The Economist has a great article summarizing all the ways in which the debate between evolution and religion has gone global. It also does a good job of analyzing the different strains within the American debate, depicting it as much less monolithic:
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science) from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery Institute, by the pope's close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomatic -- the idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne, a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the 4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling among Pope Benedict's senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be, or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss) that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on the integrity of science -- "natural phenomena have natural causes" -- and he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see God's hand in "convergence": the apparent fact that, as they put it, similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have evolved separately. (Emphasis mine.)
I think that the emphasized quote is the crux of the within-religion controversy. Can religion survive for very long by arguing that empirical evidence is fiction? Can it successfully argue that the science which has produced huge technical understanding and improvement in quality of life is at the same time fundamentally flawed? My suspicion is "no", but it looks like a great many are going to try.
Anyway, read the whole thing. I like that this article really does illustrate all the myriad sides that are emerging to this issue. We tend to view the culture wars as bipolar, but it is much more complicated than that.
- Log in to post comments
I'm not one for arguing, but I have told several christian friends and acquaintances that if they allow their kids to grow up thinking evolution is "just a theory" and unproven, then their kids go to a university (like Baylor, which is Baptist) where they are taught that evolution is a fact, then their kids are likely to wonder what other things they were taught in church are inaccurate. Ultimately it is not in christian parents' best interest to allow their churches to denigrate legitimate science.
What empirical evidence is there for evolution? Is speculation and guesswork their interpretation of being empirical? If evolution was ongoing over these billions of years should there not be daily evidence of plants and animals in the process of evolving from something to something else? Should there not be new species constantly emerging, rather than species becoming extinct? If natural selection is the magical force for "survival of the fittest" it stands to reason that it is also the force for annihilating the unfit? At some intermediate stage in the evolution of a species , it would have to be in a weakened state as it undergoes these immense transformational physiological changes. Would it not be logical to conjecture that natural selection would cause its demise? Just thought I would ask.
"What empirical evidence is there for evolution?"
Plenty.
Mr Cote asks "What empirical evidence is there for evolution?" Take a look at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's website on this at http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution, or the National Academy of Sciences' website at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution. Or look at any other scientific organization's website - most of them have resources on evolution.
Or you can look at the websites of those overtly or covertly religious organizations which counsel their believers to use the code term "empirical evidence" which means "I haven't witnessed evolution taking place with my own two eyeballs, so that means it doesn't happen." And their timeframe of 6,000 years since the creation of the earth doesn't allow much room for evolution anyway.
Ronald: If you check the scientific literature, you will find that there is daily evidence for organisms evolving. Most plants and animals are in the process of evolving into something else, we just don't know what they will become. However, human lifespans are far too short to be aware of most of these changes.
The second sentence I quoted suggests you think that evolution requires something akin to a whole population going through a pupal stage. Apart from situations in which there is genetic drift (in small populations) or the changes are neutral in effect, successive generations are 'better' than earlier ones. Changes that require a 'weaker' intermediate form are unable to take place. That is why humans are extremely unlikely to lose their appendix through evolution. Smaller appendices are more prone to lethal appendicitis, preventing the reduction and loss of this troublesome organ.
If Intelligent Design is ongoing over these billions of years, why don't we see new designs appearing? Can anybody name the most recent design to appear? Is anybody even looking? When am I going to get version 2.0 of my eyes? These bifocals are no fun. When is the Intelligent Designer going to fix heart disease? Just thought I would ask.
That's quite a good article, although it does carry one or two annoying mischaracterisations. This one bothers me even more than the misuse of the word random:
"In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most scientists would see as axiomatic -- the idea that natural selection is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life in all its forms."
No no no! It's not axiomatic at all - it's established by empirical study of both living and extinct species, coupled with extensive analysis and modeling.
Axiomatic is _precisely_ what it is not.
Does anybody else see the wonderful robes(evidence) on the emporer (macroevolution)?
As painful as it must be for Christians who are also scientists, they are going to have come to the realization that, as far as their religion is concerned, Creationists, not proponents of ID or evolution, have it right.
The reason? The concept of Original Sin. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross for our "sins",
that is, Original Sin. Where did Original Sin Originate? The Garden of Eden.
This means Christians, who by definition believe that Christ died for or Original Sins, must accept the literal reading of the Adam and Eve story. Otherwise, this "sacrifice" is meaningless.
We can only hope that Christians who are also scientists will see the absurdity of the whole thing and reject this superstitious nonsense for rational thinking.
*** ce chap. 14 pp. 175-176 The Human Miracle ***
Things Only Creation Can Explain
17 The Encyclopædia Britannica states that mans brain is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one persons lifetime.21 It also has been stated that the human brain could take any load of learning and memory put on it now, and a billion times that! But why would evolution produce such an excess? This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use, admitted one scientist. He then asked: How can this be reconciled with evolutions most fundamental thesis: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable, advantage? He added that the human brains development remains the most inexplicable aspect of evolution.22 Since the evolutionary process would not produce and pass on such excessive never-to-be-used brain capacity, is it not more reasonable to conclude that man, with the capacity for endless learning, was designed to live forever?
*** ce chap. 14 p. 171 The Human Miracle ***
THE HUMAN BRAINAn Unsolved Mystery?
