You came so close. You almost took your first step into a larger, more fascinating world than you can imagine, but instead you chose provincialism. How sad.

People of science like to believe they don’t have a religion. Every single human being on this earth has a religion. He does too. His seems to be evolutionary science. The giant gaping holes in it don’t dissuade him. The mathmatical impossibilities of creating something from nothing don’t deter him. When you get down to biological processes genetically speaking evolution requires such vast odds that all the time in the world (heh) couldn’t account for what we observe today. He persists. This is called faith. He has faith in science. That is religion. Yet to him people like me are extremists. He needs a mirror.

As to How it all began, what it means, and what I can do about it?

Then Job answered the LORD;
“Behold, I am of small account;
what shall I answer thee?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.”
- Job 40:3-5

Good discussion!

But through it all, my main concern is that the Gospel can continue to be preached with the same strength and authority as it has been in decades and centuries past. Enemies of the Gospel have chosen a new weapon to persecute the church, but I, for one, don’t plan on entering this fight unarmed or unprepared.

I thought so, too. But then I became saddened that, of all the debate & dispute over this subject, it was turned into a pissing contest. As it always seems to…whenever these things are brought up.

I need to sleep for a bit. Someone let me know if things have changed either way while I snooze.

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/millions_years.html

Also, to Frank: A serious discussion on IMAO? The world must be coming to an end!!!!!

[Everything has a cause and effect; it's hard to believe that's truly random and not just currently beyond our understand to predict. -Ed.]

But disagree with this:

[I don't believe anything in this world is "accidental." There's no such thing as true randomness, only the illusion of it. -Ed.]

It’s all to easy to claim randomness when it’s much more likely that we just fail to understand. On the other hand, the total absence of randomness negates free will, something I can’t buy either. If everything is predictable, then how can I truly make a choice?

Let’s say evolution, as defined by the theory, was proven to be absolutely true, factual & all that: so what? What exactly does that do for us? “So we’ll know where we came from.” The same for Creation science/ID.

Big. F**king. Deal. We are undeniably here now (existentialists notwithstanding), so let’s go from there.

I’m more interested in where we’re going, and-
with the quasi-scientific attack on religious faith, the near-total indoctrination of children from the time they can sit in public schools, the ever present demands for tolerance (except for conservatives & Christians), the constant act of using scientific facts only where they dispute a creator, and the threats of lawsuits against anything to that merely suggests Jud./Christ. ideology or ID in schools and court & gov’t buildings,
-I’d say we’re headed someplace in a hand basket.

Unfortunately, certain types of fundies & ID proponents often act the same way toward the Darwiniacs. It’s too easy for some of them to glean certain tested facts about the origins of life while culling other facts that don’t support their claims or that might vindicate the “other side”. They, too, tend to latch onto a couple of supporting arguements & inflate them to seem as though they dwarf all other evidence to the contrary.

I think it’s too bad that it’s become polarized by quasi-science vs. religious pragmatism. That really just gets in the way of going forward. A wise old Jewish dude once said that, “God does not throw dice.”
But even if he did, I’m pretty sure he could rig the game to a favorable outcome.

‘And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; and you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
- Genesis 1:29-30

I always liked this part of the creation story because it seems to me that in the beginning not even plants had to die.
Seeds, fruit, leaves, grass … they all grow back.
As long as the roots and trunk are left alone, the plants aren’t permanently harmed.
I think that’s a nice touch and it connects to the moral lesson that death didn’t enter the world until after man sinned.

It also offers an explaination of why mankind has a universal sense that, “Something’s Not Right About This!”

My beef* with evolution (*in Eden that would be soy-burger) is not with the science but the myth.

