BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?

Subject: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:01 AM

Fresh from initiating dissension in what was otherwise a valuable discussion over secularism in government, I want to focus on one of my own particular fascinations:

The insistence that certain religiously oriented individuals have on mandating what can and cannot be discussed in science and public life.

In the recent past, the Kansas City school board and at least one other have tried to blur the distinction between how biology is taught in the public schools, more specifically reducing the Darwinian Theory of Evolution to the same level as Biblical Genesis, which is popularly called 'Creationism' in order to give it a more secular cover story.

I am curious as to whether our President has weighed in on this issue. Does anybody know?

I was once staying at the home of some very nice people in Eagle, Alaska. I was not surprised to find out they were evangelical Christians, which is fine. I volunteered that one of my personal saints was Charles Darwin and a fine discussion ensued. My primary point with them was that a belief in Darwin's theory does not preclude a rich religious belief, but religious belief should not get in the way of science.

The insistence of many of the so-called 'religious right' to inveigh their doctrine on real science is to me a sign of the very heart of what is wrong with religion in public life. When it goes wrong, it goes very wrong.

Scientists can go wrong, too. There is plenty of dogma to go around. But science is supposed to have corrective traditions built in. A theory is subject to test and counter-theory. Religious dogma is not subject to these constraints. It is a product of interpretation of texts (and often lungpower). This is euphemistically called "Revealed Truth".

Not for nothing, my father defined religion as "The awe in which we hold our ignorance."

Our President has already made scientific pronouncements based on moral considerations. His take on genetic exploration and certain medical procedures come chief to mind.

I wish somebody would get his opinion on evolution. He must have one.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:05 AM

I hear ya, but to my mind it would be like wondering how many turds a given asshole can put out... you will always be surprised by more. THe man is anti-rational.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:10 AM

Cats get a bad break.

How about Religious catma?

Why is it always about dogs?

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:11 AM

MG, if you're going to follow through, you have to go with catpa

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:12 AM

Here's what George W says...

Blicky

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:12 AM

True.

fatherly cats just don't get as much play as motherly dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:32 AM

Meanwhile a view on evolution from another president:

"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students. Her recommendation that the word "evolution" be prohibited in textbooks will adversely effect the teaching of science and leave our high school graduates with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted."

"Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted, and additional and undeserved discredit will be brought on our excellent universities as our state's reputation is damaged."

"All high school science teachers, being college graduates, have studied evolution as a universal element of university curricula, and would be under pressure to suppress their own educated beliefs in the classroom."

"The existing and long-standing use of the word "evolution" in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to defend our religious faith."

copied and pasted by

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:39 AM

from BBC:

During his election campaign, George W Bush
             made the following assertion.

             "On the issue of evolution," he said, "the
             verdict is still out on how God created the
             Earth."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:43 AM

LOL!! He is SUCH a twister!! The one thing he is really good at is twisting words.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:50 AM

Wolfgang:

That quote from another president sounds like Jimmy Carter, but you didn't make an attribution.

The quote from 'W' sounds like a cover-up. A real evangelical as they characterize themselves these days wouldn't say the verdict is still out. I guess the guy is entitled to be an individual and Amos is right that he can be quite clever at expressing himself.

Bagpuss: Great site!

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 12:26 PM

ANd here is what the First Lady Laura has to say.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 01:17 PM

robomatic,

you're right, of course.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: beadie
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 04:34 PM

My karma just ran over your dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 04:48 PM

Happens all the time, beadie.

Appreciate you stopping by.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 05:37 PM

I think W's actual beliefs may not be quite as fundamentalist as what he says out loud to pander to his voter base.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 05:44 PM

there is nothing to prevent someone who believes in a God from just shrugging and claiming that evolution is simply the way God chose to make things work....but often they don't LIKE the implications of evolution, so they choose to deny the obvious truths they see every day. I can't help someone who has decided what the answer MUST be, then has to twist all logic and data to make it fit his pre-conceived notions.

G.W. probably has been advised to NOT make all of his opinions a matter of public record, and hope he is not asked directly about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 06:17 PM

"textbooks will adversely effect the teaching"

Should be affect.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 04 - 11:45 PM

Skopes Trail, Part B on the horizon?

