Creationism, Evolution, and the Theology

[Non Sequitur]

This topic seems to pop up ever so often and, while I usually hate discussing it, it might be a good idea to have a dedicated thread to the theology behind the interpretations of Genesis 1. If one wants to refer to the text, look here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-3&version=NIV)

To begin with, I think it would helpful to see what Christians to agree on. There are some basic principles

1. God is the redeemer of this world: while this is not directly relevant, All Christians would agree on this point and any good Lutheran will always begin with the cross :D

2. God is the creator and sustainer of life: the Apostles creed (the oldest creed) states: "I believe in God, the father, the almighty, creator of heaven and earth." Notice it does not say how or why. While there is a far amount of room for disagreement within this belief any given Christian probably wouldn't disagree with it

3. God reveals himself to humanity: pretty simple here

4. The bible is sufficient for salvation: notice I did not say only (although some would).

Now, the issue of creationism, evolution and interpretation of Genesis 1 give Christians difficulty because of one basic question

what do we mean when we say "the bible is truth"

this basic question divides people into a couple groups

1. Creationists: there a several different forms of creationist, but they all fall into the same general set beliefs. Creationist theology stems from their answer to the truth question. Their answer would be truth= fact (it's Ironic that creationists and evolution advocates operate under the same understanding of truth). If we say the Bible is truth, then it must be both historical ans scientific truth and science/history should reflect this. Adam and Eve are thus real people from which all other humans are descended. Evolution is thus denied because it does not reflect the fact of the biblical record

2. Evolutionary Creationists: this group includes almost anyone arguing for intelligent design. Their answer to the question is that science and the bible do not have a total monopoly on truth. Science does not trump the bible and the bible does not trump science because both are an incomplete picture of the world without each other. Adam and eve are usually thought of as representatives in some way for the whole human race, but were not the only human beings. Evolution is a process that God used in conjunction with divine miracles to create the world. Personally I have trouble with this category because it reduces God to a "god of the gaps". God is only present in the things we can't explain.

3. Acreationists: Just like Amillennialists do not believe that the book of Revelation is an exact timeline for the end of the world, Acreationists say asking questions about the scientific/historic truth of Genesis is asking a question that is not answered in the Bible. Just as one would not go to a math book to find out when WWII started, one does not go the Bible to ask questions about the age of universe or it's formation process. Biblical truth rises above just scientific or historical fact. The story of Adam and Eve is thus a story more about the human condition that points to the gospel than anything else. Debates about evolution usually don't matter in this belief.
================================================== ========================================

I fall into the category 3 when answering this question. If one continually asks the question "is this scientifically or historically true?" one misses the point of the gospel message.

on a side note, literal Biblical interpretation is a relatively new belief not arising until the 1800's. Augustine, for example, in the 400's says that Genesis is a story and not literal and is not concerned at all with this belief. Similarly, Luther thoroughly enjoyed pointing out contradictions in the biblical account to people.

let the questions and/or discussion begin!

[Zarquon]

I fall into the category 3 when answering this question. If one continually asks the question "is this scientifically or historically true?" one misses the point of the gospel message.

on a side note, literal Biblical interpretation is a relatively new belief not arising until the 1800's. Augustine, for example, in the 400's says that Genesis is a story and not literal and is not concerned at all with this belief. Similarly, Luther thoroughly enjoyed pointing out contradictions in the biblical account to people.

let the questions and/or discussion begin!
What was the Roman Catholic Church's position on this before Vatican II?
What did Vatican II change?
How can they 'reform' and yet maintain 'infallibility' of the pope(and thereby all popes)?

[Non Sequitur]

What was the Roman Catholic Church's position on this before Vatican II?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution) has a good article on this subject. to sum it up, the response was varied. Evolution is specifically mentioned in a Papal encyclical until 1950 and that encyclical comes down neutral on the subject. Several things the Vatican seemed Concerned with:
1. God did not create humanity because he was forced to by evolutionary process.
2. The soul did not come into being via evolution.
3. A literal Adam did exist.
4. The church has the authority to make rulings on spiritual matters.

An interesting note is a quote from Vatican I: "Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds"
What did Vatican II change?
basically, the idea of Adam as an actual person was thrown out and Evolution embraced.

How can they 'reform' and yet maintain 'infallibility' of the pope(and thereby all popes)?

Papal infalibility is actually a relatively new doctrine that was clearly defined in the 1870's at Vatican I. Before that, they did have the doctrine of the Pope speaking Ex Cathedra or "speaking from the chair" meaning the chair of St. Peter. This Doctrine is also used only sparingly. The last time a Pope spoke Ex Cathedra or infallibly was in 1950 to clarify the dogmas surrounding Mary. Before that, it was only used in 1870 when the doctrine was clarified. The Pope is not always infallible and even when he speaks so, it usually only qualifies for his special set of circumstances and context, not eternally.

