Religion and science

[Rob]

"His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)".

I did not intentionally leave out that portion of the quote; it was not included in the reference to which I linked. Nevertheless, I do not contend that the Cambrian explosion is "the moment of creation," only that it proves many diverse species of multicellular life appeared relatively suddenly, and this harmonizes with the Genesis account. The fact that bacteria existed prior to this is not a problem. The problem is for those who espouse evolution vs. creation to explain how all the species of multicellular life appear in the same lower Cambrian stratum but nothing remotely resembling any of them prior to that. And it is a huge problem.

[. . .] why do we now have faunas before the Cambrian?

If this is true, which I don't think it is, (I don't think bacteria qualify as fauna, and even if they do, they are still far removed from the Cambrian fauna.) then I would have to say that God created some creatures earlier than he created some others. But please bear in mind, while I question the validity of the dating of those fossil layers, I do not believe the Genesis creative days were literally 24 hours in length either. I view those "days" more in terms of creative periods, each of which spanned many thousands, maybe even millions, of years.

According to the Genesis account, the sea creatures and birds were created on the fifth creative "day," but it does not tell us how long that day was, nor in what sequence the various species were created. It does say, however, that each was created 'after its kind,' so that we do not have sharks giving birth to dolphins or dolphins to hoot owls. The early Cambrain fossil record is consistent with this; it is not consistent with evolutionary theory. This is the basis for my contention that true science agrees with the creation account.

Perhaps we should discredit them for that, as you seem to suggest [. . .]

I give credit where credit is due, which is why I give credit to the Almighty God as Creator of heaven and earth and all things which fill them. Science is a marvellous tool we have, and it has contributed greatly to man's understanding of the world around us. But like any other tool, it can be misused; and indeed it has, not only by its being used to create horribly efficient means of death and destruction, but also by its use to turn countless millions of people away from the living God, the true source of our very lives and the one to whom we owe our existence.

[Karel]

“The fossil record [i.e. the body of hard facts] had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs [. . .]” Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.

The so-called “Cambrian explosion” is in fact empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation, much to the chagrin of evolutionists and despite any attempts of theirs to explain it away.

If you quote Gould, please add, from the same paragraph: "His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)".

If this was the moment of creation for the sea fauna, why do we now have faunas before the Cambrian? If this wan't the moment of that creation, how is it in favor of the Genesis account? And it is good to realize that while currently the waters teem with life, the creatures of the Cambrian explosion are completely absent. Are you sure those are meant, and not the current ones? But also, the current ones were absent then. Yet in Genesis we read "every living and moving thing with which the water teems".

Could you explain a bit more why the Cambrian explosion is "empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation", and take my questions above into account?

Scientists are currently unable to explain the Cambrian explosion to their satisfaction. They are working on it, however, and have ideas enough. Perhaps we should discredit them for that, as you seem to suggest, but I cannot see how that would be justified.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

“The fossil record [i.e. the body of hard facts] had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs [. . .]” Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.

The so-called “Cambrian explosion” is in fact empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation, much to the chagrin of evolutionists and despite any attempts of theirs to explain it away.

[Karel]

[snip]
Understanding Evolution, for Teachers:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Well, it may be for teachers, but it also has a "learning evolution" section, complete with "evolution 101", that is interesting for everyone. Very nice link!

Regards,

Karel

support of theory of evolution as "bias"

Well, Karel, there is no question about the scientific community's being heavily biased toward evolution ...

As if this is an issue of "bias"! The ignorance of the history of science shown on this board is pathetic.

Vestigial items found in the human body:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/images/exhibit/gallery/md/human_vestiges_graphic.gif

Hindlimbed snake ancestors!

http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2003_A01_JCR-FE/index_uk.html

Uh-oh! Another fish/amphibian transitional fossil was found in 2004:

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

Misunderstandings about evolution (Wikipedia):

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

and

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

//
There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance.[45][46][47] Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make" [48] Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact.[49][50][51] A related, more extreme claim is that evolution is a "theory in crisis", generally based on misrepresenting the scientific support and evidence for evolutionary theory.[52]

Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.[53]

Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms.[54]

It is also frequently claimed that speciation has only been inferred, never directly observed. In reality, the evolution of numerous new species has been observed.[55] A similar claim is that only microevolution, not macroevolution, has been observed; however, macroevolution has been observed as well, and modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between the two, considering macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger scale.[56]

Other widespread misunderstandings of evolution include the idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which applies to isolated systems, not open systems like the earth, which absorbs light from the sun an radiates heat to space; and that evolution cannot create new physical information, although this regularly occurs whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises.[57]
//

Understanding Evolution, for Teachers:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

[Karel]

Frankly, it takes more than the bald assertions of one man, who is probably seriously confused (to put it charitably), to accept his "theories". We would like to have some independent proof, but this is missing.