Actually, Bush doesn't really "believe" in anything other than he thinks he is an important person, which to some mindless folks, he is.

But belive? That's a tad beyond his intellect...

Bobert

p.S. Didn't they also call that the "monkey trial"? Hmmmmmmmm? Maybe Bush is a larger character in this discussion than I originally thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 01:35 AM

One of the most commonly held misconceptions in the English speaking world is that Darwin was the first one to promulgate the theory of evolution.

Actually, in Darwin's time, virtually all scientists subscribed to evolution because examination of animals, including those that were extinct, made it readily apparent that evolution was the only reasonable explanation of the observed data. The real question was how did evolution work. As Bill D. stated above, it could have been God's way of making things work.

Darwin postulated the theory of natural selection which said that evolution worked by the passing along of characteristics from generation to generation causing random variations in descendents. Those descendents whose characteristics were best adapted to their immediate environment had the best chances of survival and the best chances of passing along their particular characteristics. In this way, virtually any kind of animal could develop and would develop if the environment gave it the proper direction.

Unfortunately for Darwin, the theory of natural selection left very little room for God to do His work. If evolution was based on random variations and adaption to the environment, God was no longer needed to create the various species of animals.

For this reason, Darwin was attacked all of his life and even after he died. By about 1900, scientists started to see the wisdom of natural selection and by about 1950 there was virtually no opposition to natural selection in the scientific community. Since about 1950, scientists have been finding more and more holes in the theory and, at present, most believe in a modified theory of natural selection.

Religious fundamentalist have grabbed on to these modifications and used them to claim that "the theory of evolution" can't be correct and what we observe can only be God's work.

As W has a penchant to ignore all things scientific, we doubt that he's even heard of natural selection.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 06:49 AM

Dear B & J:

Write ON

Darwin had some powerful friends, such as Huxley who apparently relished debates on the topic; his conquest of Wilberforce is the stuff of legend.

I agree that evolution has long been accepted, it was the 'method' or details by which evolution worked that were the original source of debate. An earlier theory was put forward by Lamarck, and if you look at George Bernard Shaw's preface to "Back to Methuselah" you will find he much preferred Lamarckian Evolution (Wishing Will Make It So).

I continue to think that W has a brain; I am curious as to whether he ever went on record on the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 04:58 PM

Without getting involved in what I believe one way or the other, I offer this hypothesis:

For those who feel that science, and its theories about cosmology and evolution, contradicts the belief that God "created the heavens and the earth" and all the critters therein, etc., methinks these folks believe in a somewhat puny god. If their god had (and still has) to piddle around with every niggling little detail, like how many legs a centipede should have and whether or not to power the sun with hydrogen or kerosene, he must not be very good at organization. Not a god I would be confident in praying to, because he'd be much too busy chasing down bugs in his programming and fixing kludges.

Now, were I to believe in a god (and not saying whether I do or don't—that's strictly between me and Zeus), it would have to be one who could say "Let there be ylem!" and the whole thing would start with a Big Bang, and the rest would simply follow. Sort of like God giving a might poke to the cue-ball, and knowing ahead of time which pockets the other balls would wind up in. Now there is a God!

The only conflict between science and religion is in minds too small to grasp the Greater Realities.

Don Firth

P. S.: As to whether "W" believes in evolution, he hasn't evolved far enough to even think much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 05:11 PM

Don, my mind not be developed enough to understand your post, but thank you. It makes me think of starting another thread yclept:

"Stuff that God can't do"

Among which I'm positing:

pre-existing creation, but wouldn't this make God a product of God's own creation?

gotta stop now, my brain hurts and I'm off topic in my own verdamt thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 06:11 PM

Whether or not "W" believes in evolution is, or should not be important. I think what you folks are afraid of is censorship. As long as the government does not interfere with your right to study the topic, I don't think that there is anything to worry about. I, as an Orthodox Jew, do not believe in Darwin's theory, but I do not think it is proper for me to force my views on someone else who does believe in it and will not in any way interfere with his right to teach or study it. When I went to Yeshiva high school in the 1950s, we were taught evolution as part of the syllabus that was required for the Biology Regents exam. However, we were prepared in advance to treat it as a theory and not as absolute truth. In fact, if the Old Testament is properly studied along with the relevant Talmudic and Midrashic commentaries, there is much material to explain away many of the contradictions and to reconcile many of the differences between God & Darwin. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 06:25 PM

There is not a single solitary shred of proof that evolution is fact. It is theory. The is not a single solitary shred of proof that creationism is fact. It is theory.

