Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Yes you are a catatonic neanderthal.

[loseyourname]

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

This is an interesting link. I think it clears up some of the confusion regarding whether evolution is a theory or a fact.

[loseyourname]

By the way, if anyone is interested, John Maynard Smith, one of our greatest evolutionary biologists, died several days ago. He was old, though, and lived a good life. If he's still around in some other form, I wish him luck. If not, I appreciate the contributions he made while he was here.

[Anonymouse]

Folks I would like to also remind readers that evolution and creation are two diametrically opposed worldviews. Evolution maintains the universe began naturally, as opposed to supernaturally. Creation begins with the premise of God, the other with premise that there is no God. They are both scientific and religious. Anyone else who tells you otherwise has discovered all the answers there is to know for humankind.

[loseyourname]

What is this nonsense? Evolution has nothing to say about the beginnings of the universe, and it certainly has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God. All is says is that currently extant species evolved from previous species, and it guesses at how they did. That's all. Quit being an alarmist fool.

[loseyourname]

Here's a link to the entire piece: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Here's a piece that clears up the confusion a bit. It isn't that long, so I'll just post the entire thing rather than linking it. Pay particular attention to the bold-face near the bottom.

What is Evolution?

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated. Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity! Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

[loseyourname]

Many evolutionary biologists are atheists, perhaps most prominently Darwin himself and Stephen Jay Gould, but this doesn't mean that evolutionary theory itself excludes religion or any form of supernatural creation. In fact, many biologists are still believers, and will simply tell you that evolution is the way God chose to bring about biological diversity, mostly with the caveat that he did it that way so as to be random and ensure the free will not just of the creations, but of creation itself.

Perhaps the most eloquent expression of this sentiment can be found in Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Here is a great discussion of this work:

St. John of Damascus said, “The knowledge of God's existence is naturally implanted in all things.” This has led many theologians (even scientific theologians), from St. Thomas Aquinas to C.S. Lewis, to argue that the nature of God is not only self-evident, but we see Him in nature. As thogh God cosmically leaves His thumbprint on His creations, one can meditate on the simple yet intricately complex nature of a flower and be amazed at how it came about. Blaise Pascal argued, “If man made himself the first object of study, he would see how incapable he is of going any further. How can the part know the whole?”

Man, however, has gone further—much further. As Kenneth R. Miller, a Christian and biologist, chronicles in Finding Darwin's God, man will forever increase his knowledge. Completely unapologetic, Miller reconciles the two opposing sides in the creation/evolution debate, suggesting that the two are not diametrically opposed. He would agree with C.S. Lewis that, “Those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power.” Yet, just as Jesus told his disciples, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32), Miller suggests that true knowledge of our world—and indeed true knowledge of God—are found (as Henry Drummond depicts in the final scene of Inherit The Wind), with a Bible in one hand, and Origin of Species in the other.

As to not isolate the scientific community, Miller is light on the biblical rhetoric. He even shies away from admitting his allegiance to any particular faith, opting to discuss “Western religions” for the majority of his book. However, with a biblical subtext, Miller's argument would be all the more convincing for other Christians; for the most part, Miller suggests that the highly emotional battle waged between evolutionists and creationists is not one between God and men, but men and men.

A Christian can easily grow defensive in the opening chapters of Finding Darwin's God; after dismissing the Eden story as a dangerous myth that must not be taken literally, he plunges into chapter after hard-hitting chapter of inarguable scientific evidence that quickly distills each Youth Earth Creationist and Intelligent Design Creationist argument into its non-critical parts until both ideas self-destruct. Paradoxically, it is precisely these “religious” arguments that damage the Christian faith.

Why are the Young Earth Creationists wrong? Miller explains that it is not only because the fossil record clearly shows a progression of all species; from algae to flowering plants or fish to primate, species evolve. Nor is it only because the rubidium-strontium method can, with relative accuracy, date rocks over 3.5 billions years old. Rather, the Young Earth Creationists project characteristics onto the nature of God through these arguments which are neither compatible with His nature nor consistent to any faith. Rather than searching for the truth, Miller presents (and rightfully so) the Young Earth Creationists as a group whose primary purpose is to refute evolution—defining their beliefs not so much on their faith, but in vehement contrast to Darwinian evolution. Thus the God of the YECs becomes one who hides all of the elements of nature beneath layers of supposed age for little other reason than being “inherently deceitful.”

The Intelligent Design Creationists (with Michael Behe's “Irreducible Complexity” theory) are no better off. While accepting the age of the earth and astrological data as fact, the proponents point to instances of punctuated equilibrium through techniques of fuzzy math. Behe's God becomes one who stirs the cosmic brew, placing His thumbprint throughout millions of points in the history of the earth to create new species, subverting any notion of free will.

Miller refutes the arguments of the Creationists with such ease and suavity that, while never condescending, he becomes what C.S. Lewis would call a sincere “lover of truth.” This is precisely why his following argument is so convincing: Though not presenting any original scientific evidence or producing any newfound religious theory, Miller weaves together scientific and theological thought in a way which does not deliver a pretentious discovery of “his own” God, but stacks the evidence such that Darwinian evolution is the logical action of the loving, omniscient God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Unlike the God of the YECs and the IDCs (a God whose interaction within the universe—and indeed His very nature—is ever changing and inconsistent) the only God who could have been the catalyst of our world, consistent with the God of the Bible, is unchanging. As the bible reads, “I am the Lord; I change not” (Malachi 3:6), and as Miller rightly argues, the God of the anti-evolutionists is different altogether.