[Non Sequitur]

Remember I'm not Catholic so these answers come from my general knowledge of Catholic theology.

[Michael]

This topic seems to pop up ever so often and, while I usually hate discussing it, it might be a good idea to have a dedicated thread to the theology behind the interpretations of Genesis 1. If one wants to refer to the text, look here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-3&version=NIV)

To begin with, I think it would helpful to see what Christians to agree on. There are some basic principles

1. God is the redeemer of this world: while this is not directly relevant, All Christians would agree on this point and any good Lutheran will always begin with the cross :D

2. God is the creator and sustainer of life: the Apostles creed (the oldest creed) states: "I believe in God, the father, the almighty, creator of heaven and earth." Notice it does not say how or why. While there is a far amount of room for disagreement within this belief any given Christian probably wouldn't disagree with it

3. God reveals himself to humanity: pretty simple here

4. The bible is sufficient for salvation: notice I did not say only (although some would).

While I don't claim to be a Christian, I do think these four points are pretty darn good ones, though they do betray a protestant bias.

As an aside, I must admit that when I put on my 'religious hat', it is usually a Roman Catholic shaped hat. I figure this is because the Roman Catholic Church does provide a singular and authorative doctrine that I can reference with some confidence without getting myself all tangled up with the subtle differences of protestant theology because I don't really study theology at all.

One quick note about point #4 - I believe a better term for "only" (in that context) would be "necessary". Those two words (sufficient and necessary) are very useful terms for informal logic/rule statements. For example, you could say that "the Bible is sufficient for salvation - notice that I didn't say necessary". That is a very clear and precise statement that appeals to us logic types! :)

Now, the issue of creationism, evolution and interpretation of Genesis 1 give Christians difficulty because of one basic question

what do we mean when we say "the bible is truth"

this basic question divides people into a couple groups

1. Creationists: there a several different forms of creationist, but they all fall into the same general set beliefs. Creationist theology stems from their answer to the truth question. Their answer would be truth= fact (it's Ironic that creationists and evolution advocates operate under the same understanding of truth). If we say the Bible is truth, then it must be both historical ans scientific truth and science/history should reflect this. Adam and Eve are thus real people from which all other humans are descended. Evolution is thus denied because it does not reflect the fact of the biblical record

2. Evolutionary Creationists: this group includes almost anyone arguing for intelligent design. Their answer to the question is that science and the bible do not have a total monopoly on truth. Science does not trump the bible and the bible does not trump science because both are an incomplete picture of the world without each other. Adam and eve are usually thought of as representatives in some way for the whole human race, but were not the only human beings. Evolution is a process that God used in conjunction with divine miracles to create the world. Personally I have trouble with this category because it reduces God to a "god of the gaps". God is only present in the things we can't explain.

3. Acreationists: Just like Amillennialists do not believe that the book of Revelation is an exact timeline for the end of the world, Acreationists say asking questions about the scientific/historic truth of Genesis is asking a question that is not answered in the Bible. Just as one would not go to a math book to find out when WWII started, one does not go the Bible to ask questions about the age of universe or it's formation process. Biblical truth rises above just scientific or historical fact. The story of Adam and Eve is thus a story more about the human condition that points to the gospel than anything else. Debates about evolution usually don't matter in this belief.
================================================== ========================================


I don't think you are being entirely fair to #2 (evolutionary creationists), given that general position seems to represent at least a fairly large proportion of Christians - specifically the official Roman Catholic Church position on evolution. The RCC actually references the 'watchmaker analogy' as a guide to interpreting the essential compatibility of 'creationism' and 'evolution'.

I think this is rather a brilliant resolution of the 'problem', though it is uniquely a 'catholic' one, dependent as it is upon papal authority.

I tip my hat :hatoff: to the clever Jesuit who came up with that one!


I fall into the category 3 when answering this question. If one continually asks the question "is this scientifically or historically true?" one misses the point of the gospel message.

on a side note, literal Biblical interpretation is a relatively new belief not arising until the 1800's. Augustine, for example, in the 400's says that Genesis is a story and not literal and is not concerned at all with this belief. Similarly, Luther thoroughly enjoyed pointing out contradictions in the biblical account to people.

let the questions and/or discussion begin!
Pointing at my 'catholic-shaped hat', I must note that the RCC has long asserted that the bible is not to be taken literally as the 'word of God'. They are stories, analogies, parables, lessons, etc.

And yes, I agree that 'Bible-literalism' was pretty much born of the 19th century.

As for the Acreationists, that's very interesting. Are they closely identified with the Amillennialists? I should think they would be one and the same, would they not? They are precise words applied to precisely different doctrinal positions, but both appear to draw water from the same well.

