution being basic to the life sciences. There are many examples. You can easily find them on the net.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html contains the following:

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
&#8232;Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come. &#8232;
Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Evolution is basic to our knowledge of life.

Dear Graham

I know that science isn't your forte, having witnessed your lack of comprehension of biodiversity on many other threads. However when you make dismissive comments like:

<<<< CJ Morgan, you're not wrong about irrationality, except it is your side in the AGW debate that is ignoring the empirical evidence and resorting to faith-based arguments which appeal to authority. The fact that CO2 appears, on all the evidence over the entire history of the earth, to be a bit player in climate change is denied. >>>>

What evidence do you have for your claims about CO2's part in the effect of greenhouse gases?

Not one of the substantial science organisations from NASA through to the Oxford university have dismissed the part that CO2 plays.

Please read and reflect upon the following link to the very basics of climate science and change:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/global_warming_update3.php

I would also ask why you and many other religious people (Abbott, Fielding, Joyce for example) place greater credence upon the likes of Lord Monckton than you do over established scientists who have spent their lives studying earth's atmosphere both past and present?

GrahamY: "your side in the AGW debate is ignoring the empirical evidence and resorting to faith-based arguments"

Jedimasters post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906#160060 isn't bad empirical evidence itself. In that thread the plebs on the "for" side of the debate think empirical evidence is more persuasive than the against side. At least, then tend to quote it more, and surely you would not quote it more if you didn't think it was going to persuade someone. This is the reverse of what you say above.

I can't comment on the science as I don't understand it, and that brings us back to the philosophical question you posed at the start of the thread. Evolution is something just about any nob could understand if they take the time to. The theory is drop dead simple. The evidence supporting it is easy to understand and plentiful. Clearly if an average Australian doesn't accept evolution over say intelligent design, they aren't basing their acceptance on empirical evidence.

The contrast with AGW could not be more stark. I would not be surprised if there are only a handful of people on the planet understand the models, because they don't publish the code. The theory behind these models is utterly beyond your average pleb. There isn't clear counter theory like intelligent design. The opposition is instead just saying we can't model the climate at all and the successes in doing so over the past century are a fluke. Indeed, it could very well be so.

The point is your average pleb (ie all bar a handful of scientists), can't make decision as remotely conclusive as you can on the correctness of evolution, based solely on the empirical evidence. All of us are doing the far less satisfying exercise of flip flopping about based on scant evidence, incomplete understanding, and yes on authority, faith and political tribalism.

In the end for most of us AGW is an article of faith, regardless of with side you are on. There is no clear dividing line like evolution. It is a matter of degree, and the degree is small.

rstuart you don't come to OLO for a full scientific exposition of the science of climate. So you wouldn't measure the strength of the argument on either side by the number of citations each side makes here.

Jedi Master's post was interesting, but you'd need to dig a bit to find out whether it really means anything. Just because I link to something doesn't mean that it is correct, or supports my view. We've seen how the "peer review" game is played in the Climategate emails - try and keep everyone you disagree with out of the journals so you can claim they don't know what they are talking about because they never get anything published.

I reference when it is appropriate but not overly frequently because most of the argument doesn't need referencing. Which is a weakness in JM's approach. It preferences footnotes over the argument and the physical facts. And footnoting can be a sign of weakness in an argument, not strength.

For example, if I said the sun rose in the East I wouldn't feel any need to reference a paper to prove it. But if someone was trying to prove the opposite and there was a source that supported them, then they would reference it. They would have to, because on the facts they are wrong. So referencing can actually work in the opposite direction. When trying to defend the indefensible many people don't argue the logic of the situation, they say "X, who is an expert, said Y, therefore Y is true."

In fact it was that very mode of debate that re-ignited my interest in global warming debate 10 or so years ago. It's that mode of debate that has got the IPCC into trouble with so many of its references about glaciers, damage from storms etc. which are references to useless sources.

And it is that mode of debate that constitutes much faith-based debate. "It says it in the Bible, so it must be true." "The IPCC says that polar bears are endangered because of climate change, so it must be true."

Severin, I think you're making it up. Monckton isn't the source of my information on global warming. He's very much on the fringe of climate debate, like Al Gore.

And my religion has nothing to do with my views on climate.

I go to religion for guidance on ethics, morality and spirituality, but not science.

As for information about my claims for the role played by CO2. Well, it is commonly acknowledged that H2O is responsible for around 95% of the effect. I don't think I need to reference that - all sides accept that to be the case. We've also had CO2 much higher than at present, but the planet has still been livable, except in the cases when it has been an iceball.

I think it is you that needs to justify claims that the small amount of CO2 that we are able to add to the atmosphere endangers the planet or us.

GrahamY

>>Aquinas said that God wrote two great books - the Bible and the book of nature<<
The reference to two books is usually ascribed to Galileo, where it makes more sense. The best I could find about Acquinas was “Sacred writings are bound into two volumes: that of creation and that of Holy Scripture” (Quoted in Carla Berkdahl, Earth Letter, “Dreaming of Green Parishes,” Sept., 1998, p. 1). Anyhow, the present ideas and rich literature about the relation of religion/theology to science is more rooted in Galileo than in Acquinas.

>>I find the Catholic church relatively speaking superstitious and irrational<<
I appreciate that you present this as a personal opinion, not as a sweeping statement as some do.

>>I find the requirement that saints perform miracles to be medieval and irrational<<
Since you repeatedly refer to this, let me also refer to something I already wrote here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10025#161723.

Squeers:

Stale? We like wine, cheese and the music of our age?

We conflict with the least contention possible, violent agreement I suspect.

Supercilious: The literalists deserve what *more* insulting tone?

Political indifference: If science has established a good first-principle reason for action, or debunked a long-cherished myth, it is hardly the business of science to worry, except insofar vested interests might delay effort.
Credulousness: space constrains, examples? Most cases of scientific fraud do not last more than a few cycles of publish-and-response. Absolute time is shorter as publishing advances.

What on earth: Usually our "visualisations". The equations and flowcharts are an output we use to communicate with others of roughly similar familiarity with the material. The gestalt of current knowledge and not-yet-published material that is transferred at conferences, personal communications, sabbaticals touring other labs contains not-yet-tested but illuminating insight. Good ideas become apparant after considerable (obsessive?) contemplation. It perhaps resembles what goes on in a conspiracy theorist's mind, with more accurate weightings of "maybes" and caution about "foregones". It is our *best* effort, which I think puts the efforts of the fiction-writers and mystics to shame.

Our "perception" of phenomena: As measured to the best of our ability. You will have noted, when an "invisible man" is consistently invoked, it is given a name and instruments are built to find it. It is our *best* effort, which I think puts the efforts of the fiction-writers and mystics to shame.

Reason is applicable to things we know something about. If I may use a story....

The ancient philosophers included the "atomists" who, "knowing" that various disparate materials had properties in common, proposed that this because they were composed of particles with varying surface descriptions. Sweet things were composed of "smooth", bitter had barbs etc. Brilliant!

What for sure do we *know* (and agree about, even from wildly different cultures) about "god" as certainly as we know grapes are sweet, or unrequited love bitter? *Then* we can reason about it.

The question, really: We are the master, reason serves us, where shall we take it?

Rusty

Rusty wrote: "We are the master, reason serves us, where shall we take it?"

In the first half of the century we had the Nazis who murdered people on racial grounds.

We had the communists who murdered people on the basis of class.

In 1987 there was a meeting of former CIA men in Switzerland who estimated that at that time CIA trained death squads had murdered about 6,000,000. An updated estimate would add to the number.

I recently read Ben Kiernan's Blood and Soil which gives a history of a number of genocides from Sparta until the present. Christianity was a big factor in justifying many of the slaughters.

Where has our reason taken us? All of these mass murders were a result of human planning, organisation and reason.

Davidf,

Hi. I think the problem is not reason (a tool), but intent.

A marketer with the intent of "selling product" might apply reason to the problem of selling more (might be a good product, might be dodgy). What intent inspired developing the particular means of the CIA, the soviets, the Nazis. Would they have used lesser means if that was all that was available?

In contrast, as many point out, reason has brought any number of benefits, let us say by intent.

Sadly (or maybe not) reason cannot coerce, merely advise. The advice is better with more facts. We choose projects based on both good and poor reason and good and poor information. And on what we want. And on what we want other people to do, maybe *all* other people....

I believe the question: "where shall we take reason?" is quite valid.

Fortunately, reason *can* be applied to determining what we might choose to do, remembering that our intent determines how we use our reason.

Hmmmm, How best shall we live? That could take a while...

Rusty

Rusty: “If science has established a good first-principle reason for action, or debunked a long-cherished myth, it is hardly the business of science to worry”, and "Hmmmm, How best shall we live? That could take a while...."