We have no idea how human DNA/RNA/mRNA came about. The Big Bang is not the nice neat fact it was once accepted as. Basically. no one knows.

When we observe natural selection for example, that of and by itself does not give credence to Darwin's other ideas. Equally, when we see beauty in a flower, and realize that humans could never make one from scratch, neither does that prove God. We are dealing with beliefs--regardless which side of the 'debate' you come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:00 PM

Rabbi, I'm quite sure that you are wise enough not to want censor other possible viewpoints, but many of Bush's supporters would like nothing better than to dictate what can and cannot be taught in schools, or for that matter, studied in or out of laboratories. Many of them think that Bush believes as they do and that's one of the major reasons that they support him. And, of course, Bush is not inclined to disabuse them (or anyone else) of the notion.

I am reading an excellent book entitled The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003. Freeman does a very scholarly job of outlining the excellent start the ancient Greeks (particularly those who embraced the philosophy of Aristotle over Plato) got on learning the nature of the world around them. When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, with his statement "What I wish, that must be the canon," religious dogma took on the force of law. It would not be oversimplifying to say that this, combined with the writings of Augustine, soon resulted in the Dark Ages.

It's a fairly hefty book, some 400 pages including his excellent notes, but if you feel inclined at all, I would be most interested in what you, as a non-Christian, think of Freeman's thesis.

In any case (Zeus notwithstanding) I do attend a Christian church from time to time, but whether or not I could legitimately be called a "Christian" remains to be seen. And as I am sure you are aware, not all Christians see a schism between religion and scientific thought. But those who pin their hopes on Bush to turn the United States into "a Christian country" are especially noisy (and, some feel, give Christians a bad name). I find great wisdom in Judaism, as must any Christian who has a sense of history and understands the roots of his beliefs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:25 PM

Rabbi Sol, it does affect how I view 'W'. If 'W' holds to Creationism it might not make him a bad next door neighbor but in my opinion without something big going for him it makes him too damn ign'ant to be my President. As mentioned above, he has probably by design kept off the topic both to secure his base or avoid alienating people like me who've seen "Inherit The Wind" a dozen times.


Not to put you on the spot, but why do you as an Orthodox Jew, not believe in evolution (if I may ask). I know a few orthodox Jews, and while I do not recall word for word the conversations, I came away from disussion with them that Orthodox Judaism has no quarrel with Darwinian evolution. That would hold with a more allegorical interpretation of the first book of the Torah, which I understand is how most Jews understand it. I also understand that the Catholic Church from the Pope on down does not have a quarrel with Darwin.

Grok, the fact that something is a theory does not make it equal to something else that is also a theory. I know you didn't assert that, but hang on, I'm going somewhere with this. My rubber duck floats and a battlship floats but one has a lot more displacement than the other. Darwinian theory is a battleship. Creationism is a rubber duck, and believe me I'm in danger of insulting rubber ducks. Nevertheless I agree with you that it can all be filed under 'belief'. Even Science ultimately rests on belief. It's just that one can find more use in one set of beliefs than another, and not all beliefs are equally helpful. Is it a fact that the Earth is round, that it orbits the sun? I feel safe calling it a fact, but you could make a convincing argument that it's all only belief.

And evolution (of species) is way beyond theory. Evolution is fact. This is a mistake commonly made by people promoting Biblical Genesis. Creationism is simply a way of explaining evolution that includes God, whereas the Darwinian theory is a more mechanistic method that does not include (nor exclude) God. As stated above, a popular previous theory of evolution was called Lamarckian, and there were others as well, all but displaced by Darwin's Theory.