[dilettante]

Nice post, Non. I like the general three part schema of creationism(s) and the four common points of Christianity, though I was kinda perplexed that the name Jesus (or Christ) didn't make it in there anywhere. :)

literal Biblical interpretation is a relatively new belief not arising until the 1800's. Augustine, for example, in the 400's says that Genesis is a story and not literal and is not concerned at all with this belief. Similarly, Luther thoroughly enjoyed pointing out contradictions in the biblical account to people.

I might be mistaken, but I think that it would be more accurate to say that a literal interpretation of Genesis is relatively new. Plenty of other Old Testament books have long been interpreted as factual recordings of events. I'm thinking here of narrative books on the Hebrews. e.g. Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc.
And of course the bulk of Christianity, in general, has always interpreted the gospels of being factual (if not necessarily inerrant) records of actual events; its a slim Christian fringe that looks on those primarily as metaphor.

[Greendruid]

Well, I teach a course that basically goes over some very similar ground here. While it is admittedly a philosophy of science course more than anything else, I am always adamant to point out that my goal in the discussion is never to prove faith or religion wrong to the deference of evolutionary theory.

My position is always that science and religion, specifically where the two come into contact on the issue of creation and evolution, cannot speak to each other. Science is always about making observations about phenomena in the universe and then creating theories to explain said phenomena. These theories must be testable with hypotheses, preferably falsifiable hypotheses in the tradition of Karl Popper. Because religion, including a stance that holds human beings were created, is based entirely on faith, not on observations of phenomena that lead to testable hypotheses, then we have to conclude that religious subjects cannot be submitted to scientific testing. Likewise, scientific testing cannot be subjected to scrutinising with articles of faith.

The two approaches are two ways of understanding the universe. I am definitely not a post-modernist and I believe that there is a "true" universe with "true" phenomena that can be observed. However, I'm not so arrogant to believe that human beings are capable, or ever will be capable, of observing ALL phenomena in the universe. We are a very limited but fascinating bunch of intelligent apes. There is one universe out there (let's not get into multiple time-lines for the sake of argument here) and there are many ways to explain that universe. Science goes about it one way, religion another. Neither are right, neither are wrong. Both set up the terms by which to explain the universe at the outset and both satisfy those terms with their own types of "answers" about the universe.

Where evolution and creation are concerned, we have irreconcilable differences to answer that age-old question, "Where did we come from?" Evolutionary theory sets forth to explain this with a model of mechanisms that are testable and observable in the world. None of these mechanisms has been shown to be wrong in 150 years or so. I suspect that we will have to find a different planet with completely different players (chemical and biological) to really see if this model holds water. Creationism is not a model with testable hypotheses. It supposes that a supreme god created humanity. God is presented as unknowable and untestable. There are so many interpretations of Genesis 1 and literalism is one scale by which these interpretations can be measured. Michael is quite correct to assert the Catholic position as being one most removed from the literalist camp or end of the scale. Jehovah's Witnesses would be at that end of the scale. Regardless of this, all the Abrahamic traditions hold that God is unknowable and untestable by his/her/its very nature. The terms of explanation of the universe from this position make the outcome (creationism) irreconcilable with a scientific explanation (evolutionary theory).

I would finally like to note that evolutionary theory NEVER proposes a mechanism, reason or impetus for the start of evolutionary theory. It does not seek to explain why these mechanisms exist or came into being. It only seeks to present them as existing. The reasons for that are rightly the property of philosophy and religious studies. They are untestable questions that science cannot address and so it doesn't seek to address them. Both camps (science and religion) have their share of idiots that make this an evolution VS. creationism debate. Unfortunately, the real explanations presented by both aren't even showing up to the same debate hall, let alone talking about the same thing. Religious explanations are more interested in "why are we here?" questions. Science explanations are more interested in "how are we here?" questions.

[Michael]

Religious explanations are more interested in "why are we here?" questions. Science explanations are more interested in "how are we here?" questions.

Great point. More often than not, when it comes to these type of debates, the religious types demand the science types answer "why?" and the science types demand that the religious types answer "how?". All rather silly and circular.

[SMadsen]

Great point. More often than not, when it comes to these type of debates, the religious types demand the science types answer "why?" and the science types demand that the religious types answer "how?". All rather silly and circular.
Well, my experience says that neither of this is correct. Religious types do not demand anyone to give an answer (least of all to "why?") because they have no questions. By the same token, science types do not demand the religious to answer any hows as far as their workfield is concerned because they know as well as the religious types what the answer will be way before the question is asked.


For example, if I want to ask a creationist a question it will have nothing to do with either creation or the natural world; it will concern my perplexity from experiencing that people can be so consistently dishonest in their defense of ideology.

[Non Sequitur]

While I don't claim to be a Christian, I do think these four points are pretty darn good ones, though they do betray a protestant bias.

As an aside, I must admit that when I put on my 'religious hat', it is usually a Roman Catholic shaped hat. I figure this is because the Roman Catholic Church does provide a singular and authorative doctrine that I can reference with some confidence without getting myself all tangled up with the subtle differences of protestant theology because I don't really study theology at all.