As C J Morgan points out above, I’ve conflated “reason” with “rationalism” a few times, though neither term really suits my purposes.
For me the most important question to reason about remains “how should we live”, reason being “interested” in it--implicated in its cogitations, as opposed to disinterested. Reason as pure method, objectifying phenomena, aiming not to “contaminate” its subject, is arguably both delusional and irresponsible. We credulously put so much faith in our reasoning these days--as though ceteris paribus was more than hypothetical--that we forget its “organic” provenance, with all the attendant limitations of perspective: physical, temporal, liminal, cultural, personal etc. Good scientists try to account for these factors (but arguably fail. As Richard Rorty says, “truth is created, not found”), but laypeople (and a lot of scientists) use reason as though it was a sonic screwdriver. If our reasoning was half as incisive as we “superciliously” take it to be, we’d all be in perfect agreement and know the mind of God (a useful trope).
And of course our physical “reality”, the tangible stuff we see and smell and touch, is nothing more than temporary form, composed of atoms and their component parts etc. None of which is to say that we shouldn’t reason, but we should direct it first at the only material reality we have and the problem of how we should live. Rather than reason for its own sake--which I’ve tried to show is non sequitur--or using reason irresponsibly to create technologies, with little consideration of their effects, we should reason an ethical foundation for life, upon which we might build sustainably.
Neither rationalism nor religion offers a viable alternative as neither has its feet on the ground

Graham thank-you for your assurance you do not condone extremists like Monckton, I appreciate your clarification. Given your stance on the climate debate, I believe I should be forgiven for thinking that you do not keep an open mind. In fact I wonder where you do your research into understanding the impact of a small percentage increase in CO2 on the equilibrium of our planet's atmosphere.

Again I would ask you to consider reliable sources such as at Nasa's website:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41637

<<< A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol and including the U.S. Geological Survey, studied global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago, finding that the averages were significantly higher than expected from the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.

These underestimates occurred because the long-term sensitivity of the Earth system was not accurately taken into account. In these earlier periods, Earth had more time to adjust to some of the slower impacts of climate change. For example, as the climate warms and ice sheets melt, Earth will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm in the future since less ice is present to reflect the sun...

...“Earth is a dynamic system and climate models need to incorporate its multiple feedbacks as well as changes on both fast and long timescales,” said Dr. Dan Lunt, who is with the University of Bristol and was the lead author of this article. “This comprehensive outlook allows us to see how sensitive the climate really is to atmospheric carbon dioxide, resulting in more accurate long-term projections.” >>>

That you use your religion for "guidance on ethics, morality and spirituality, but not science" is a claim made by many Christians such as the aforementioned Abbott, Fielding and Joyce, as well as G W Bush, Howard and our own current PM. None of whom demonstrate a good understanding of the impact of humans on our ecosystem, Earth, nor any indication of understanding even basic science.

By all means keep an open mind, but that includes research from bona-fide scientific organisations such as provided by many better informed than I.

There’s much confusion surrounding this discussion, and much misunderstanding about why this debate really exists.

Firstly, it has little to do with global warming (or Mary Mackillop).

Secondly, contrary to what Graham Young believes, the debate has little to do with ecclesiastical or Prime Ministerial pronouncements.

Graham, it is erroneous to say that evolution is a core belief of the Catholic Church or any other church. In the last few hundred years, no church that I know of, Catholic or Protestant, has made any significant pronouncements about evolution. At most, they’ve made some comments on the periphery, which have sometimes been taken up by the media in the whirlwind of the debate. And the views among members of Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc. churches worldwide, from the pew sitter up to scientists within the Vatican, vary widely within the gamut of views.

Lastly, this debate is not a battle between religion and science. This is perhaps the view of some, such as Dawkins. But that is largely a throwaway line, a sound bite, offered by people like Michael Zimmerman and others from his side of the debate to cloud the issue.

In reality, and in short, the debate concerns the true nature of the origins of life on this planet.

The most prominent views are these:

The Neo-Darwinian view, defined roughly as the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Opposing views include: creationists, who argue that the data of science more accurately represents the depiction of an historical record laid out in the book of Genesis.

And more recently, intelligent design proponents, who also argue that the Darwinian view is inadequate and has failed, and postulate a designer according to various lines of argument within design theory.

No doubt other positions are available but, in my opinion, they appear as watered down, mix-and-matches of the three above.

Whether by history or necessity, these approaches to life’s origins align with views of religion or atheism, and therefore none can claim impunity from religious implications.

Davidf,
I asked you this question on the other thread discussing creation and you’ve responded on this one. The error is understandable, as creation/evolution has been a well trodden road on a few threads lately.

You claimed that we have to accept evolutionary theory or dispense with ‘most of modern life science’. I asked could you give one example.

Yet all of the examples you’ve given above have little to do with ‘evolution’. That is, they do not concern the Neo-Darwinian process that moved the protozoa up the tree of life and changed it into a pine cone, pelican, or person. What we are left with is equivocation on the meaning of the word evolution.

Of these biological processes: descent with modification, bacterial resistance, selective breeding, or genetically modifying crops, while being useful or measureable in their own regard, they are useless in explaining how the bacteria became the bank manager.

We do not have to accept neo-Darwinism or otherwise dispense with these biological processes. By contrast, much in modern biology was and is being discovered and applied by creationists.

I have been discussing Creationism on another forum with six day fundamentalist Creationists and find their ideas have little credibility when it comes to Biblical truths. They have the idea organic death did not happen prior to Adam, and falsely charge him with bringing organic death to the Planet.

However I could say much on this subject but here is one post.
It is not natural organic death that separates us from God, it is a willful act of sin that puts death to the spirit, by violation of the image of God in us; this death is immediately and our spirit is removed from the presence of God, Genesis 2: 16 – 17. David identifies this in Psalm 51: 10 – 12, “Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me”. Colossians 2: 13 – 14 and Romans 6: 23 identify us as already dead in sins even though organically alive in the body. The life we receive from Christ is not natural organic but the rebirth of our spirit toward God John 1: 12 13; 3: 6 - 7. The death of our spirit we inherited from Adam is a result of sin, and the life we receive from Christ is a quickening of our spirit toward God, and a life reckoned pure in Christ. Jesus gives us the warning that we are not to fear him that merely destroys the body, but the one who may cast the soul into hell.

Dan,
>>In the last few hundred years, no church that I know of, Catholic or Protestant, has made any significant pronouncements about evolution. At most, they’ve made some comments on the periphery <<

Benedict XVI in July 2007 (http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/397/440/2722/2/1):

"Presently I see in Germany, and also in the United States, a fairly bitter debate between so-called creationism and evolutionism, presented as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives: whoever believes in a Creator cannot believe in evolution, and likewise whoever believes in evolution has to exclude God…This opposition is an absurdity, because on the one hand, there are many scientific proofs in favor of an evolution that seems to be a reality that we have to see, and that enriches our understanding of life and of existence as such. But the doctrine of evolution does not respond to all questions, above all to the great philosophical questions: Where does everything come from? How did everything start on the path that finally arrived at humanity?"

Although this is not a pronouncement ex cathedra (like an encyclical), nobody, especially no Catholic, would call the words of the Pope as being “on the periphery” of Catholic beliefs/opinions, even if he/she might disagree.

Squeers,
I have learned French, however I cannot understand the French and they cannot understand me. My experience with post-modernism is somehow similar, but I am trying my best to understand you.

You mention Richard Rorty’s “truth is created not found”, which, of course, is all right, if you accordingly define “truth”. Lately I have known Rorty also as the refuge of some ex-marx-leninst philosophers, who after 1989 had to continue to make their living by teaching philosophy at East-Central European universities, where marx-leninism lost its monopoly. My own interpretation of their choice was - admittedly an oversimplification - that when “dialectical materialism” cannot be maintained as an absolute truth, then better redefine the concept of truth. (ctd.)

(ctd.)
I remember you were aware of the “science wars” and the “Sokal hoax”, so maybe you know also of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/9911sciencewars.htm.

There Rorty expresses some peculiar ideas (seen as such not only from my point of view but also by e.g. the physicist Steven Weinberg), however, I was most surprised by his implicit support of Bruno Latour, who is the author of the following two (and other) gems:

“Provided the two relativities (special and general) are accepted, more frames of reference with less privilege can be accessed, reduced, accumulated and combined, observers can be delegated to a few more places in the infinitely large (the cosmos) and the infinitely small (electrons), and the readings they send will be understandable. His (Einstein’s) book could well be titled: “New Instructions for Bringing Back Long-Distance Scientific Traveler … Who is going to benefit from sending all these delegated observers to the embankment, trains, rays of light, sun, nearby stars, accelerated lifts …? If relativism is right, only one of them (that is, the enunciator Einstein …) will be able to accumulate in one place (his laboratory, his office) the documents, reports and measurements sent back by all his delegates.”