The Big Bang is a lot of fun, but of course, it is a theory as well, not at battleship status, more of a destroyer if that. And it is totally unrelated to Darwinism as to branch of science, proponents, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:32 PM

I want to add that Don's well written note came online while I was composing my less well-written screed. I am not a fan of Bush, and I worked for years with a lot of evangelical Christians who definitely were anti-Darwinian. However, by and large they are good folk and whatever my quarrels with them and with 'W' there is no probability that the US will turn into a religious state. There are plenty of dangers inherent in our world today, including the dangers that certain religiously held but false doctrines will lead us into major mistakes, but a government of saints is not on the horizon and there is no world view without flaws (except, of course, mine).

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 07:53 PM

Robomatic:

Prove evolution to me. Tell me the relationship of Lucy's skull with you or me. Explain that to me.

Explain our hips and erect bi-pedal motion as opposed to the 'walk' of apes--and the differences between the esophagus of the greater apes and humans.

And explain why evolution seems to have stopped. Where are new species that are not man-made?

It's theory. Something that has 'for example' as proof is theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 08:19 PM

GROK - you ask a lot of questions, God bless you.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 08:26 PM

I don't know if it proves evolution or not but you folks(excluding the good Rabbi) don't seem to be any more intelligent on this subject than the box of rocks you claim to be descended from.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 08:37 PM

Ignoring the post from GUEST at 08:26 PM this date--it reinforces that evolution doesn't always work as it should--there are questions that the Darwinians seem to avoid answering.

1) Why are there no new species appearing? Has evolution stopped?

Creationists posit a God who went Shazam and BOOM, here we are. People who don't hold to that argue that it's impossible for the world to be only 6,000 years old. So to that I ask, "Why?" Are we to think that a consciousness capable of creating a universe couldn't also create a million-year-old fossil on a 6,000 year-old planet?

And to those who don't believe in God or some equivalent: Why, if humans are sooo smart, can we not make a single living thing from scratch. Why?

Now, let the games begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 09:04 PM

GROK--you do not explain the proof of evolution in a couple of short paragraphs, but briefly it is like this....

as more & more anthropological evidence is uncovered, we see more & more connections by dating the strata in which bones are found and the bones themselves and showing that various changes TOWARD what we are now follow the dates for the evidence. Early use of tools comes in, in later artifacts. It simply all falls together in ways that cannot be explained any other way.
   Add to that the relatively new science of DNA analysis, and we can show how close we 'special' primates are to the not-so-special ones, and point to the specific genes that changed to allow US to have different brains, hip joints..etc..We are, simply, the result of luck, as one or two individuals had fortunate mutations, and managed to survive to pass the changes on.

Can we still debate about the details, and precise order, and which genetic 'lines' were dead ends, but the **general** theory, that we did evolve from lower forms of life, is simply too compelling to ignore. Those who doubt that basic set of postulates either do not understand how evidence works, or have emotional barriers set up that will not let them face it---like the mother who says, in face of evidence, "MY boy could never have done that!!"....

If your objection/reluctance is religious, I and others noted above what you can do to reconcile it...if you just don't understand the scientific method and its weight, I don't know what to say--you can study, or ignore. If you just don't LIKE being related to the apes and feel offended that anyone would suggest it, there is little I can say. I am who I am, no matter whether my 10,000X great-grandfather lived in a tree or was dumped into the Garden of Eden...and frankly, the ape explanation has REAL evidence to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 09:10 PM

That's the party line and it doesn't answer either of my questions.

Incidentally, I lean more toward Darwinian theory than Creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 09:11 PM

(we cross posted)..to answer the age thing...because we can ***PROVE*** that certain things are WAY older than 6000 years...there are physical processes that cannot happen without more time than that, and they have happened.

And I cannot fathom why a God who could create a universe, would play such a silly trick as to give us evidence of million year old fossils in a 6000 year old world! If a God did create it all, I'd like to think he'd do it logically, so his poor mortal creations wouldn't be scratching their heads in puzzlement at his sense of humor...

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 09:13 PM

No, GROK, as a matter of fact, evolution has not stopped. It's going on all the time. It may appear that it has stopped because it takes a long time and our individual lives are ephemeral by comparison.