Nothing wrong with that, Roman Catholic theology is a wonderful (or at least the parts I have read). It's remarkably flexible.

One quick note about point #4 - I believe a better term for "only" (in that context) would be "necessary". Those two words (sufficient and necessary) are very useful terms for informal logic/rule statements. For example, you could say that "the Bible is sufficient for salvation - notice that I didn't say necessary". That is a very clear and precise statement that appeals to us logic types! :)
hmmm, I'm not quite sure that is what I want to say though. I can probably agree to the language change if I clarify that I think the Bible is very, very important for salvation also.
I don't think you are being entirely fair to #2 (evolutionary creationists), given that general position seems to represent at least a fairly large proportion of Christians - specifically the official Roman Catholic Church position on evolution. The RCC actually references the 'watchmaker analogy' as a guide to interpreting the essential compatibility of 'creationism' and 'evolution'.

I think this is rather a brilliant resolution of the 'problem', though it is uniquely a 'catholic' one, dependent as it is upon papal authority.

I tip my hat :hatoff: to the clever Jesuit who came up with that one!
Probably right that I am not being entirely fair to that point. It works well most of the time, I just don't like some of it's implications that's all.
As for the Acreationists, that's very interesting. Are they closely identified with the Amillennialists? I should think they would be one and the same, would they not? They are precise words applied to precisely different doctrinal positions, but both appear to draw water from the same well.
I came across that term when I had a class on on the first 5 books of the Bible. I haven't really found it used in a lot of literature, but the prof used it saying something like "the approach to scripture is the same." So yes, in my example, I am also an Amillennialist.

[Non Sequitur]

I might be mistaken, but I think that it would be more accurate to say that a literal interpretation of Genesis is relatively new. Plenty of other Old Testament books have long been interpreted as factual recordings of events. I'm thinking here of narrative books on the Hebrews. e.g. Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, etc.
And of course the bulk of Christianity, in general, has always interpreted the gospels of being factual (if not necessarily inerrant) records of actual events; its a slim Christian fringe that looks on those primarily as metaphor.

Good point. There are some books that are clearly presented as history of some sort (although different from our modern conception of history).

As for the cross, we could get into point number 1 more, but that would side track us.

[JHC]

Well, I teach a course that basically goes over some very similar ground here. While it is admittedly a philosophy of science course more than anything else, I am always adamant to point out that my goal in the discussion is never to prove faith or religion wrong to the deference of evolutionary theory.

My position is always that science and religion, specifically where the two come into contact on the issue of creation and evolution, cannot speak to each other. Science is always about making observations about phenomena in the universe and then creating theories to explain said phenomena. These theories must be testable with hypotheses, preferably falsifiable hypotheses in the tradition of Karl Popper. Because religion, including a stance that holds human beings were created, is based entirely on faith, not on observations of phenomena that lead to testable hypotheses, then we have to conclude that religious subjects cannot be submitted to scientific testing. Likewise, scientific testing cannot be subjected to scrutinising with articles of faith.

The two approaches are two ways of understanding the universe. I am definitely not a post-modernist and I believe that there is a "true" universe with "true" phenomena that can be observed. However, I'm not so arrogant to believe that human beings are capable, or ever will be capable, of observing ALL phenomena in the universe. We are a very limited but fascinating bunch of intelligent apes. There is one universe out there (let's not get into multiple time-lines for the sake of argument here) and there are many ways to explain that universe. Science goes about it one way, religion another. Neither are right, neither are wrong. Both set up the terms by which to explain the universe at the outset and both satisfy those terms with their own types of "answers" about the universe.

Where evolution and creation are concerned, we have irreconcilable differences to answer that age-old question, "Where did we come from?" Evolutionary theory sets forth to explain this with a model of mechanisms that are testable and observable in the world. None of these mechanisms has been shown to be wrong in 150 years or so. I suspect that we will have to find a different planet with completely different players (chemical and biological) to really see if this model holds water. Creationism is not a model with testable hypotheses. It supposes that a supreme god created humanity. God is presented as unknowable and untestable. There are so many interpretations of Genesis 1 and literalism is one scale by which these interpretations can be measured. Michael is quite correct to assert the Catholic position as being one most removed from the literalist camp or end of the scale. Jehovah's Witnesses would be at that end of the scale. Regardless of this, all the Abrahamic traditions hold that God is unknowable and untestable by his/her/its very nature. The terms of explanation of the universe from this position make the outcome (creationism) irreconcilable with a scientific explanation (evolutionary theory).

I would finally like to note that evolutionary theory NEVER proposes a mechanism, reason or impetus for the start of evolutionary theory. It does not seek to explain why these mechanisms exist or came into being. It only seeks to present them as existing. The reasons for that are rightly the property of philosophy and religious studies. They are untestable questions that science cannot address and so it doesn't seek to address them. Both camps (science and religion) have their share of idiots that make this an evolution VS. creationism debate. Unfortunately, the real explanations presented by both aren't even showing up to the same debate hall, let alone talking about the same thing. Religious explanations are more interested in "why are we here?" questions. Science explanations are more interested in "how are we here?" questions.