“The drama proper is preceded (do not forget the Rheingold here) by the most austere of all preludes; the infinite void and matter endlessly, aimlessly moving to bring forth it knows not what. Then by some millionth, millionth chance – what tragic irony! – the conditions at one point of space and time bubble up into that tiny fermentation which we call organic life. At first everything seems to be against the infant hero of our drama; just as everything always was against the seventh son or ill-used step-daughter in a fairy tale. But life somehow wins through. With incalculable sufferings (the Sorrows of the Volsungs were nothing to it), against all but insuperable obstacles, it spreads, it breeds, it complicates itself; from the amoeba up to the reptile, up to the mammal. Life (here comes our first climax ) ‘wantons as in her prime’. This is the age of monsters: dragons prowl the earth, devour one another, and die.
Then the old irresistible theme of the Younger Son or the Ugly Duckling is repeated. As the weak, tiny spark of life herself began, amidst the beasts that are far larger and stronger than he, there comes forth a little, naked, shivering, cowering biped, shuffling, not yet fully erect, promising nothing: the product of another millionth, millionth chance. His name in this Myth is Man: elsewhere he has been the young Beowulf whom men at first thought a dastard, or the stripling David armed only with a sling against mail-clad Goliath, or Jack the Giant-Killer himself, or even Hop-o’-my-Thumb. He thrives. He begins killing his giants. He becomes the Cave Man with his flints and his club, muttering and growling over his enemies’ bones, almost a brute yet somehow able to invent art, pottery, language, weapons, cookery and nearly everything else (his name in another story is Robinson Crusoe), dragging his screaming mate by her hair (I do not exactly know why), tearing his children to pieces in fierce jealousy until they are old enough to tear him, and cowering before the terrible gods whom he has invented in his own image.
But these were only growing pains. In the next act he has become true Man. He learns to master Nature. Science arises and dissipates the superstitions of his infancy. More and more he becomes the controller of his own fate. Passing hastily over the historical period (In it the upward and onward movement gets in places a little indistinct, but it is a mere nothing by the time-scale we are using) we follow our hero on into the future. See him in the last act, though not the last scene, of this great mystery. A race of demi-gods now rule the planet (in some versions, the galaxy). Eugenics have made certain that only demi-gods will now be born: psychoanalysis that none of them shall lose or smirch his divinity: economics that they shall have to hand all that demi-gods require. Man has ascended his throne. Man has become God. All is a blaze of glory.
And now, mark well the final stroke of mythopoeic genius. It is only the more debased versions of the Myth that end here. For to end here is a little bathetic, even a little vulgar. If we stopped at this point the story would lack the highest grandeur. Therefore, in the best versions, the last scene reverses all. Arthur died: Siegfried died: Roland died at Roncesvaux. Dusk steals darkly over the gods. All this time we have forgotten Mordred, Hagen, Ganilon. All this time Nature, the old enemy who only seemed to be defeated, has been gnawing away, silently, unceasingly, out of the reach of human power. The Sun will cool – all suns will cool – the whole universe will run down. Life (every form of life) will be banished without hope of return from every cubic inch of infinite space. All ends in nothingness. ‘Universal darkness covers all.’ True to the shape of Elizabethan tragedy, the hero has swiftly fallen from the glory to which he slowly climbed: we are dismissed ‘in calm of mind, all passion spent’. It is indeed much better than an Elizabethan tragedy, for it has a more complete finality. It brings us to the end not of a story, but of all possible stories: enden sah ich die welt.
… Let no one say we are an unimaginative age: neither the Greeks nor the Norsemen ever invented a better story.”
– C.S. Lewis, The Funeral of a Great Myth, Christian Reflections.

(I’d wanted to submit this selection before when evolution was discussed but refrained because it was so long; but this post seems dedicated to long comments so I figured, “What the heck!”)

And it was hardly all that innovative, Aristotle proposed the idea of survival of the fittest:

“Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish” -Aristotle

His view of mutation is a bit silly in that it is “organized spontaneously”, but it’s not like he was aware of genetics.

Frank, this was a great writing of yours and I like the way you put everything into perspective. I had to read all the comments by a (thankfully) intelligent group of young people, including the atheists.

LGF has suddenly shown the same mentality as liberals. Believe the way we do or die! I used to read this blog daily but now I go there only to see if the aliens have gone and the investigative guy is back.

My one thought on this is that you fell into the trap of confusing Darwinism with evolution. Darwinism requires much more faith and looks a lot like the ‘Great Pumpkin’ as opposed to creationism with an understanding of evolution. Darwin is kind of like the L Ron Hubbard of his time. We know that species adapt, overcome and improvise. That’s living. Where Darwin goes off the charts (and takes evolution with him as a religion) is that he suggests that every stage becomes more useful, therefore develops through natural selection.

At this point I will ask the true believers to pierce their eyeballs with a needle to verify that there is in fact fluid in them, and then ask at what point that fluid was added after to make them an asset…PST after you reproduce in that condition.

Mike

[I don't get the Darwin obsession. Darwin was one scientist who first proposed the theory. It has since been added to and modified by thousands and you can't disprove all that research with cute little word plays. -Ed.]

Did yal know that Mr. Darwin himself was planning to enter the clergy early in his career?