Speaking of "ephemeral," in the more short-lived species such as fruit flies (twenty-eight day life cycle), geneticists can induce mutations (with radiation) and check to see how these mutations play out as to whether they are pro- or anti-survival. If they are pro-survival, the reinforcement of the mutation by interbreeding (if allowed to continue by the experimenter) could produce another species. If not, the mutation may spell the end of that line. That is how evolution works in nature, only at a much slower pace for most species.

Your second paragraph:   Before any of this becomes meaningful, first you're going to have to establish that there is a God that was not created by man rather than the other way around. And if, indeed, God came before man, you have to determine many things about the nature of this God. Could it create a universe? Could it even create a ham sandwich? Define this God. Theology is not an easy subject, Philosophy is not an easy subject. Theologists and philosophers have been debating these questions since before Hector was a pup.

Third paragraph:   Nobody ever believed that humans were smart enough to create another species, except the fictional Doctor Frankenstein—until recently. With the advent of genetic engineering, it may not be far in the future, and there is much argument over whether or not that is a good thing.

Real easy to get in over our heads, here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:21 PM

I believe in God. I don't need a definition. But thanks, Don and Bill. I also don't believe in Creationism. I am a simple guy with a few questions. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:47 PM

GROK:
IMHO you are what the whole shazam is about.

I believe in the holiness of doubt.

I love the story of Darwin as portrayed on BBC's: "The Voyage of Charles Darwin." The story of his voyage as a relatively young man on a ship captained by a capable (and very doctrinaire old school Christain) Robert Fitzroy, the connections he made by his various experiences around the world, particularly experiencing a major earthquake in South America, and noticing the differences among the isolated species of the Galapagos, he came to conclusions that were uniquely his. He wrote most of it up, told his friends, and sat on his work (metaphorically) for half a generation, until another bright young Englishman, who had also circumnavigated the globe, put forward the almost identical theory. So Darwin came out with his work, and as he expected, inspired a furor in the scientific and religious world which exists to this day.

You may have noticed that I'm not answering your questions, Grok. That's because
A) I'm not the best source of the answer, people like Stephen Jay Gould are way better suited, and I haven't read any of his works. and
B) I'm willing to bet that at least some of your questions are yet to be convincingly answered. I personally wonder how one set of chromosomes (which have a fixed size and count per species) makes the change into another set for another species. There may already be a good answer to it, I don't know what it is.

But what I definitely believe is that the path we are on with modern biology and concepts of natural selection is more rewarding, accurate, informative, and will continue to produce results whereas creationism is a feeble attempt to reconcile a certain amount of observed fact with ancient texts not even meant to be taken literally.

I am encouraged by the history of genetics, which didn't even exist at the time Darwin's theory of Natural Selection gained notice. Genetics was mostly started by the work of a monk, Gregor Mendel. But genetics and the quite recent discovery of the structure of DNA get us a long way towards understanding the stuff of life, and they provide insight into how nature actually works.

What a biologist versed in evolution will tell you, Grok, is that mutation and coincidence drive the engine of life as we know it. The statistical analysis of DNA is turning up species relationships. While the creationists try to use statistics to say that by pure chance life is impossible, they ignore the statistical similarities between the great apes. They are much more implausible on the bare face of their arguments. And we all know that life is possible.

So rather than try to give answers I'm not prepared for, I will simply point out that utilizing the theories and concepts of genetics and evolution we are making actual changes in our environment, which is more than we can do utilizing the concepts of Creationism.

No one has even brought up my favorite bogus argument for God, the story of the person who finds a watch. If there is a watch, you don't think on whether it grew, the watch implies a watchmaker. The argument, deeply flawed, went on to posit that a living creature implied a maker. Our knowledge of the workings of biology have improved to the point that that old argument has no merit, yet I still see it utilized in some of the more primitive religious tracts.

And just as I think our government is too dangerous to be left in the hands of scientifically ignorant people, I think there is another danger in having our kids undereducated in the biological sciences, or mis-educated, when there are important decisions to be made in the immediate future regarding genetic research, cloning, cell research. I think there is a moral component to these decisions, and I want the religiously motivated people to be involved. But I went them to bring to the table a good education, not claptrap (which is what creationism is).