“Did we teach Einstein anything? … My claim would be that, without the enunciator’s position (hidden in Einstein’s account), and without the notion of centers of calculation, Einstein’s own technical argument is ununderstandable.”

Both quoted in Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science, Picador 1998, p. 127 & 131, including an explanation of what Einstein’s theory is actually about.

Well, there are many things I do not understand, but I would not make my ignorance public so explicitly. Did Rorty know of Latour’s embarrassing excursions into physics?

You love these throwaway lines, don't you Dan S de Merengue

>>By contrast, much in modern biology was and is being discovered and applied by creationists.<<

Would you care to back up that statement?

On "the other thread" you claimed that:

>>It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive<<

When challenged, it turns out that you were not actually talking about Creationists, who by your own definition are people who accept "...Genesis as history, with a relatively young earth, global flood, and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, etc."

Instead, you broaden the field to unclude any professed Christian, irrespective of their - unknown - views on Adam and Eve. Your justification for this is simply that in order to be a Christian, you need to "believe" the Bible.

Which, in your quieter moments, you must realize is a somewhat circular, and entirely unsatisfactory, argument.

And I notice that you have started to focus on "neo-Darwinism". Does this mean you have given up attacking Darwin's basic concepts, and have decided instead to exploit the fact that fewer people understand the development of theories that synthesise genetics and evolution?

Because I have to say, your attempts to simplify those ideas into sound-bites are little more than crude diversionary tactics.

>>What we are left with is equivocation on the meaning of the word evolution.<<

Only in your mind, Dan S de Merengue.

Further notes to the subject of Death.
The Bible being the authority accepted by creationists says, Adam's body was made of the very same substance as the dust from the field (Gen 2: 7 the word "Adam" means red earth). The very fact that he ate lesser organic cell structures before (see Gen 1: 29) and after being cast out of heaven (the presence of God) Gen 3: 18b; indicated that he was always subject to the very same organic decay inherent in living cells. He needed to absorb nourishment for energy and renewal for the depleting cells of his body. However I believe the eating of the moral fruit in the Garden of God is allegorical, that is of a spiritual nature and the text of the garden story as allegory. The eating of the fruit that gives moral enlightenment was not literal fruit, or the opening of their eyes (Gen 3: 5) did not refer to natural sight but to spiritual enlightenment. The death they suffered on that day was not organic but spiritual. They were no longer innocent but guilty of violating their image of God.

As Genesis 2: 17 says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that you shall eat of it, you shall die". I ask the question: In the terms of Genesis 2: 17 "in the day" - when did Adam die and what was the nature of this death we inherited mentioned in Romans 5: 12 - 21, and what is the nature of the life we now receive from Christ? That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit (John 3: 6).

Ageing and Death like life is an important process installed by our designer.

Our bodies are part of a natural organic chemical world, subject to its valence features. Every system of the body is set to replentish life for a period, and is according to Ecclesiastes 3: 1 - 15 is set in place by God for a season.

The respiratory system inhales essential oxygen and exhales spent CO2. The digestive system is set to absorb nutrement for energy and cell renewal and excreates waste. The circulatory system is set to reach and feed and renew every cell in the body and expire waste. The nervous system is for self presevation against pain, injury or premature death. The reproductive system is set to replace the whole body in a new independent body. This indicates that from the very beginning the nature of decay and death is part of the organic design.

Contrary to six day creationists view - Organic Death is part of the original design and is good creation. Their problem is: "How can a good God allow organic death?"

Well said Pericles.

Philo

I shouldn't need to point out to you after all this time on OLO, that quoting from a collection of old myths is neither evidence nor convincing to those who understand science that creationism has any relevance apart from being a 'dream-time' tale. You may as well quote from Tolkien.

George,
thanks for the thoughtful response, and the Rorty article.
For a long time now I've had a mental image of the French post-structuralists--Foucault, Lacan, Lyotard, Derrida, Badiou et al--zigzagging around the desert like the Lost Patrol, the zigzag being dialectical reasoning, and I wonder about all the ground that gets missed via this linear method, and also about the antifoundational place it's led them to.
Define "truth"? The idea is that there is no single truth; there's nothing more slippery than truth. Our truth is the product of everything we are. This brings our vaunted reasoning down to Earth, a specious species-peculiarity, with no more extension or universality than whale song (as I've said before).
As I think my posts bear out, I'm interested in materialism, but the great thing about deconstruction--and all those above are variously diluted Marxists--is that it purges ideology (that is if it's seriously considered. Just as evolutionary theory dispels creationism--if only creationists would read it!). We are the puppets of ideology, and ideology is the hegemonic cement that binds this terrible materialism we're stuck with together. Just look at the cacophony of differing opinion and squabbling on OLO, and in society---what we call "reasoning"! Each one of us believing utterly in our truth, our interpretation of the world, our infallible logic--all of which we use to rationalise our egocentrism--our egocentrism in turn rationalising its position in the world and the world to itself; "all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds". We're all petty Panglosses!
The world is a damned mess and our narcissistic reasoning (ideology) maintains it!
Hence the recourse to Marx, or rather to materialism and to ethics. Reform is only possible when ideology is purged.
I think postmodernism is a crock btw, but if you want to get a better handle on it read Lyotard. I'll see if I've got a link to a short piece of his.

Squeers:

Good one on that last. Dr Pangloss it is! What fun.

Back to 22 February 2010 5:02:14 AM

And of course our physical “reality”, the tangible stuff we see and smell and touch, is nothing more than temporary form, composed of atoms and their component parts etc. None of which is to say that we shouldn’t reason, but we should direct it first at the only material reality we have and the problem of how we should live. Rather than reason for its own sake--which I’ve tried to show is non sequitur--or using reason irresponsibly to create technologies, with little consideration of their effects, we should reason an ethical foundation for life, upon which we might build sustainably.
Neither rationalism nor religion offers a viable alternative as neither has its feet on the ground

You are using "rationalism" as "reason for it's own sake"? yes?

Rather, rationalism that accepts our tangible reality as annoyingly persistent is what I mean, and what I think you mean. We have to herd those camels, and eat our pumpkin, and brush our teeth, and not hit other boys (or see what happens?). Those atoms are bloody persistent too. The few types that *won't* survive another 16GY are notable and precious. The forms they take have their own persistence.

Rusty

Severin,
If you are debating with Christians over Creation / evolution you must use their authorative source material.

You might not accept the Biblical text but they and I do, and the subject is the Christian Church and evolution, so the material must deal with the text upon which belief is based.

George,
As a Catholic you would know better than I. Whenever the Pope makes a public comment, for example, on a controversy being debated in certain countries, does his opinion automatically enter into Catholic doctrine?

I’ll have a guess and say that I think not.

I think we’re roughly in agreement as to what might be core beliefs and what are not.

Graham Young said that evolution was core Catholic belief. I challenged this and I still do. To my understanding, for the Catholic church, a core belief might be something like Jesus’ teachings in the Bible, or the Eucharist, or the Nicene Creed.

Squeers,

Thanks for your thoughts as well; especially the first sentence which - I presume - is an interesting (your?) description of postmodernism/poststructuralism (and not a caricature).

>>Define "truth"? The idea is that there is no single truth; there's nothing more slippery than truth. Our truth is the product of everything we are.<<
Well, if you do not define (or explain) a concept, it is hard to evaluate the statements you make about it. Unless you leave it undefined on purpose (like the Christian concept of God illuminated - or not - only through other undefined concepts) in which case your statements constitute a belief system, for or against which one cannot argue. This is what I meant by saying that I could accept Rorty’s maxim, which is more or less a tautology if one assumes that “truth is the product of everything we are” as you put it.

For those for whom the concept of God does not make sense cannot argue about it. Is that perhaps your (and Rorty’s) position about the concept of truth?

With due respect, also your exhortation about the “cacophony of differing opinions … each one of us believing utterly in our truth, our interpretation of the world, our infallible logic--all of which we use to rationalise our egocentrism” sounds to me more like a sermon than a position I could argue against.

Most of what I know of Lyotard is from the book I quoted in the previous post: actually the chapter devoted to him follows the chapter devoted to Latour. I am not going to quote again, just mention that Lyotard makes an excursion this time into mathematics, not realising that the mathematical term “catastrophe” - dealing with bifurcation theory in the study of dynamical systems (usually systems of DE) - has nothing to do with the everyday use of the word “catastrophe” as disaster. Like the term topological space has nothing to do with the space you are looking for when parking your car.