Miller asserts that the nature of God is evident in the physical world—not that he can be scientifically proven—but the clear evolution through the fossil record and the random fabric of quantum physics indeterminacy support a God who so loves his creation that He attributes it free will. The random nature of quantum physics indeterminacy shows us a mechanism responsible for life's development which, at its core is unpredictable. God is not dictating the earth's every move; He simultaneously allows the “invisible things of God [to be] understood by things that are made” (Romans 1:20) while not being the God existing in the shadows—demanding ignorance—as many creationists proclaim. Only a God of true free will (which allows for true faith) would create an earth with the capability to operate with complete independence.

Miller learned something from his Catechism and combines it with his summer reading (the likes of John Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno). It's an interesting rhetorical strategy, as Miller understands, the meaning of the words written before the Inferno: “Divine power made me and supreme wisdom and primal love.” Though not letting on for the majority of his book how “religious” he really is, Miller realizes that all the difficult questions about faith can be answered by the often-ambiguous fact, “God gives us free will.” While many find this explanation somehow lacking, as the thought of a loving God allowing suffering into the world is initially perplexing, Miller explains the nature of a loving God convincingly, yet through the rhetoric implying he came upon the knowledge himself. Miller works to establish himself as everyman—one who read books in the summer of his youth and, rather than learning what he should believe from a typical Christian education, tapped into the mysteries of God himself. The lack of Christian dogma found within Miller's book (perhaps unconsciously) suggests that Miller agrees with St. John of Damascus: God is evident in the world; not by some cosmic thumbprint, but as a concept.

Though Miller does not overtly argue the case, it can be inferred that science as the pursuit of knowledge must be compatible with faith. He would agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that, “faith presupposes natural knowledge just as grace presupposes nature and perfection presupposes something which can be perfected.” Unlike the Young Earth Creationists, the Bible is not Miller's sole source of evidence, and his arguments are all the stronger because of it. The search for God in the natural world is fleeting; by definition, God must transcend the physical and, as Miller argues, there is no reason for proof of His existence to lie in the natural world. If theology assumes that God is an element within a spiritual realm, science—as a study only of the natural—cannot dictate spiritual issues. To employ Miller's diction, does this mean that the fusion of science and religion is unimportant? Absolutely not.

C.S. Lewis wrote, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found that it has no meaning.” Instead, science continues to delve further into areas never previously imagined. Yet, as all scientific evidence points toward Darwinian evolution, God becomes “hard to pin down and impossible to exclude.” The question of God's existence is not relevant to science, but this isn't a science book. Instead, we revert back to St. John of Damascus. If God's existence is “naturally” implanted in all things, we must consider the beginning of time. Here, even Darwin admits, “there is a grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” Atheists cannot rule out God, as they can only speak of what is evident in the physical world. Miller sees faith just as Aquinas does—presupposed by science.

In alignment with Lewis, Miller proves to be a lover of truth. Finding Darwin's God proves humble enough to admit that, while the earth operates as a completely independent organism, science, by definition, cannot explain everything. Though Miller doesn't uncover any new scientific or theological ground, Finding Darwin's God is a scientifically accurate account of a personal journey; Miller has indeed found freedom in this truth. Rather than being bound to gaping holes in creationist logic which will forever keep creationists grasping to protect the hidden shadows of God, Miller shows how one can embrace the magnitude and beauty of a world created by natural selection and grow closer to the divine creator because of it.

[loseyourname]

Here is a good piece on why evolution and creation are not incompatible: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

This refutes the idea that evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

This talks about observed instances of speciation (dusken, finally I found a link for you about this): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This is a detailed refutation of erroneous probability calculations that show abiogenesis to be impossible through mathematics: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I hope anyone that comes in here takes the time to actually read through these, and this includes you, Mousy. There is a lot of information contained in these pages and it will take a while, but it is well worth it if you are honest about actually wanting to learn about this topic.

Remember, ignorance is not bliss, no matter what anyone tells you. Knowledge is power.

[Anonymouse]

What is this nonsense? Evolution has nothing to say about the beginnings of the universe, and it certainly has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God. All is says is that currently extant species evolved from previous species, and it guesses at how they did. That's all. Quit being an alarmist fool.

Stop being so insecure and intolerant of dissenting opinions Mr. Loser. After all, both creation and evolution are worldviews or philosophies, however you wish to hyphenate them, it matters not. So when people like you come out and copy and paste Dobzhansky and somehow "prove" that "evolution is a fact", but that only the methods are still in question, that in itself begs the question, for why evolution and not creation? One can formulate the same thing in terms of the creationist worldview. It changes nothing.

[Anonymouse]

Remember, ignorance is not bliss, no matter what anyone tells you. Knowledge is power.

Especially when that knowledge is based on pseudo scientific assumptions and guesses, and formulating that to be "facts", I'd rather go with ignorance than arrogance.