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 10:51 PM

robomatic: That was seriously well-stated. I am with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 26 Aug 04 - 11:39 PM

Explanation #1. In the Book Of Psalms, Chapter 90, Verse 4, King David quotes Moses as saying to God " For even a thousand years in your eyes are but a bygone yesterday, and like a watch in the night". This can be interpreted to mean that there is a difference between years of 365 days as we know them, and years as defined in the quoted verse in which 1,000 years equals one day in the eyes of God.

Explanation #2. The Midrash says that before God created this world, he created 7 others and had to destroy them because they were not to his liking. Why ? We do not know. Perhaps these fossils were from the previous 7 worlds.

Explanation #3. We know that there were 2 major changes that took place in this world. The first one was after Adam's sin. Before the sin a woman was able to conceive and give birth in the same day. After the sin it was a hard 9 months pregnancy and a painful birth. The second major change took place after Noah's great flood. You will notice by the biblical accounts that the life spans of human beings decreased markedly from close to 1,000 years to somewhere below 150. After the death of our Patriarchs, the life spans decreased even further, closer to what they are today. The entire nature of the world, and particularly that of humans has gotten weaker throughout the years. The references to Leviathan could have corresponded to some of the pre-historic fossils and extinct species. Until the death of our Patriarch Jacob, there was no sickness in the world. People died suddenly when their time was up. It was Jacob who prayed to God that people should have some sort of a warning before their time came so that they could repent, and it was before his death that the first mention of illness is made in the Bible. So the point is that we are talking about different characteristics of species throughout history.

Explanation #4 - The world is only 5765 lunar years old since creation. Why then does the radioactive carbon test results tell a different story ? Because God is testing us to see whether or not we are true believers. The faithful believe that had a radioactive carbon test been performed at the very moment the world was created, it would have shown the world to be already millions of years old. In other words, "God created and old and mature world". Those of us who pass this most difficult test and still remain believers will merit the highest rewards in the "world to come" (hereafter). SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 12:14 AM

Me, I just Love the fact that you always seem to forget Darwin's FULL title, which is "On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection,or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".Sounds like he might have been a David Duke fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 01:23 AM

Many people confuse the colloquial usage of the word "theory" with the scientific usage of the word "theory". Colloquially, a theory is a notion, a conjecture, an hypothesis..., but in science, a theory is a detailed explanation of why something is the way it is. For instance, gravity is a fact (drop a fork to convince yourself). Now, the "theory of gravity" is another matter. In fact, there really isn't a good one. A theory of gravity that explains both macro-scale and quantum phenomena is the Holy Grail of modern physics. But, remember, the lack of a complete "theory of gravity" does not negate the FACT of gravity (drop the fork again if you need to). Evolution is a fact. If you don't believe me, stop taking your antibiotics before you've completed the full course. Or read about the observable (yes, even on a human time scale) changes in the size and shape of finch beaks in the Galapagos in response to climatic variations, or the change in color of moths during the industrial revolution. The "theory of evolution" attempts to explain the workings that lead to the observable, and overwhelmingly documented facts of evolution. The theory is still being debated (e.g. the oft-cited gradualism vs. punctuated equilibria), but the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable. After all, one would never claim that "gravity is just a theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 07:55 AM

Grok: Thanks for taking my posts the way I mean 'em.

Rabbi-Sol: Thanks for the enlightenment. I agree with the idea of being tested by God. I think the test will ultimately be if we can (forgive the quote) all get along, and accept that anything handed down from the past needs to be re-evaluated in every age.

GUEST: I may be wrong, but I believe Darwin's first book didn't specify man, therefore use of the word 'race' probably was a general way of referring to species. I do not know if Darwin ever made an observation of human 'race' the way we term it these days. He was, after all, a scientist and the scientific definition of race continues to elude us.

You provoke an interesting point, however, tied in with Rabbi-Sol's Explanation #3 . The religious conception of man was expressed as 'The Descent Of Man' indicating that since the creation, mankind had not improved, far from it. In Hal Holbrook's recreation of Mark Twain he expresses: "Man was created a little lower than the angels, and he's been getting lower ever since." Not to misinterpret Rabbi-Sol who is tying specific points in man's biblical history after the Creation to specific points of sin and divine judgement, but the religious conception of man was overhauled by the coming of science.