So I am tempted to just repeat the second last sentence of my previous post.

Rusty,
I have enormous respect for scientific method, so far as it goes, but it should be reigned in by ethics and our modest earthly constraints; instead, it follows an obtuse path of liberal rationalism, working hand in glove with directionless capitalism.

George,
the Lost Patrol image is very much mine, so far as I know, and is both a description and a caricature; the desert, of course, is the desert of Lacan's 'Real'. T'would make a great book cover!
I suppose we all get things wrong sometimes--maybe all the time!
Back to truth. I thought I was clear on that, and indeed the concept is simple; what's true for you is not true for me etc. There is no "truth", surely? I would venture the truth that good is better than bad, but that's a value and might be meaningless outside human culture; it seems to be meaningless in nature, and in the stupid universe? Antifoundationalism is part of the Copernican revolution--it just acknowledges our apparent insignificance in the scheme of things, shedding centuries of hubris. Similarly, Darwin trumped creation and Lacan trumped Freud--egocentrism is theorised as nothing more than a confluence of cultural discourses. The Self is an abstraction. Reality (and truth) is mediated by unstable language (Lacan's "symbolic order"); a shimmering human "creation" with no purchase on reality--purely "rhetorical".
What is truth for you?
I was conscious above of sounding a bit sententious (sorry about that), but we were debating "reason" in the abstract, and my position is that our vaunted reason is not only fallible, but hopeless, like that lost patrol! Surely if reason was effective we would have found the "truth" by now?
None of this constitutes a belief system for me. I don't believe in belief; following my hero, Montaigne, I'm too conscious of my ignorance--and like him, not afraid to make it public:-)

Philo

If you wish to discuss evolution it helps if you refer to the substantiated evidence for it - fossils, geological strata, animal diversification and so on. One cannot argue with a book of myths that have no corresponding evidence.

But thank you for demonstrating why Christianity has impeded human knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

Pericles,
I’d be happy to try and back up anything I say. Though I first consider whether the person I’m conversing with is listening, whether they have ears to hear. For I don’t want to waste my breath.

You ask why I have started talking about neo-Darwinism. This is because we want to get the definitions clear of what we’re actually talking about. If we are not clear about definitions, then we could be talking past one another; we could even be arguing about something with which we’re really in agreement.

Are you suggesting ‘evolution’ is something other than the definition of neo-Darwinism that I’ve given above?

Neo-Darwinism is what’s currently in vogue. Did I give up on Darwin’s basic concepts? No, that wasn’t me, that was the rest of the world. Darwin, being a man of his day, had no idea about certain things including the study of genetics. Once genetics came along, Darwinism needed a patch and paint job, on which the scientific community by and large started building the edifice of neo-Darwinism.

Now this had its problems. Problems aren’t necessarily bad, as with research, problems can be ironed out. However, the cracks in the building were large, appearing down even in the foundations. Darwinism, as a structure, was in some appearances similar with the structures built by his contemporaries, Marx and Freud. While some still dabble in the ruins of these antiquated, turn of the (old) century ideas and want them preserved as museum pieces, few these days accept Marx or Freud as being ‘scientific’.

Alternatives were found for these. Alas for Darwin, no naturalistic alternative could be found. So, the edifice of neo-Darwinism kept being built on the cracks and shaky foundations.

Johnson said that those of Marx and Freud have fallen. Darwin’s construction is older, broader, and has grown tall. The difference between this and the other two is that when it falls, the crash will be a lot louder.

Heavy on the claims, and light on the detail, Dan.

<<Did I give up on Darwin’s basic concepts? No, that wasn’t me, that was the rest of the world.>>

Could you explain how the world gave up on Darwin’s basic concepts?

<<Once genetics came along, Darwinism needed a patch and paint job, on which the scientific community by and large started building the edifice of neo-Darwinism.>>

How did genetics do this, and what was it that you believe needed to be patched?

<<Problems aren’t necessarily bad, as with research, problems can be ironed out. However, the cracks in the building were large, appearing down even in the foundations.>>

Whoa! That must have been big!

Can’t wait to hear what you’re referring to!

<<Darwinism, as a structure, was in some appearances similar with the structures built by his contemporaries, Marx and Freud.>>

Evolution is a demonstrable science. The other two are mere philosophies.

<<While some still dabble in the ruins of these antiquated, turn of the (old) century ideas and want them preserved as museum pieces, few these days accept Marx or Freud as being ‘scientific’.>>

There’s a big difference between ‘social science’ and ‘natural science’.

<<Alas for Darwin, no naturalistic alternative could be found. So, the edifice of neo-Darwinism kept being built on the cracks and shaky foundations.>>

“Cracks and shaky foundations”?

That’s a big claim for someone has hasn’t yet been able to any evidence in support of Creationism, or against evolution - on any thread or discussion.

<<Johnson said that those of Marx and Freud have fallen. Darwin’s construction is older, broader, and has grown tall.>>

...and is a demonstrable natural science rather than an ideological philosophy.

Anyway, if you could clarify the above with some answers, that’d be swell!

Thanks.

I have to say, you're an interesting case, Dan.
As I see it, you're very much a 'love at first sight' kind of bloke. Your particular belief system doesn't seem to allow for any modifications; or at least, any modification to a belief system automatically invalidates it.
This perhaps makes some sense, if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Clearly, any modification would be blasphemy. Of course, this means you're stuck with stoning adulterous women, and suffering not, witches to live.
In the world of science, however, this attitude makes no sense whatsoever. Newton claimed he saw far, because he stood on the shoulders of giants; and in doing so, became a giant himself. Einstein in turn built on the work of Newton; he didn't prove him wrong, so much as incomplete.
In the same way, many (thousands) biologists have built on the work of Darwin. Even those who have proposed the greatest modifications to Darwin's work have still been amongst his greatest admirers.
There can be no doubt that, far from being threatened by the work of Mendel, Darwin would have been thrilled to learn of him; as he provided the actual mechanism for passing on characteristics that Darwin was looking for.
You seem like a man who has invested all his faith in one idea, Dan. Any threat to that idea becomes a threat to your faith.
I have no doubt Darwin would have tried to learn, to the day he died.
I have often wondered why Your God would bother. If He already knows exactly what's going to happen, his existence must be incredibly boring.

Severin,
Evolotion theory of itself may be sufficient to form your world view; however it of itself is not in conflict with Christian faith as I have tried to explain from a Biblical perspective. That is the reason many Christians can accept an old Earth position and natural long term developments of species. Atheist can believe whatever they fancy, however the subject is dealing with a Christian world view on evolution, not atheism and evolution. It appears you have no knowledge of a Christian world view and the contribution Christians have made in science. Belief in evolution plays a very small part in practical science.

Thanks Grim. What an examination! You make me think that the topic of discussion was me.

I just look at myself as someone who is willing to take on a minority position. I’d hardly be the first in this.

You say that I seem like a man who has invested all his faith in one idea. You don’t think it is possible to turn those tables around just for a moment and ponder, could the same be said of Darwin, or some of his followers?

The fact is Darwin was not the first to come up with the concept of evolution the ancient Greeks believed some species evolved from others even the Australian aboriginal’s dreamtime stories could express such evolution concepts. Darwin merely documented an arrangement of species and suggested a possible development of such.

The concept existed pre-biblical times in primitive forms, and even had theistic or spirit beings input. We might consider them fables or myths but this is how they explained the world.

Philo

I was raised a Christian within the Anglican Church. I became an atheist at age ten, when I found too much conflict with the natural world around me and literal interpretation of the bible. I probably held a belief in Jesus for a while longer, but as there is no evidence that he even existed - the bible being a collection of anecdotes by various authors with various agendas, I took the best of the teachings into account as I do with other philosophies and religious views such as Buddhism.

That you do not understand the immense contribution to science and understanding the natural world that knowledge of evolution makes is your loss. It is a part of many disciplines from medicine to agriculture. Yes, I know you are a farmer - shame you were reading the bible instead of Genetics 101.

I see no further reason in engaging with you, this thread was started by Graham Young positing that Christianity has made a significant contribution towards science, I and others disagree for reasons that have been clearly outlined in previous posts.

Live long and prosper!

Severin,
Obviously at age 10 you could make mature and intelligent decisions to determine the values and direction of life?

In my church there are professors of horticulture who teach at WS University, professor in electronics UT NSW who assisted in the development of equipment for the NASA space programme, and built the first computer for the Australian Government. Both of these guys became Christians in their 30's and are avid creationists.

But there is more to Christianity than a belief system.