Oh, ow! Wow do I disagree! Although the theory of evolution specifically, does not speak to the origins of life broadly, scientists use the regression of evolution to do just that.
And, biologists and evolutionists most certainly do theorize about the reasons for mechanisms wherever those theories may lead them. If a particular evolutionist had not been theorizing about the purpose for the mechanism, he would not have included natural selection and adaptation as part of an observance of evolutionary change.
More recently (1973), Richard Dawkins theorized that individual genes were the real drivers of the mechansim of evolution.

I think what you might be alluding to is the infinite regression. Do scientists propose to answer all questions? No. Religion often does, (god or gods did it), as if an infinite line suddenly becomes a mobius strip called God.

I also do not agree that the two (religion and science), do not have mutually exclusive rights. To be mutually exclusive means that both can not exist simultaneously. I believe, just like the John Paul II did, that evolution and creation as portrayed in the Bible, are mutually exclusive. It is not true that evolution exists only for those that believe it.
To live in a society with abundant evidence of evolution on which medicine and technology are based and insist on denying evolution effectively removes that person from society in my opinion.
Should a person that does this be allowed to vote? For instance.

Yeah, I know that's going to raise hackles. Shoot.

[SMadsen]

Oh, ow! Wow do I disagree! Although the theory of evolution specifically, does not speak to the origins of life broadly, scientists use the regression of evolution to do just that.
And, biologists and evolutionists most certainly do theorize about the reasons for mechanisms wherever those theories may lead them. If a particular evolutionist had not been theorizing about the purpose for the mechanism, he would not have included natural selection and adaptation as part of an observance of evolutionary change.
More recently (1973), Richard Dawkins theorized that individual genes were the real drivers of the mechansim of evolution.
What's an evolutionist, JHC? It must have been a long time since we last spoke because I don't remember you as a crazed creationist fundie, JHC :)

Anyhow. The theory of evolution, or theory of modern synthesis if you like, does not concern origin of life. Period. It's various theories and hypotheses concerning origin of life that address evolutionary mechanisms. That certain evolutionary mechanisms seem to work on replicating structures that can't be classified as life does not mean that theories concerning biodiversity are predicated upon theories concerning origin of life.

Richard Dawkins does not theorize that genes are drivers of evolution in the sense that there's a purpose or a goal but merely that evolution works on the gene level. If you want to designate a "driver" for evolution it could for example be the event of replication, but still, do not confuse this with appointing a purpose to anything.

That one may occasionally hear scientists talk about the meaning of life or something in that vicinity only means that scientists are humans. That's really all there is to it. Don't project any of this unto a method that cannot deal with it, nor unto people who, except perhaps for very, very few confused individuals, know perfectly well what their profession can and cannot deal with.

[JHC]

What's an evolutionist, JHC? It must have been a long time since we last spoke because I don't remember you as a crazed creationist fundie, JHC :)

Anyhow. The theory of evolution, or theory of modern synthesis if you like, does not concern origin of life. Period. It's various theories and hypotheses concerning origin of life that address evolutionary mechanisms. That certain evolutionary mechanisms seem to work on replicating structures that can't be classified as life does not mean that theories concerning biodiversity are predicated upon theories concerning origin of life.

Richard Dawkins does not theorize that genes are drivers of evolution in the sense that there's a purpose or a goal but merely that evolution works on the gene level. If you want to designate a "driver" for evolution it could for example be the event of replication, but still, do not confuse this with appointing a purpose to anything.

That one may occasionally hear scientists talk about the meaning of life or something in that vicinity only means that scientists are humans. That's really all there is to it. Don't project any of this unto a method that cannot deal with it, nor unto people who, except perhaps for very, very few confused individuals, know perfectly well what their profession can and cannot deal with.

If proper names of scientific theories were capitalized then perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion. The theory of evolution (proper), is not about and does not address "original" origins. It most certainly is about origins - such as The Origin of Species.
On the other hand, theories about the origin of life are also abundant and are derived directly from the theory of evolution.

I think atheists are too sensitive about this distinction. I am not ashamed at all to admit that I think science will derive the origins of life and probably in the not-too-distant future. Then what do we do, pretend there is no connection? Wouldn't that be rather like clinging to Christianity in case there might be a god somewhere, some time? It doesn't make sense to me.

About "evolutionists", :lol:, I discovered something really strange when I returned to college. Professors in the field of natural sciences almost always end up in a corner saying that they either do or do not "believe" in the theory of evolution. I've had two professors thus far that immediately dived into mysticism and the rest simply said, "I'm an evolutionist".
I suppose this just leaves it to the student to drop out or learn evolutionary theory as they should.
But you are right, I've fallen down on the job. "ist" implies belief in something as a faith and is disingenuously applied for the sole purpose of creating an artificial enemy. Ironically, this is how Michael justifies his definition of atheist. :lol:
I have become lackadaisical.

About Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene: He literally describes it that way and discusses the fact that it is very difficult to explain evolution without slipping into analogies that anthropomorphize everything. The very title of his book, he admits, is probably a mistake. Genes are hardly selfish since that is a trait they have no method of possessing as individual units.

Is this any different than saying it is gravity that drives melting snow down a mountain or causes one to fall? It is no more accurate for sure. The more I know from studies, the harder it is for me to gauge the sophistication of those with whom I converse on the subject. I will be frank, if a person defends religion in this day and age I tend to doubt their knowledge of the subject. Not to be rude, I would hope that a tour of Cern would be scaled to my knowledge level or I would be completely lost.

[SMadsen]

If proper names of scientific theories were capitalized then perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion. The theory of evolution (proper), is not about and does not address "original" origins. It most certainly is about origins - such as The Origin of Species.
On the other hand, theories about the origin of life are also abundant and are derived directly from the theory of evolution.

I think atheists are too sensitive about this distinction.
On the contrary, JHC, those who may seem sensitive to you about assertions that biological evolution addresses the origin of life - and I certainly hope it includes just as many if not many more religious as non-religious people - are reacting to a blatant case of dishonesty or, at best, ignorance from movements that act on the basis of fanatical, religious fundamentalism.

That it only becomes an issue when the latter groups enter the picture is a dead give away.

I am not ashamed at all to admit that I think science will derive the origins of life and probably in the not-too-distant future. Then what do we do, pretend there is no connection? Wouldn't that be rather like clinging to Christianity in case there might be a god somewhere, some time? It doesn't make sense to me.
Connection between what?

JHC, the point is not that there are no evolutionary mechanisms involved in origin of life. In fact, I'm quite sure that life arose, and still arises wherever, by the very same kinds of selections that evolution describes. The point is simply that evolution works regardless of how the life evolution works upon originated.

I don't know which connections you are referring to but whatever connections you find, this point remains. Emergence of species is not an emergence of life , - it's an emergence of species.

Again, one dead give away of this is that the only time emergence of species gets confused with emergence of life is when it escapes the wrappings of a religious package deal.
About "evolutionists", , I discovered something really strange when I returned to college. Professors in the field of natural sciences almost always end up in a corner saying that they either do or do not "believe" in the theory of evolution. I've had two professors thus far that immediately dived into mysticism and the rest simply said, "I'm an evolutionist".
I suppose this just leaves it to the student to drop out or learn evolutionary theory as they should.
I see. That's just sad. The way you describe it, biology is in an even sadder situation in your country than I thought. Just goes to show that people, honest educated religious people included, need to stand up to the nonsense and not duck their heads in fear of being deemed 'too sensitive atheists'.

I'm sad for you guys but also glad that it only seems to be an American issue.

About Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene: He literally describes it that way and discusses the fact that it is very difficult to explain evolution without slipping into analogies that anthropomorphize everything. The very title of his book, he admits, is probably a mistake. Genes are hardly selfish since that is a trait they have no method of possessing as individual units.
Indeed, in the foreword of the latter editions of the "Selfish Gene", Dawkins made a great deal out of explaning his intentions with the chosen title. Not a mistake in a literal sense but a mistake in the sense that it has been a source of way too many misunderstandings.

Is this any different than saying it is gravity that drives melting snow down a mountain or causes one to fall? It is no more accurate for sure. The more I know from studies, the harder it is for me to gauge the sophistication of those with whom I converse on the subject. I will be frank, if a person defends religion in this day and age I tend to doubt their knowledge of the subject. Not to be rude, I would hope that a tour of Cern would be scaled to my knowledge level or I would be completely lost.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Not your fault, I'm sure, it's just late and I'm tired :)

[SMadsen]

Weird how the preview post feature inserts extra quote tags. Hmmm.

[Michael]

Weird how the preview post feature inserts extra quote tags. Hmmm.
I use the preview post feature fairly regularly and I've never see this.

I have occasionally seen double quote tags if I accidentally double-click on the 'quote-reply' button.

[JHC]

[SIZE=2]On the contrary, JHC, those who may seem sensitive to you about assertions that biological evolution addresses the origin of life - and I certainly hope it includes just as many if not many more religious as non-religious people - are reacting to a blatant case of dishonesty or, at best, ignorance from movements that act on the basis of fanatical, religious fundamentalism.

That it only becomes an issue when the latter groups enter the picture is a dead give away.


Connection between what?

JHC, the point is not that there are no evolutionary mechanisms involved in origin of life. In fact, I'm quite sure that life arose, and still arises wherever, by the very same kinds of selections that evolution describes. The point is simply that evolution works regardless of how the life evolution works upon originated.