Jacob Bronowski named his spectacular 13 part 1973 history of science and understanding "The Ascent Of Man" to bring out one of the major revolutions in thought brought into the world by the advent of The Enlightenment and the use of the Scientific Approach. Simply put, starting about the time of Galileo, human beings began to find out things that not only were new information, but were known to be new information. In particular, Galileo discovered the rings of Jupiter by use of the new instrument the telescope. Not everyone would look through the telescope, a telling point of the bonds over our minds caused by superstition. And of course, Galileo got in trouble with the RC Church by expounding the Copernican / Kepler theory of the movements of planets, which indicated that Aristotle and Tycho Brahe were wrong (or at least uninformed). Not only were they wrong, but modern man could do better.

The concept that we can be better than the ancients has been a revolution in thought.
There is a danger of hubris here, we've already paid a huge penalty in the misunderstanding and misapplication of Darwin: It is twofold:
Social Darwinism of the 19th and 20th centuries. Used to justify the status quo since the 'successful' people have a right to be successful because they are 'the fittest'. It's a modernization of the divine right of rulers and merely updates a tool by which the powerful seek to justify hence re-establish themselves (and their progeny - a social tactic with evolutionary consequences). Social Darwinism had no true basis in science, and its denigrators have used its existence to attack capitalism, which I think is not fair, since the successful in all societies seek to justify their success in its own terms.

Secondly is a modern fallacy, that natural selection is constantly improving the species. The concept of 'improvement' is purely human (like 'fairness'). It is used to make us think that things naturally get better, more advanced, more complex, and again and again I've heard humans placed as the most advanced mammals, and mammals as more advanced than reptiles, amphibians, etc.

Natural selection does not say this. Natural selection states simply that the more successful of the creatures have more progeny which can themselves reproduce. In fact, that IS the definition of success. It doesn't say that the progeny are faster, stronger, smarter. The requirements are simply that they be. A popular theory of how the dinosaurs came to both exist and die off is that earth history has been 'punctuated' by disasters of such magnitude that a great proportion of species died out.

There is nothing to prevent assigning God the power of the asteroid, by the way.

When I look at the incredible success of such critters as ants, and things I find really hard to understand from an evolutionary standpoint, such as the process of metamorphosis, I feel as humble and inspired as any religious person who finds wonder in this common yet seemingly incomprehensible act of a vulnerable creature (Yet I am confident that it IS comprehensible).

Recently, genetic sampling of the DNA of such 'simple' examples of life as rice has found there's a lot going on there, great complexity in the genetic code. A very good book (which I haven't read yet) called "The Botany of Desire" goes into the adaptations plants have made and the adaptations humans have made to grow certain plants.

So, YES, it bothers me if the President and those around him don't believe in these incredibly productive concepts which are fascinating and powerful and will shape all our futures.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 04:18 PM

"Or read about the observable (yes, even on a human time scale) changes in the size and shape of finch beaks in the Galapagos in response to climatic variations, or the change in color of moths during the industrial revolution."

Are you saying that adaptation and evolution are interchangeable terms?

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 04:24 PM

Robomatic:

Very well said and we agree.

But that would be the "moons of Jupiter" not the "rings of Jupiter", wouldn't it?

Bev and Jery

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 04:26 PM

Grok:

Adaptation is the reson for evolution.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 05:02 PM

The several senses of the term "adaptation" have something in common --the idea of compensation for change:

short-term adaptations are behavioral or physiological, longer- term adaptations may be developmental (environmentally induced changes in anatomy, physiology, or behavior), and the longest-term adaptations are genetic (more-or-less "programmed" changes in anatomy, physiology, or behavior; more- programmed=relatively "closed," i.e. not susceptible to environmental influences; less programmed=relatively "open," i.e. susceptible to environmental influences.)

The above was stolen shamelessly from somewhere on the internet.

So, let me ask this: Why are there only two camps? Have humans so limited their thinking that they accept

1) Evolution must 'be' the answer because we can't accept the alternative of creationism

2) Creationism must 'be' the answer because we can't accept the alternative of evolution

Why are we not looking for third alternatives, or fourth, etc? A very intelligent individual said above that evolution is sooo slow we can't 'see' it. Let me ask: Sharks. They have remained unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. Why haven't they further evolved?