Dear Philo,

Professors of horticulture who are avid creationists? Oh, well, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.

avid David

Dan,

<<You [Grim] say that I seem like a man who has invested all his faith in one idea. You don’t think it is possible to turn those tables around just for a moment and ponder, could the same be said of Darwin, or some of his followers?>>

Nope.

Evolution - as we have both established - is backed by mountains of evidence. In fact, there is not yet one thing in nature that contradicts it.

No faith required.

Of course, if you can think of something, I’d be most grateful if you’d enlighten me.

On another note, could I take your lack of response to my previous request to back your big claims as an admission that what you said wasn’t true?

Philo,

<<In my church there are professors of horticulture who teach at WS University, professor in electronics UT NSW who assisted in the development of equipment for the NASA space programme, and built the first computer for the Australian Government. Both of these guys became Christians in their 30's and are avid creationists.>>

So what is your point then?

I could deny the laws of physics and still drive a car.

Channeling Dorothy Parker eh, david f?

>>Professors of horticulture who are avid creationists? Oh, well, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.<<

I have to admit, that was the first phrase that ran through my mind when I saw Philo's claim.

I'm not sure quite how relevant horticulture is to creationism, though.

Mind you, Philo has me intrigued.

>>In my church there [is a]...professor in electronics UT NSW who ... built the first computer for the Australian Government<<

I presume we're talking about CSIRAC, Philo?

Couldn't be Trevor Pearcey, he died a couple of years back

Do you mean Maston Beard? If so, that is really fascinating, as he went on to work with radio telescopes. In fact he managed the Siding Spring Observatory for a while, if I recall correctly.

If he became a Creationist, now that would be very interesting, after gazing into the depths of the universe for all those years.

He's obviously still hale and hearty, if he's at your church. Thought he'd retired, though, must be into his nineties by now.

Tell us more, please.

But this was a little harsh, don't you think?

>>Obviously at age 10 you could make mature and intelligent decisions to determine the values and direction of life?<<

By that age, most kids have worked out that there is no Santa, no Easter Bunny and no Tooth Fairy. Some of them pretend for a while longer, to humour their parents. In much the same frame of mind, I suspect, that I was in when I accompanied my mother to church every other Sunday, for a while.

Remember, this is about about religion, not about determining "the values and direction in life."

The latter is a process. One that starts well before age ten and continues for some time after. Ceasing to believe in Santa, Jesus etc. tends however to be an event, not a process.

>>But there is more to Christianity than a belief system.<<

More, as in...?

What?

Philo

At age ten I was very capable of critical thinking. I have reviewed my personal philosophical beliefs many time since - I am content with my pre-adolescent decisions.

As for your church:

<<< In my church there are professors of horticulture who teach at WS University, professor in electronics UT NSW who assisted in the development of equipment for the NASA space programme, and built the first computer for the Australian Government. Both of these guys became Christians in their 30's and are avid creationists. >>>

Your church must offer great succour to these professors.

:-)

Yes Dan, it's quite reasonable to suggest Darwin was as focussed on his 'idea' as you are (and certainly Dawkins does tend to exhibit a certain (non) religious fervour), but once again you deftly (or stubbornly) avoid the real issue.
Darwin, as with all scientists, was prepared to see his idea evolve; as other scientists built on his work.
History is an evolution of ideas, philosophies, mores, customs, taboos and thoughts.
Science is an evolution of physical knowledge.
Your theory of Religion is believing that nothing people have learnt in the last 2000 years is worth squat.
David f, that was the absolute worst pun I have read this year.
And it still made me laugh.

Sqeers,

>>what's true for you is not true for me<<
Well, I do not think you meant it sound like it does; you probably meant that there were things I hold true (i.e. believe) while you do not, and vice versa. Then I agree.

>> What is truth for you?<<
This is a challenging question that cannot be answered in 350 words. For instance, Wikipedia has a huge article, discussing various philosopher’s and schools’ views of the concept, that you probably are aware of. Sometimes they complement, rather than contradict, each other.

I personally do not like the concept as such (except in a religious context, where it is undefined, only modeled by mythologies, sacred texts and theologies), although I like the expression “pursuit of truth” as a description of a (natural, but probably also social) scientist’s activity, de-emphasizing (but not completely rejecting) Thomas Kuhn’s approach. Another way to describe this activity is to “explain phenomena” as david f suggested elsewhere.

One things is to believe there is an objective (physical) reality as the source of these phenomena, i.e. sensual perceptions, and another thing is to believe that one KNOWS (or will know in the future), this reality. My belief is of the first kind, hence scientific truth has both a subjective and objective dimensions. Those who believe to KNOW this reality neglect (or reject) the subjective dimension of truth, whereas post-modernists sound to me as neglecting (or even rejecting) the objective dimension of truth.

Something similar, I think, could be said about Truth or Ultimate Reality in its metaphysical/theological sense, althoug today those who reject its objective dimension are much more numerous than those who reject the objective dimension of scientific truth.

Well, I am afraid i did not answer you question completely to your satisfaction but you have to admit that I tried. (ctd)

Sqeers (ctd),
>> I don't believe in belief<<
Again, this makes sense to me only if by “belief” you mean “religious belief”, i.e. in an “Ultimate” Reality irreducible to physical reality (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883). That is fair enough.

However, you cannot be without ANY beliefs. Somebody listed e.g. these, which I think the vast majority of us - of whatever world-view or philosophical pre-disposition - can accept (listed on http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx):

that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations;
that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all);
that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later;
that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior);
that it is likely that a consciousness is permanently destroyed by the destruction of its physical body and will never be resurrected later in another physical body (that is, the only thing that makes us think murder is immoral at all).

There are other “beliefs” known as scientific presuppositions (e.g. the belief in a rational, orderly - not necessarily deterministic - nature of physical reality) without which there could not be any science.

I agree, you can have your beliefs unsystematized, unconscious, but some people - at various levels of sophistication - like to have them systematized into a world-view, naive or not.

Dan,
Let me repeat

“evolution - like Quantum Mechanics, Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc - is not a “core belief of Catholicism”, but simply a scientific insight compatible with what the Church stands for” .

There are many things that are neither a “core belief” nor peripheral to Catholicism. If the Pope made a statement e.g. supporting (or condemning) the ALP, that would not be a “core belief”, but neither would it be “peripheral” - you’d just have to ask the media to see.

AJ,
When you say evolution is a demonstrable science while the ideas of the other two, Marx and Freud, are mere philosophies, you are helping to clarify my point.

That was exactly what I was saying. In their day, Marx and Freud were considered scientific. They were considered able to be put to experiment. Many consider the day the Berlin Wall fell to be the end of a failed experiment.

The ideas still persist, but as ideas, as philosophies. They’re discussed in the halls of ‘social sciences’. Other ideas are making them look old fashion.

Darwin still holds sway in intellectual circles, even within the science faculties. But Johnson was predicting the day when Darwin’s idea will too be downgraded, to be held onto by some, and discussed at length in philosophical domains.

Darwin’s idea has several problems. Firstly, it makes little sense. Secondly, it is supported by little evidence. But in the context that I’m talking about here, its problem is that it is a theory of history, and as such not subject to testing like the real experimental sciences.

Grim,
If you accuse me of saying that people haven’t learned anything worthwhile in the last 2000 years, then it is obvious that you are not really reading my posts. If so, then why direct your comments towards me?

DSM

"Darwin’s idea has several problems. Firstly, it makes little sense. Secondly, it is supported by little evidence."

The logic behind the theory of evolution is simple, competition between animals and species weed out those less able to compete, leading to the species altering over time, to adopt those features that promote survival.

Simply extrapolating back in time would indicate that humans and other animals evolved from earlier species.

All fossil and genetic evidence gathered over many decades fits neatly into this hypothesis, so much so that the probability of an alternative theory finding credence is miniscule.

By its nature, it would be very easy to disprove by simply providing a single species that exists that not linked to any other similar species by genetics or skeletal structure.

Sadly for creationists not a shred of evidence that disproves evolution has yet to emerge. (or a shred of evidence that the world was created by a supreme being)

So in the interim until such evidence emerges (if ever) the scientific world is obliged to consider evolution as the pre eminent theory. To do other wise requires blind faith.

Shadow Minister,
From where and how is genetic information increased?

George,
thanks for struggling with an impossible question--that is impossible if you approach it honestly, child's play in the hands of some.
Despite appearances and just quietly, I suspect there's something rather than nothing. But I don't concern myself with it too much since I'm sure I'll never know, and faith is not an option.
I do find it hard to believe that so many great thinkers, down through the ages, were deluded.

Oh dear, Philo,

You *are* aware of the mecanism by which pseudogenes come to be? Look it up. Duplicated sequences, as well as sequences from effectively random DNA fragments are endogenously spliced into bacterial genomes via various vectors in the wild. Into ours too, thanks to various retroviruses.