The human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.Anthropologist Henry F. Osborna
How does the brain produce thoughts? That is the central question and we have still no answer to it.Physiologist Charles Sherringtonb
In spite of the steady accumulation of detailed knowledge how the human brain works is still profoundly mysterious.Biologist Francis Crickc
Anyone who speaks of a computer as an electronic brain has never seen a brain.Science editor Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorfd
Our active memories hold several billion times more information than a large contemporary research computer.Science writer Morton Hunte
Since the brain is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe, we may have to change some of our most ardently held ideas before were able to fathom the brains mysterious structure.Neurologist Richard M. Restakf
Regarding the huge gulf between humans and animals, Alfred R. Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, wrote to Darwin: Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of the ape, whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society. Darwin, upset by this admission, replied: I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my childg
To say that the human brain evolved from that of any animal is to defy reason and the facts. Far more logical is this conclusion: I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationshipsomething far beyond mans capacity to understand. . . . I have to believe all this had an intelligent beginning, that Someone made it happen.Neurosurgeon Dr. Robert J. Whiteh
Double Standard:
================
Scientist A studies the development of the Central Nervous System (CNS) in 2 different phyla, chordata (vertebrates) and
a marine worm (?) and makes 2 main observations:
-) the development is virtually identical
-) the pattern is extremely complex
combining this with his knowledge of mathematical probability, he states the pattern is too complex
to have evolved identically twice, and therefore concludes that the pattern had to have
derived from a common ancestor.
This very reasonable sounding scientific analysis has been published in a science journal.
this amounts to making a prediction that such a common ancestor should have existed, and
the expectation that evidence could be found to corroborate this prediction.
On the other hand, though, if Scientist B would observe that the complementary structures and behaviors
of the DNA and ribosome are so fantastically more complicated than the patterns observed by scientist A,
and therefore conclude that there was no chance of it having evolved even once, he will be told
that he has made a logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity, and that his
conclusion is not science and could not be published in a scientific journal.
We end up in a situation where, perhaps, we could construct a statement of the following type:
So, if we factor out X, where
X = the structure under question
so, scientist A can state:
X is too complex to have evolved: this is a scientific statement made by a bona fide scientist
Scientist B says:
X is too complex to have evolved: this is the statement of a creationist.
Hmmmmm?
So then the only variable is:
who is speaking
thats the ticket!
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
es58, you're either purposely posting a flawed proof hoping no one will notice, or you failed logic 101.
Several things are wrong:
1. As you have it written, scientist A would state not that X is too complex to have evolved, but that it is very unlikely that X evolved twice and in such similar fashion. Everyone agrees that the odds of X evolving exactly as it did are small, that is one reason why common descent is seen as more plausible than congruent evolution.
2. You claim the only variable is who is speaking, but this isn't the case. As we see above, you mischaracterized the position of scientist A.
Despite your attempts to dress it up as logic, what you did in your comment was create a falsehood, not a proof.
I have written a paper on the time segmented structure of the evolution derived genome, whose abstract reads:
The current model of evolution is a modified version of Darwins original hypothesis, where evolution occurs by means of natural selection of traits expressed by mutated genes in populations. This model does explain observed instances of how particular populations have become better suited to features of their environment (microevolution). But when one attempts to extend the model to explain the origin of all species from one common microbial ancestor (macroevolution), he or she implicitly depends on a structure for genomes that is surprisingly different from what developmental geneticists have observed. More specifically, as shown below using facts from the chromosome theory of heredity, species that evolved in accordance with the currently proposed model would necessarily have genomes consisting of unique sets of pairs of identical genes for the transmission of each hypothesized distinctly arising trait. Instead, developmental biologists have found that these hypothesized distinctly arising traits are all transmitted by essentially the same set of genes used in different ways. As a result of this new information, they are positing a different model of evolution which, nonetheless, carries with it this same time-segmented genome structure. The goal of this paper is to make this implicit structure explicit and to suggest why it has never been recognized by the scientific community.
If anyone reading through these posts would like to read it, please let me know, at LydiaJH@aol.com. I will append it to an email, in rich text format. The text is close to 18 pages, with four and half additional pages for references. I have been working on it for a little over two years.
Sincerely, Lydia
To Tyler- your answer on empirical evidencePlenty is deep. I would counter with my answer,None .I win!
To Richard- I have checked a great deal of the scientific literature and find nothing that has changed from something to something else. Please give details. Your assertion that there is no visible evidence because it takes so long is the standard generic answer for not answering the question. Evolution is supposedly ongoing and, as such, something today in nature ought to be in transition and observable. A fox becoming a moose, a dandelion becoming a pear tree? Your statement, We just dont know...tells it all. Yet with all that you dont know, you believe. Amazing!!
To Paul- I have examined all the overtly and covertly evolutionary web sites that masquerade as scientific rather than the nontheistic religion that they really are (as determined by the Supreme Court) and I have read their biased opinions. The fact that you dont see evolution happening attests to your blind faith in the myth. Evolution should be undeniably evident from the fossil record and seeing with your two eyeballs the evidence which should exist but mystically is absent. Doesnt the paucity of proof mean anything to you?
Ronald says
Elsewhere I see you have claimed to be a biologist. For you to use such sloppy language as this, when you presumably intend to refer to a population of foxes becoming a population of moose, makes me doubt the claim. For you to present an argument like this as something worthy of serious consideration shows you have no conception of the timescales involved. In fact, they are so great that if we found good evidence that in recorded history, not just in our lifetimes, a fox population had changed into a moose population, the current theory of evolution would be thrown into disarray.
Rather, what we do see is mainly relatively small changes, such as changes in pesticide tolerance, the reduction in wing size of island populations of birds and insects and the such like. To which you would argue 'but they are still bacteria (or beetles, sparrows or whatever)' which is analogous to saying that none of the trees around my house produced a major new branch last year. (And remember, humans are still primates.)
BTW. What is your alternative? What evidence are you putting forth to support it?