This site is based on the idea of poking fun at or making fun of those we disagree with based on our belief in certain values that others deny. In this post, and comments, it seems that Frank has taken some offense at some quips by others that mock the apparently Sainted Scientist, Darwin. Interesting turn of events I guess.

Evolution is an interesting and entertaining theory, but is no more a proven fact than the theory of life in distant galaxies.

Why is it funny to make fun of Algore for his religious zealotry in Global Warming, but not funny or allowed to make fun of the many “enlightened” elite who would like nothing more than to force all to accept the doctrine of evolution as fact in the wider effort to cheapen life and weaken spirits?

To accept the existence of God requires belief, or faith – because, for now, no one can decisively prove his existence.
To accept the theory of evolution require belief, or faith as well – as it can not be proven at this point.

Even if scientists, or zealots, find a verifiable proven specimen of an intermediary link between men and liberals, it still won’t settle the argument for all.

It’s about as legitimate as the whole “The world started yesterday” theory, sure it technically works, but it completely ignores Occam’s Razor as far as fossil records are concerned in the case of creationism, and memories of a week ago for the world started yesterday theory.

In fact, I could postulate that there are no laws of nature whatsoever, and cause and effect is just a massive coincidence in an infinite and completely random universe. I wouldn’t because that is preposterous, but it explains literally everything, and it even seems simpler then any other explanation.

I saw someone saying that no one ever said man descended from apes, but instead a non-ape common ancestor, but, and correct me if I’m wrong, Homo Sapiens are classified as apes aren’t they?

I have almost no understanding of Cryptography or Radioactive Decay, but yah, what Frank said, ultimately everything is cause and effect

There is an interdisciplinary field of science called Emergence, and in a lot (or at least what I’ve read) of the literature it discusses how a bunch of simple factors can come together in a way that the final result that is irreducibly complex without watching it form. (Emergence studies how complex systems form from simpler processes)

There have been computer programs that actually evolve through random mutation and adapt successfully to an artificial environment where solving complex formulas provides an advantage.

Finally, no a belief in evolution does not really influence the everyday life of most people, and while it would be just super if everybody knew the truth, there are far more important problems then trying convince people of evolution. Like, personally, I could be doing an Ethogram on ant behavior for Comparative Psych class, but no, instead I’m to busy discussing religion on the internet!

I could never really understand why some religious people feel threatened by the theory of evolution. If it’s that way, it’s because God made it that way. Learning about the way the world works doesn’t conflict with religion.

I remember reading a book called “The Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind”. Fascinating stuff, but no doubt anathema to people of the same mind set.

As pointed out previously, the conflict comes from biblical interpretation. I once had an acquaintance tell me that the bible talked about laser battlestations. I read the same passage and found something about eagles’ nests and the sun glinting off swords.

But I did find the section on flying saucers.

Cuddy Joe: Not so. We have neither observed nor replicated atoms, but proof of their existence is not reasonably deniable. Other examples abound. Gravity has never been observed, nor replicated, but we know it exists. The point is that all these things have been indirectly observed, that is, their effects are observable, allowing hypotheses, then predictions, which prompt experiments, prompting theories, then replications of experimental results, and ultimately the idea in hand is proved or abandoned. But it is not necessary to directly observe and replicate a process or thing in order to prove scientifically it exists.

And this is why both atomic theory and gravity are still considered theory. We can assume their existence because of the effect they have on other, observable objects. But we cannot prove their existence. At least not yet. It is the same with macroevolution. We may assume it exists because of numerous forms of evidence, and because we simply have no better explanation. But given the lack of proof, ie, observed transitional species, It is still theory. And however compelling, theory must be treated as such. “we’re not sure how this has occured, but here’s some ways it could have:” I would argue that creationinsm (or ID if that term feels better) is just as valid a theory. The truth is that we just can’t prove one way or the other.

Today is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, father of the unifying theory of life sciences and the cause of about half the posts at Little Green Footballs lately (seriously, did some creationist run over Charles Johnson’s dog or something?).

Something is definitely amiss at LGF when Charles devotes that much space to an issue that is only slightly above “global warming” in its significance.

The treatment of Christians posting on this issue is similar to the treatment they receive from Kos Kidz and DUmmies. Those who disagree with the theory of evolution are labeled as “trolls” by some newer people who post there. It’s so wrong.

The Islamofascists coming to kill us will not spare our lives because we are strongly on either side of this debate. Covert or die.