Anybody inserting sequences into bacterial plasmids know that *any* sequence will be transcribed and translated at a non-zero rate. Despite deliberately lacking promoter sequences. Even if toxic, making some genes hard to clone, like subunits of the Menke's protein, or CopZ.

Given that pseudogenes and other sequences exist, are translated, and therefore produce proteins of some sort, therefore being subject to normal selection, and subsequent variation and selection.....Given these, as any lab manual in molecular biology will confirm, just why is your question of shadow minister a show stopper?

Rusty

Sqeers,
Thanks for responding (in a way). I indeed prefer the “struggle” involved in trying to answer fundamental existential questions (concerning the world and/or myself) to ignoring them or proclaiming them meaningless. Even at the price of some people finding my approach “dishonest”. I am sure there are many people, including many more insightful than I, with the same preference.

>>I do find it hard to believe that so many great thinkers, down through the ages, were deluded.<<
I understand that by “delusion” you mean the pursuit of (and belief in) the objective dimension of “truth” - understood differently by the old Greeks, differently by medieval and post-medieval philosophers, and differently by contemporary philosophers and scientists . Of course, you are entitled to your (post-modernist?) position that I was trying to understand. So is e.g. runner entitled to his - though he is using different words to describe world-views he disagrees with (or cannot understand). The difference is that - I think - I can understand his beliefs, even if I do not share them. There are many world views - including some based on an atheist position - that are naive, easy to understand, hence easy to dismiss. I thought your position was not one of those. Therefore I took your question seriously, and tried to answer it.

I might just add that without this belief in “truth” - found worth investigating by generations of great (and not so great) thinkers - we would not have computers and the internet to communicate to each other our beliefs or disbeliefs. Besides, the clear distinction between “scientific truth” and “metaphysical/religious truth” - however you define both - is only a couple of centuries old, and even that only in the traditional West.

Dan, I address my remarks to you because, as I said, I find you an interesting case.
How has knowledge of God increased in 2,000 years? Do you think you have a better understanding of Jesus than those who sat at His feet, attended His sermons and heard His parables first hand?
Over time languages themselves evolve; new words are invented which enable new concepts, or greater subtlety of meaning. In an age lacking such lingual nuances, body language and facial expressions would have been far more important than in an age of the telephone.
Islam, B'Hai and Mormonism offer some newer, more 'modern' insights into the nature and desires of God, but as far as I am aware, mainstream Christianity hasn't had any universally accepted updates from God since Jesus.
I would suggest you would have far superior knowledge of: mathematics, medicine, physics, geography and yes even biology than any member of the audience at the Sermon of the Mount.
Yet, of what value is any of that knowledge, if your understanding of your God is less?

Grim

Most concise observation, while our knowledge of the world has multiplied exponentially (despite religious dogma and deliberate intervention) our knowledge of Jesus or 'god' remains unchanged - except for interpretations made according to the researchers' beliefs and agendas - not a concrete piece of evidence in 2000+ years.

George,
I certainly wasn't implying that your response was dishonest, as you say, you engage with existential questions; I was alluding to those who refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their belief systems.
George: "I understand that by “delusion” you mean the pursuit of (and belief in) the objective dimension of “truth” - understood differently by the old Greeks, differently by medieval and post-medieval philosophers, and differently by contemporary philosophers and scientists".
I mean that however we rationalise the world, it is based on our experience of it. I don't discount the possibility that humans are capable of mystical experiences or insights that incite their faith in whatever rationalisation of it suffices for them. My own inclination is to put such experience in my "yet to be explained" basket (by which I do "not" mean that it must have a purely rational explanation), rather than to ascribe it to some pre-established religion or school of thought--unless of course the relationship seems irrefutable, which hasn't happened to me yet.
As I've said a few times, I don't subscribe to postmodernism, which to me is like a popularised aestheticism or culturalism (the link I wanted to send you is copyrighted, but it's Lyotard's "Answering the Question, What is Postmodernism").
I don't know what to say about truth that I haven't said. To me it is the merest banality to that there is no such thing as an indivisible truth, for science or religion. Clearly, going by your post on the other thread, you understand completely, so presumably you're using the word figuratively to describe a "world view" or "spiritual horizon" to which we may aspire as ultimate truth. I have no problem with that, in fact I applaud it, but would describe it as a philosophy (and still human truth); which, moreover, has no need of institutions that are demonstrably and historically worldly and corrupt. If there is an horizon of ultimate truth, I don't believe it is properly represented by any institution on Earth.

Grim,
Is it true that you are an atheist?

If so, then why are we discussing the knowledge of God? I would say that it is a waste of time to discuss our knowledge of a nonexistent being, wouldn’t it?

But while I’m waiting for your answer on that, I’ll give brief answers to your questions.

Christians believe that Jesus was the fullest revelation of God. That is, he is as close to the likeness of God that anyone is ever going to see. In fact, you can go as far as saying that seeing him was seeing God.

Therefore, anything coming later (i.e. in the last two thousand years) is at best an inferior shadow of that full revelation.

Those whom Jesus did teach directly, and those whose lives were a lot closer to him in time and geography, wrote down the records, which today we call the Bible.

The Bible is not thought to contain infinite knowledge about anything. But Christians do believe that it contains sufficient knowledge for living a godly life and for eternal life as described by Jesus, and guaranteed by his death and resurrection.

So while other types of knowledge obtained through the sciences, etc. are increasing, and are increasingly useful in many areas, it is the knowledge of the Bible that is useful for living a life that is pleasing before God. That is, if you believe in God. As I said, if you don’t, I don’t know why we are bothering to talk about it.

In regards to language, it is true that they are always changing. Some say that they devolve as much as evolve. That is, some say that perhaps they are losing their richness. They are losing some of their grammatical inflections, and things like that. Try comparing current English with written English of the time before the printing press. I’ve heard it said that today’s English is less sophisticated than old English. But I’m not sure what this has to do with the subject of the knowledge of God.

Dan,

It would be most helpful to the discussion if you could stop dodging and weaving. I’m starting to feel like an adult in a supermarket grabbing a child by the wrist and trying to get them to walk in a straight line instead of running around the place.

<<When you [that’s me] say evolution is a demonstrable science while the ideas of the other two, Marx and Freud, are mere philosophies, you are helping to clarify my point.

That was exactly what I was saying.>>

I also pointed out that evolution is a natural science and the other two are social sciences (rendering your point irrelevant); something you conveniently forgot in your next paragraph...

<<In their day, Marx and Freud were considered scientific. They were considered able to be put to experiment. Many consider the day the Berlin Wall fell to be the end of a failed experiment.>>

Natural science: the sciences involved in the study of the physical world and its phenomena. (http://tinyurl.com/yalazpo)

Social science: the branch of science that studies society and the relationships of individuals within a society. (http://tinyurl.com/yclxdo6)

<<The ideas still persist, but as ideas, as philosophies.>>

...and they always were just ideas and philosophies. So there was no change.

<<They’re discussed in the halls of ‘social sciences’. Other ideas are making them look old fashion.>>

Thanks for finally acknowledging the “social” part, but...

<<Darwin still holds sway in intellectual circles...>>

We’re talking about evolution here, not Darwin. One is a science, the other is a person.

But whether or not evolution holds sway in “intellectual circles” isn’t relevant here, because evolution is not a social science.

<<...even within the science faculties.>>

EVEN within science faculties?

You make it sound like science faculties are just a secondary and almost surprising place for evolution to be.

<<But Johnson was predicting the day when Darwin’s idea will too be downgraded, to be held onto by some, and discussed at length in philosophical domains.>>

With everything supporting evolution and nothing contradicting it, we can now say with complete confidence that Johnson was wrong.

Continued...

...Continued

But I asked that you point me to something that contradicts evolution, and this is what I got...

<<[Darwin’s idea] makes little sense...>>

To who?

I can understand it wouldn’t make much sense to yourself as you don’t give others the impression that you understand evolution or in fact, science.

Could you elaborate please? Or can we take your lack of response as admission that the following isn’t true?

<<...Secondly, it is supported by little evidence.>>

Evolution is a theory of both history and the present day. We see it happening all the time in ring species and such...

<<But in the context that I’m talking about here, its problem is that it is a theory of history, and as such not subject to testing like the real experimental sciences.>>

That’s not a problem at all, because as we’ve established once before, eyewitness accounts are usually less reliable than evidence left behind. Just ask a forensic scientist.

Still waiting for an explanation of how “Darwinism needed a patch and paint job” too.

Thanks.

Rusty Catheter,
As I have already stated I believe evolution is probably the most likley process of life. However I am not asking the process but the source of additional genes not formerly present to form a completely new species totally independent of its parent and not able to breed with its cousins. Which is what defines a separate species.