I don't know which connections you are referring to but whatever connections you find, this point remains. Emergence of species is not an emergence of life , - it's an emergence of species.

Again, one dead give away of this is that the only time emergence of species gets confused with emergence of life is when it escapes the wrappings of a religious package deal.

I see. That's just sad. The way you describe it, biology is in an even sadder situation in your country than I thought. Just goes to show that people, honest educated religious people included, need to stand up to the nonsense and not duck their heads in fear of being deemed 'too sensitive atheists'.

I'm sad for you guys but also glad that it only seems to be an American issue.


Indeed, in the foreword of the latter editions of the "Selfish Gene", Dawkins made a great deal out of explaning his intentions with the chosen title. Not a mistake in a literal sense but a mistake in the sense that it has been a source of way too many misunderstandings.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. Not your fault, I'm sure, it's just late and I'm tired :)
When I say "too sensitive", I am trying to indicate that we hide from what is right in an effort to protect ourselves from religious zealots. It is unnecessary. No matter how it is said, a religious zealot will find fault with it.

The theory of evolution, like all good theories, is a language that describes what we believe happened. Any good language (and theory), provides a platform for deeper understanding.

If a theory does not provide a building block for knowledge, it is hardly a theory.

To talk about evolution as if it remains within the confines of Darwin's original queries, is like trying to use gravity to explain the behavior of electrons. Molecular physics was built upon the foundation of many predecessors. You would never expect to here someone shy away from a statement that physics and chemistry are methods used to gain understanding of the origins of life and the universe. Biology is doing just the same. And just like the theory of evolution does not explain a genesis, it certainly leads us in that same direction.

Do you honestly believe that Darwin postponed publishing his papers for any other reason than it would be perceived that evolutionary theory leads precisely to the origins of life?

It does.

Now, it occurs to me, that if you take offense at the word evolutionist, then you should also be offended when a religious zealot (or any other kind of fool), attempts to paint this stepping stone to the origins of life as a bad thing.

[SMadsen]

To talk about evolution as if it remains within the confines of Darwin's original queries, is like trying to use gravity to explain the behavior of electrons. Molecular physics was built upon the foundation of many predecessors. You would never expect to here someone shy away from a statement that physics and chemistry are methods used to gain understanding of the origins of life and the universe. Biology is doing just the same.
To talk about evolution pointing to the origin of life is the same as talking about gravity pointing to the origin of the universe. It just doesn't work that way, JHC.

By the way, physics, chemistry and biology are not methods. They are fields of investigation. The method of investigation is called science.

And yes, I would certainly not expect that someone would deal with physics in order to understand the origin of the universe, unless the field he or she dealt with was, in fact, the origin of the universe.

Heck, just last month I completed a course on moisture in buildings. I wasn't aware that it was supposed to lead to an understanding of the beginning of the universe but took it as conveying the physics concerning vapour pressure, permeability and the like ;)
And just like the theory of evolution does not explain a genesis, it certainly leads us in that same direction.
Evolution does not lead us in the direction that life arose by evolutionary mechanisms, JHC. Evidence of how life arose leads in the direction of evolutionary mechanisms. That's a very important correction of the way of thinking you're alluding to.

Just like observations of the richness in biodiversity lead various bright minds in the 19th century in the direction of successive, hereditary changes in living organisms, observations of self-organization of matter lead in the direction of successive changes happening within anything from galaxies to stars to solar systems to chemistry in a beaker.

It seems you're falling for the "cunningly thought-out plan" (that's irony) of inferring that there's some kind of circular thing going on, namely that evolution is predicated upon the origin of life which is then attempted to be explained by evolution. This, including a certain amount of variations cut from the same die, is a faulty contraption.
Do you honestly believe that Darwin postponed publishing his papers for any other reason than it would be perceived that evolutionary theory leads precisely to the origins of life?
It does.
Huh? That Charles Darwin knew what he was up against does not make what he was up against correct.

As said, religions come with package deals, even at the time of Darwin. In religion, if a deity did not make a woman from a mans ribcage then it didn't create light, either. In science, if females don't originate from part of male anatomy, it doesn't mean that light doesn't exist.
Now, it occurs to me, that if you take offense at the word evolutionist, then you should also be offended when a religious zealot (or any other kind of fool), attempts to paint this stepping stone to the origins of life as a bad thing.
Dishonesty is always offending.

[JHC]

To talk about evolution pointing to the origin of life is the same as talking about gravity pointing to the origin of the universe. It just doesn't work that way, JHC.

By the way, physics, chemistry and biology are not methods. They are fields of investigation. The method of investigation is called science.

And yes, I would certainly not expect that someone would deal with physics in order to understand the origin of the universe, unless the field he or she dealt with was, in fact, the origin of the universe.