About humans evolving too fast to put it down to evolution: how fast did they evolve, and why is that too fast for evolution? You claim it is too fast; please explain.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

The human race was engineered many thousands of years ago with the help of Plejaren DNA. Why do you think there are different lines of men such as cro magnon and neanderthal? [snip]

Much more than anyone would like to know about the Plejaren can be found in this Wikipedia article. Surely the Plejaren also intervened in all other species, for how could we otherwise explain the many different other-than-human varieties and species?

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

I think we all have to go back to the original thread "when Saddam Hangs" and reread all of the posts to get the basic ideas of everyone that was a participant earlier on. Or each of the earlier participants could give their brief synopsis of their previous posts and feelings.
I found the thread interesting and although not as up to date on either side do have my own feelings about the topic. I would like to see it continue and hope that it will.
You guys should voice your feelings regardless and I'm sure they will draw responses.

That would be from about page 7 in that thread. I realize I could also have copied those posts here, but it was tedious enough this way.

And by all means read up a bit and chime in!

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

I think we all have to go back to the original thread "when Saddam Hangs" and reread all of the posts to get the basic ideas of everyone that was a participant earlier on. Or each of the earlier participants could give their brief synopsis of their previous posts and feelings.
I found the thread interesting and although not as up to date on either side do have my own feelings about the topic. I would like to see it continue and hope that it will.
You guys should voice your feelings regardless and I'm sure they will draw responses.

[RL]

Thanks for asking the question MIMO I also would like to join the discussion

[mimo_100]

Could someone post a management summary of the main points of agreement and disagreement in this thread? I would love to toss in my two cents, but I am not sure I undersand what all is going on.

[skiracer]

I know that everytime I was ever in a tight spot in the Army, business, or life in general I always went to praying to God and Jesus for the strength to get through. He was and is always the bottom line and I leave it to my faith in him. Whenever I pray to him for that strength I always find myself feeling stronger and am able to perservere in finding my way throught whatever obstacle is confronting me. He enables me to see clearer and focus on my situation. On the other hand there is so much scientific factual evidence about life, the evolution of it, our planet and universe that I find it hard not to want to understand it from a scientific perspective, to read and learn and debate the issues in my own mind about the two, and I use the word opposing views for want of a better word, so that I'm at least somewhat up to par on both views. Isn't the inquisitive intellectual mind at least entitled to do that without violating their faith in Jesus and God and the miracles that are supposed to be their doing. I find it hard to accept the tunnel vision of many Christians that will not allow themselves to do this because of the Bible and written scriptures. I consider myself a Christian and my faith is tried, tested, and proven but I have had conversations with plenty of intelligent Christians that cannot and will not accept my acceptance of some scientific fact. That is a question that I have been dealing with for quite a few years in my own mind. I won't allow myself to unequivically tell them they are wrong in at least remaining open minded but on the other hand I have had close friends and relatives tell me that my faith is less than what it should be and that I am blatantly wrong in my take on it.
I would like to hear what others feel about this without the unnecessary noise of taking an unwavering position in their own beliefs. Why do you feel that you cannot believe in Jesus, God, the Bible but yet understand and accept some scientific fact that presents another view.

[Karel]

I think it could be any of the four options... no one really knows... we can only wait and forget about it, because its really stressful to be thinking about something we can never be sure about...

I am not sure about your four options, but if you mean both true, one true, or none true, I am for both true, assuming we talk about religion and science. But Rob too, I suppose! So perhaps I didn't really understand you.

There are a lot of things we never may be sure about, but neither are we completely in the dark. I think it is exciting to try to understand such things, but there's no accounting for taste.

And welcome to the board!

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

I did not initiate this subject.... I think it started with an exchange between Karel and NBB about the Roman Catholic Church.... I came in about fifty posts later. Please remove my name as the owner of this thread as I've been done with it for some time.

Hey Karel.... You split the freakin' thread, so it's yours....

Lye, your wish is my command. I moved your post back to the Saddam thread.

To everyone: I split that thread at about the place where the current discussion started. There is still some mentioning of Saddam early on in this thread, but I was too lazy to disentangle the whole thread.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

Ain't my thread....

Good move Karel. I think it fits better if we are going to be discussing the differences in religious beliefs and and scientific substance in the two areas. At least if someone new picks up on the thread they won't be wondering what this has to do with Saddam's hanging.

I did not initiate this subject.... I think it started with an exchange between Karel and NBB about the Roman Catholic Church.... I came in about fifty posts later. Please remove my name as the owner of this thread as I've been done with it for some time.

Hey Karel.... You split the freakin' thread, so it's yours....