However the new species is not superior or better just totally different, eg apes and humans. Where are the examples of beings between apes and human. The Australian aboriginals have been seperated from European society for thousands of years yet they have the same genes and are able to marry and bear offspring. If it takes millions of years then there ought to be many variant branches between apes and man breeding even today.

Squeers,
I think you confuse two things, probably because I myself did not make that distinction clear enough:

(1) the “objective truth” about reality investigated by science, i.e. about physical reality independent of the subjective (social etc) context;
(2) the “objective truth” about the structure of all Reality, i.e. whether or not it is reducible to physical reality.

In both cases “objective truth” coexists with “subjective - or observer dependent - truth”, although in (2) the subjective side is more pronounced than in (1): As I said elsewhere, “God created man” and “man created God” are two sides of the same coin. In case (1) I do not think observer-dependent and independent “truths” play such symmetric roles, the Copenhagen school notwithstanding.

The dispute in (1) is between scientists and “social constructivists of science” (related to the two C.P. Snow cultures?), the dispute in (2) between theists and atheists. Although elsewhere I made it clear where I stood in (2), my concern in the last two posts was along the lines of (1), in defense of the objective character of truth pursued by scientists.

Defence of the objective character of “scientific truths” was behind Sokal‘s “hoax” article, and triggered the “science wars”. This had nothing to do with the disputes sub (2): most of the “science wars warriors” from both sides were atheists (agnostics) and politically leftist.

“(T)he laws of physics are real … in pretty much the same sense (whatever that is) as the rocks in the fields, and not in the same sense … as the rules of baseball. … The objective nature of scientific knowledge has been denied … by Bruno Latour and (as I understand them) by influential philosophers Richard Rorty and Thomas Kuhn, but it is taken for granted by most natural scientists (the atheist physicist Steven Weinberg in “The Sokal Hoax”, U. of Nebraska 2000, p. 155).

Apparently our sympathies are for the opposite sides both sub (2) and sub (1). Did I understand you properly?

George,
This debate has been going on since the Greeks, through Kant to the pomos. Derrida also debated Searle on the subject and for my money won on points. I don't have a decisive stand on reality. I've said above that I'm interested in materialism, which implies absolute subscription to objective reality, though my materialism is highly qualified. In the end we can't know if objective reality is "true"; what does that mean anyway? Truth is a human construct. I believe in our reality to the extent that it is probably the only reality we will, as humans, ever know, notwithstanding that it is finite and ergo that there are limits to its "reality". Reality is "objective" to the extent that it objectifies the human condition, how can we know if we objectify it? Science cannot pretend to transcend that horizon, though it elides it experimentally--often irresponsibly--the method proving productive of technologies that far outstrip our ability to assimilate. Embracing these technologies, we are that much more remote from the "real" conditions of physical life, which are ever more degraded. Conversely, religion seduces us with the prospect of "real" ethereal realms, beyond this veil of tears, also concomitantly denigrating physical reality.
I have no idea of the validity of "reality investigated by science", but even if reality is objectively perceived, I doubt scientists' ability to understand it objectively, outside human constructs. Moreover I'm critical of science's blind questing, often both remote from human cares and exacerbating of them.
I do not camp with the constructivists, however; I like to think that it is possible to see through ideology, or at least to perceive ideology as the opacity that prevents us from appreciating the world as it is, beneath cultural rationalising.
So I don't take a definitive stand on truth or reality. I simply don't know and don't believe in belief. The fact that I comply with the constraints of reality doesn't mean I "believe" in it, just that I'm obliged to observe those limitations. Cultural reality is definitely mutable, and we should be bringing it down to Earth.

Philo,

You asked about new genes, I told you.

If you look up horizontal gene transfer you will see how new metabolic capacities can be transferred between species having been rough-hewn in the bacterial cauldron. Viruses are a major vector and arguably the principal "cauldron" in which new highly active promoter sequences are generated.

The "source" of new genes is mutation and selection, and the starting point for this in existing biology is *any* unused but transcribable sequence.

Now, one new gene does not make a new species (except in special cases), nor does altering the expression in a recipient.

Given that more and more can and do accumulate, along with viral sequences including active promoters, do you propose that a lineage *cannot* accumulate enough to enable a basis for selection or even for eventual divergence into a new species?

Very few coding genes differ (and often barely so) between (say) chimps and humans. The likely source of our genuine developmental divergence from chimps lies in the switching and regulation of coding genes.

This is achieved through such means as cis and trans-activating factors binding directly to DNA to either enhance or inhibit transcription. Short pieces of RNA binding to the transcript achieve similar roles. These sequences are more variable within species than coding regions and given this placticity, more able to be altered by viral inserts, run-of-the-mill mutation events and recombination in every generation. All activating/inhibiting and transcription factors bind to *all* DNA at low levels. If the transcription product is in any way beneficial, it is likely to be passed on, if merely neutral, it is still likey to pass on for many generations. In either case mutations will occur and more/less/more specificity can be selected in the ordinary way.

It is hardly a mystery where new genes come from.

As for all those intermediate organisms, why should they coexist but briefly? In the period that they overlap, they are not as innovative in their capacities as their divergent subgroup, nor as optimised for old conditions as their ancestors. Look up punctuated equilibrium.

Rusty

Philo,

In continuation, and sorry about the hiatus:

Some speciation events are driven by errors in existing genetic material. Horses and donkeys have sufficiently similar genomes that they can produce a (nominally) sterile hybrid. The difference is a recombination error resulting in the fusion (fission?) of two chromosomes.

Simply by having a mismatch in chromosomes number from each parent, with all obviously critical genes otherwise present, makes interbreeding between the divergent group and the parent population virtually impossible. hence speciation with hardly any change in the number of genes, possibly even a small reduction.

A feature corresponding to what *we* might regard as a genetic disease separates these species. Both with us to this day.

Hope this helps.

Rusty,
- "Horses and donkeys have sufficiently similar genomes that they can produce a (nominally) sterile hybrid. The difference is a recombination error resulting in the fusion (fission?) of two chromosomes."

I do not believe horses and donkeys mate in the wild envoronment to produce mules; that is the reason donkeys are identifiable and horses are identifiable. However the chromosomes in a mule are not new (original) material just the combination of the parent are not compatable to establish a new species

Rusty,

The source of new information is published, however, requires some knowledge of genetics to fully comprehend.

Philo probably will try using the same tired old tactic of debating the issue of evolution on some obscure detail where most lay people have limited knowledge, and thus sound authorative.

He tries to sound unbiased by "I believe evolution is probably the most likley process of life" as if it was one of many of which scientific opinion was still out, but completely fails to give any other process with any probability.

Sqeers,

Thank you for your effort at explaining your position. I see, it is not diametrically opposed to mine, and I agree with much of what you wrote.

However, I think Sokal and Bricmont (and I in my recent posts) did not react to Kant or his critics - after all we are not philosophers and you are right that this is a philosophical debate that has been going on for ages - but to social constructivists, deconstructionists, postmodernists etc, using pieces of mathematics and physics, (that they demonstrably do not understand), in support of their criticism of world-views shared by those who are professionals in these fields.

It is not just a mistake what they make: If you say “Melbourne is the capital of Australia” you make a mistake. If you say “John Howard is the capital of Australia” you do not understand what you are talking about. I think the “errors” of Latour, Lyotard et al are of the second kind. As for Derrida, Sokal and Bricmont state in their book, “although the quotation from Derrida contained in Sokal’s parody is rather amusing, it is a one-shot abuse; since there is no systematic misuse of (or indeed attention to) science in Derrida’s work, there is no chapter on Derrida in this book” (p.8).

>>Reality is "objective" to the extent that it objectifies the human condition, how can we know if we objectify it?<<
How would e.g. a physicist “objectify the human condition”? I can understand when he/she assumes the existence of “objective reality” as the source of phenomena he/she tries to explain and make forecasts about. This is not the same as to pretend that he/she knows this reality, ignoring the limitations given by his/her "being only a human observer embedded in a social, cultural environment". So in this sense I agree with you.

I can “investigate” your posts (“deconstruct” your text, if you like) without KNOWING you at all. However it would be rather pointless if I did not ASSUME that you existed. (ctd)

Philo, you are determined to misunderstand.

You asked about where new genes "come from". You have been told they evolve from (far) lesser sequences.

You restate, emphasising you think it is too hard to get enough "new" genes to separate a species. You have been informed of species separated by a simple change in chromosome number (and negligible alteration of the genes), still so closely related they *almost* mate successfully, and *do* produce a zygote. Horses and donkeys diverged so recently that they have not yet accumulated sufficient alterations to not hybridise. Not so long ago, one was a (barely) diseased subgroup of the other, more fertile within subgroup than out. Mules just by being possible show how very nearly identical they still are.