Heck, just last month I completed a course on moisture in buildings. I wasn't aware that it was supposed to lead to an understanding of the beginning of the universe but took it as conveying the physics concerning vapour pressure, permeability and the like ;)

Evolution does not lead us in the direction that life arose by evolutionary mechanisms, JHC. Evidence of how life arose leads in the direction of evolutionary mechanisms. That's a very important correction of the way of thinking you're alluding to.

Just like observations of the richness in biodiversity lead various bright minds in the 19th century in the direction of successive, hereditary changes in living organisms, observations of self-organization of matter lead in the direction of successive changes happening within anything from galaxies to stars to solar systems to chemistry in a beaker.

It seems you're falling for the "cunningly thought-out plan" (that's irony) of inferring that there's some kind of circular thing going on, namely that evolution is predicated upon the origin of life which is then attempted to be explained by evolution. This, including a certain amount of variations cut from the same die, is a faulty contraption.

Huh? That Charles Darwin knew what he was up against does not make what he was up against correct.

As said, religions come with package deals, even at the time of Darwin. In religion, if a deity did not make a woman from a mans ribcage then it didn't create light, either. In science, if females don't originate from part of male anatomy, it doesn't mean that light doesn't exist.

Dishonesty is always offending.

Back up just a little bit. You've made some assumptions that are interfering with what I am trying to communicate.

The theory of evolution does not specifically deal with the origins of life. You and I agree.

Evolution itself, speaks directly of heredity. You and I agree.

Darwin, with no knowledge of DNA, proposed an hypothesis known as pan-genesis as a mechanism of heredity. It was his epi genesis explanation. Clearly we do not include that hypothesis when we talk about evolutionary heredity today.

Mendel's peas led to the Mendelian-chromosome theory which we DO include when we talk about evolution. No modern biologist would argue that modern evolutionary theory is not derived from both Darwin's observations and those of Mendel both.

And if it weren't for the investigation of chromosomes, we would never have begun talking about genes and DNA. These chemical combination ARE the stuff of life and we know it as fact. It is, by default, part of a coming scientific theory of the genesis of life.

Would you or have you ever known a scientist who would put a block on the investigative door to phylogeny at single celled organisms or even further, viruses?

I understand (I think), that you are concerned about the ignorance of Christian's that claim that evolutionary theory explains the origins of life. However, I do not think that concern about someone else's ignorance should cause us to claim that the two are mutually exclusive. They clearly are not.

I recall that you and I had a disagreement about what the word atheist should mean as well. I'm pretty sure it was you. I argued, and still do, that just because Christian's (primarily), use the word to mean something derogatory does not mean that I should pretend that I am an agnostic. Reality doesn't change at the whim of the religious.

This is the same type of argument.

If we are concerned about the ignorance portrayed by some, then we should be attacking the ignorance rather than hiding the truth.

So, if I were to run across a person that said that evolution was an attempt to explain the origins of life, I would try to take the time to find out just exactly what they didn't know rather than simply deny that the two were related in any way.

Why does the person believe this? Do they think that's what the theory actually says just because it disputes their theory of creation? Or do they know what the theory of evolution is and they argue against it because they are afraid of where it leads?

If, the phylogenetic tree leads to a handful of chemicals and a bolt of lightening, then where do they stand?

If this is what they are afraid of, why pretend that it is not a possibility? Part of the problem with religion, (in my mind), is that it provides happy answers that one cannot move forward with. This instead of a less satisfying answer that provides a platform for growth.

[SMadsen]

I honestly don't care whatever reason a person has to assert that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of life, JHC. I'm not a social worker. Regardless of any reason given, it is a wrong assertion.

And I don't know what truth you think is being hidden. Science is an open book. It's there for everyone to look into.

[JHC]

What's an evolutionist, JHC? It must have been a long time since we last spoke because I don't remember you as a crazed creationist fundie, JHC :)

Anyhow. The theory of evolution, or theory of modern synthesis if you like, does not concern origin of life. Period. It's various theories and hypotheses concerning origin of life that address evolutionary mechanisms. That certain evolutionary mechanisms seem to work on replicating structures that can't be classified as life does not mean that theories concerning biodiversity are predicated upon theories concerning origin of life.

Richard Dawkins does not theorize that genes are drivers of evolution in the sense that there's a purpose or a goal but merely that evolution works on the gene level. If you want to designate a "driver" for evolution it could for example be the event of replication, but still, do not confuse this with appointing a purpose to anything.

That one may occasionally hear scientists talk about the meaning of life or something in that vicinity only means that scientists are humans. That's really all there is to it. Don't project any of this unto a method that cannot deal with it, nor unto people who, except perhaps for very, very few confused individuals, know perfectly well what their profession can and cannot deal with.
The Secret Life of Chaos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxPR0pjGuYw&feature=BF&list=QL&index=31)
Very nice video and at about the 50 minute mark, is a discussion that explains what I was alluding to.