If questions of this type seem unfair, allow me to posit that they are no more unfair than saying it's evolution or creationism. Neither have proof to support them, IMO, and that then should force us to start looking elsewhere for answers.

I am not meaning to be argumentative. Simply, I think both 'sides' of the above argument have tunnel vision.

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 05:47 PM

some easy arguments against creationism..

panda's thumb
why not make a truly opposable thumb when youre making this creature

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 07:09 PM

Grok:

Actually, today most anthropologists, paleontologists and other scientists belicve in a modified Darwinian theory of natural selection. This includes a number of departures from Darwin's original work including the possibility that variation in species is not totally random but can vary only within certain limits. This is true of folk songs as well.

Consider, for instance, your arm, a horse's front leg, a bird's wing, and a whale's flipper. These are all designed (adapted) for totally different functions yet their bone structures are quite similar. How come? Is there no other practical way to make a front limb? Could this be God's work?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:09 PM

Regarding sharks:   Natural mutations don't happen very often, and when they do happen, they occur in individuals, not to an entire species. If a mutation is pro-survival, it's replicated in the individual's offspring, and gradually it becomes the norm. If anti-survival, often the individual members of the species die off before having a chance to reproduce in large numbers. Thus "Mother Nature" or "God" or sheer happenstance hones the design of all species.

Some species, such as the shark, can reach a state of near perfection as far as survival in a particular environment is concerned. If they can feed and reproduce unimpaired and if they have few natural enemies that constitute a serious threat to their survival, and if the environment does not alter drastically, they will remain relatively unchanged for eons. Sharks, just about the meanest dudes in the world's oceans, reached their optimum survival mode early on. Primitive though they are, they peaked early, and hence, are still going strong, relatively unchanged. The normally small mutations that occur in sharks, either pro- or anti-survival, have little effect on their overall design for survival. You will note, however, that there are several species of shark:   Great Whites, tigers, makos, hammerheads, nurse sharks, basking sharks, whale sharks, etc., all of which probably had a common ancestor sometime way back. Sharks have survived for millions of years (160,000,000, if my memory serves me) before man came along, but they're now in danger of being over-fished for their fins.

Cartoon (Mad Magazine, I think):   scene from Jaws. The shark has crashed through the transom of Quint's boat and Quint is up to his armpits in the shark's mouth. Brody shouts, "Don't hurt it, Quint, don't hurt it! Great White Sharks are an endangered species!!"

Creationism is mythology, an early attempt to explain the observed world with very little data to go on ("Obviously the earth is flat. You can see that it's flat."). When the folk tales were incorporated in an anthology of religious documents that is now the "handbook" of one or more of the world's major religions, they took on the force of religious dogma, must be accepted on faith, and as such, are not to be questioned under threat of charges of heresy. It provides a "final answer," which some people need in order to feel comfortable.

Evolution is science, derived from a much longer and more sophisticated process of observation and data gathering, subjected to inductive and deductive reasoning, measurement, testing and re-testing. Science admits of no "final answers." It is always subject to new data, constant re-evaluation, and the challenge of new theories. This apparent "uncertainty" makes some people feel very insecure, so they reject it in favor of dogma.

I know of no viable third alternative. But I'm always willing to listen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Does 'W' Believe in Evolution?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 04 - 08:17 PM

all 4 of Rabbi Sol's explanations require one to already believe that a religious explanation IS correct. That is, IF your basic question is "HOW did God do it?", then any of those explanations are possible.

If your basic question is "DID God do it, and how do we know this?", then none of those explanations are easy to deal with, as there are other ways to explain most of the events of history.

Explanation #4 is particularly puzzling for someone like me, who wants to ask..."What might have happened?" instead of "How does God test us?"
....yes, ignoring the evidence of radioactive carbon testing and making assumptions about "7 previous worlds" would indeed give one status as a True Believer, but if I got my ability to think and analyze FROM a God, then He also gave me the ability to see a badly designed test..*wry smile*. Giving His creations contradictory evidence, and expecting them to accept the least reasonable parts does not feel quite fair to me.

If I remain stubborn and unconvinced, am I playing dice with my immortality? Maybe so...I think it is a safe bet.