Since you need to, go look up sympatric and allopatric speciation.

Rusty

Shadow Minister,
Since you have comprehensive knowledge of the source of new genetic material perhaps you could give the source of the genes found in humans not found in monkeys, since that is a recent evolutionary development. Is this merely theoretical or is it demonstratable?

Since I only have intermediate school education, you could give in plain language where possible sources of the new genes could come from. Do you only accept others theoretic views or have you seen them demonstrated?

(ctd)
>>perceive ideology as the opacity that prevents us from appreciating the world as it is, beneath cultural rationalising<<
Whatever you mean by “cultural rationalising” (isn't rational thinking supposed to be, by definition, beyond diversity of cultures?), I again have to agree that you cannot know “the world as it is” (Kantian “Ding an sich"?).

>> So I don't take a definitive stand on truth or reality. I simply don't know <<
That sounds like the classical agnostic position, at least when here “truth and reality” refers to what I called case (2) in my previous post.

>>(I) don't believe in belief.<<
I already reacted to this before. Taken verbatim, this sounds to me as if you said “I am not speaking” or wrote “I am not writing”. One has to have some basic assumptions to start with, e.g. the acceptance (belief in) the rules of logic, or those I listed before.

>>The fact that I comply with the constraints of reality doesn't mean I "believe" in it, just that I'm obliged to observe those limitations.<<
You can “believe” (or not) e.g. in God, because such belief has something to do with faith, a state of mind. However, I think most scientists do not “believe in” physical reality independent of their observations, they just tacitly assume its existence, including the constraints and limitations (of cultural or whatever nature) that they have to “comply with” when trying to understand it, explain its manifestations in the mind of the observer and thinker.

Anyhow, let me thank you again for providing incentives for a perusal of what I actually believe about reality, physical or beyond.

Philo,

Rusty has already done this in as simple a fashion as possible. Secondly, humans share a common ancestor to apes, and did not evolve from them.

Considering that humans share about 99% of the genes of these simians, this is strong evidence that there is a common ancestor. If we and the apes were independently created there would be no need for so many common genes.

Shadow Minister: "Rusty has already done this in as simple a fashion as possible."

You gotta be kidding me. Rusty wrote like an expert who has no appreciation for the depth of his expertise, no inkling if you like for the gulf in understanding that exists between him and Philo.

Despite that, I have trouble believing Philo doesn't know the answer to his own question. It isn't like is same answer isn't given every time it is asked. And unlike Rusty's answer it is given in very simple terms that a 5 year old could understand.

If he claims he doesn't know the answer, it isn't because he hasn't been told or doesn't understand. At best it is because he doesn't like the answer he was given and goes looking for a better one. I'd lay odds that isn't it though. To me it looks more like a case of spouting bullsh1t from the pulpit.

rstuart:

Thanks for kind words, sorry about that lack of appreciation. Philo wants to talk about this stuff like he is expert, with his own theory no less.

Philo:
Separation of our lineage from chimps occurred long ago, about 5.5 million years. That separation could easily be caused by something as straightforward as the more recent horse/zebra/donkey division, *followed* by the sort of normal genetic variation within lineages that you say you don't dispute.

The separation of human and chimp ancestors was very probably driven by otherwise negligible cytogenetic differences and mutations of key genes involved in gametogenesis or embryogenesis that happenned to be incompatible. The vast majority of human-chimp divergence is regarded as being after this separation. Despite this, banding patterns on human and chimp chromosomes are nearly identical except where major translocations have occurred. Hence the p and q arms of human chromosome2 correspond to two separate chromosomes in the great apes. Coding sequences differ in by less than 2%. Non-coding regions of clinical interest by about 2% as well. That is in sequence match, not in number which is very nearly identical.

In other words, there are bugger-all "new" genes of any sort whatsoever "separating" humans and chimps, bugger-all difference in the full set of coding genes and little variation in the sequences that help regulate these genes. Essentially just tweaking.

The few extras (probably in chimps) are awaiting completion of the chimp genome.

Banging away as if you have not heard, you are still asking after a catalogue of all genes differing between humans and "monkeys" *and* the "source" of these genes. They differ by increasing sequence divergence (mutations of existing genes, drifting or under selective pressure), by large scale rearrangements of the existing genomes, and by the occasional addition of new genes by viruses.

Anybody so very hard to please is not being genuine if they don't get down to the library themselves.

I recommend "Molecular Biology of the Gene" by James D Watson, and "Human Molecular Genetics" by Strachan & Read. Both of these are common undergrad texts, frequently updated and quite readable.

Rusty

George,
an abiding regret of mine is that I'm innumerate, at least in higher maths. I remember reading Bertrand Russell's autobiography and realising there was a whole dimension closed to me (do I have the energy to learn it now? I don't think so).
It does seem to me that a lot of academic writing is wilfully abstruse and I'm determined the dissertation I'm working on will be as accessible as I can make it. I haven't come across any of those glaring errors you attribute to Lyotard et al, but I don't doubt it. What I do come across a lot is nearly impenetrable prose, which I would hazard is just as bad as even when meaning is wrested from it, it can only be ambiguous at best.
However I remain sceptical that the hard sciences (and analytic philosophy) are in a position to look down upon the ancestors of the romantics, and I'll be looking for new arguments to test positivism and keep the bastards honest.

George:
>>(I) don't believe in belief.<<
I already reacted to this before. Taken verbatim, this sounds to me as if you said “I am not speaking” or wrote “I am not writing”. One has to have some basic assumptions to start with, e.g. the acceptance (belief in) the rules of logic, or those I listed before."
Yes, but let's not conflate our orientation with the possibility that we can think critically, in the third person as it were. One of the things I'm arguing is just that, that human intellect is, potentially, capable of transcending that orientation, of transcending ourselves via the hypothetical models we construct and test. We seem designed (poor choice of words?) to virtually transcend the limitations incumbent upon our physical being, including the primitive drives. It seems to me that each of us is a biological form and heavily influenced by biological imperatives, but at the same time we are representational beings; we project an idealised version of ourselves and live a double life as it were. The projected sense of self is so far removed from our crude biological being, its thoughts so quixotic, that it seems innately capable of questioning the premises of its own existence. Thus, neither do I believe that this remarkable human capacity, perhaps, to transcend itself, is mere cultural conditioning. And that's the sense in which I think of ideology as cultural rationalising.
Thanks for the engagement, George.

Squeers,
You mention Russell: my favourite joke (about his philosophy, not mathematics) was that I could understand him but did not agree with him, whereas I agreed with Alfred Whitehead but could not understand him. Well, unlike you, I am not a philosopher.

I understand “thinking in the third person” as trying to understand the objective dimension of what our subjective truths are about: seeing both the “finger” (that we are ABLE to “touch”) and the “moon” (that we are UNABLE to “touch”) the finger is pointing to. Actually, I believe in many fingers pointing more or less to the same moon.

I do not think you need to be that proficient in “higher mathematics” to have a better insight into scientists’ (notably cosmologists’ and theoretical physicists’) points of view. I would recommend you read articles in the mentioned book “The Sokal Hoax”, U. of Nebraska 2000, (that includes also Sokal’s parody and his explanation why he did it). There are views you will disagree with, some you will agree with, but I think you will gain an insight into how serious thinkers approach the problem also from the other side. At least that was my experience.

This time I do not see anything in your last long paragraph that I could not agree with. As I understand it, it expresses a position somewhere between the two extremes of “epistemological relativism” (all scientific theories, truth-claims, are only culture-determined and equally valid) and “epistemological absolutism” (we already know the physical world as it is, c.f. the advise given to Max Planck by his teacher not to go into physics, because “in this field, almost everything has already been discovered”).

I probably could not have put it more eloquently. Thus, thanks again.

For those still interested in human evolution, I think this is a very ineresting recent article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html

CJ Morgan: "I think this is a very ineresting recent article from the New York Times:"

Thanks CJ, it was interesting.

They are rather hampered by the tools they have. The most likely effect of culture is psychological outlook. Like whether we tend to cooperate or fight, how trusting we are of authority, our relative skills at throwing a spear versus pushing a pen. As far as I know, they don't have a clue what genes drive this, yet it is those genes that our cultures put under the most selective pressure.

Fascinating read CJ.

Always amazed that no matter what new technology is created, someone will always have a talent for it be it, Jet engines, computing, whatever.

That evolution can happen faster than mutation and time would suggest, is an interesting field of research, that the genes we carry are not all 'fixed' and may be mutable and passed on to children.

Always want to live long enough to see what happens next.