Growing up in an ultra-conservative sect of Christianity, I believed Charles Darwin to be a monster. Pure evil. A tool used by the devil to discredit God and the Bible.
I knew nothing about Mr. Darwin, mind you. The only thing I new about his evil theory was that humans supposedly evolved from apes. It was explained to me by a respected member of my congregation that if we really had evolved from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans today? Coming from an adult, it made perfect sense to me. Evolution was ludicrous.
And ignorance is bliss.
Fortunately, as I grew I didn’t take this explanation at face value. I learned that Darwin’s theory wasn’t just about apes evolving into humans. And in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s The Origin Of Species
The reason I bring this up, on Darwin’s 200th birthday, is that many persons believe as I did as a boy. They believe the creation story in Genesis to be literal. They believe the earth to be about 6,000 years old. Adam was created from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib. These were the first two humans. They didn’t evolve from any lower life form.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this belief. Creationism is a sincere conviction held by many intelligent people, and should be respected. The problem is many accept creationism as fact, without even bothering to explore other opinions, without learning what science has taught us about evolution, accepting ignorance over education.
How can one make a decision on a matter, without first being informed of all possible options, and looking at those options with a completely open mind? One wouldn’t choose an insurance company based solely on the fact that it is their parents’ choice. Would they? Actually, many do.
As I matured, and started “freethinking” (something very dangerous to do), I came to the realization that evolution says nothing about who or what created the universe. It merely explains how one life form gave way to the next. Evolution is completely compatible with belief in God. This was quite an exiting revelation as you might imagine.
Darwin’s theory was not meant to disprove the idea of an intelligent creator. After the publication of The Origin of Species, American biologist Asa Gray wrote Darwin a letter saying that his theory demonstrated how God created the species. Darwin praised Gray for being the first person to see the point.
I wonder why more fundamentalist can’t see the point. True, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the six-day creation story in Genesis, but is it even remotely possible that the account is something less than completely literal? Could it be an allegory, a symbolic representation perhaps?
Darwin has long been a champion to Atheists. Why can’t he be a champion to believers as well?
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, is compatible with belief in the Christian creator god, in the same way that Thor is compatble with the modern theory of thunder and lightening.
It seems rather ridiculous to me to say of the modern theory of thunder and lightening “oh wow, you’ve found out the method of how Thor creates thunder and lightening”.
Thor, and the Christian creator god are not needed, and Charles Darwin was honest enough with himself to accept that. There was a group called Saltationists around Darwin’s time, that were similar to modern day creationists. Darwin said that if his theory required a creator god to explain any life form, then the entire theory should be thrown out.
Daemonax,
I really like the Thor example.
Evolution may not be compatible with the “Christian creator god”, but do you think it could be compatible with an unknown intelligent designer? Theoretically speaking of course.
Do you want “possible” or do you want “probable” answers?
Hey man, I want all the answers.
COULD evolution be compatible with an unknown, unknowable, intelligent designer? Sure, it could. But there is zero evidence for that and much evidence against it. The main point being that life forms really are not that intelligently designed.
Our bodies are a hodgepodge of barely working systems, jury-rigged nerves, and general piss-poor planing. If someone designed those systems they are not likely deserving of worship.
Not intelligently designed compared to what? No, humans aren’t perfect, but I think we’re pretty well put together, in my humble opinion.
You dont know a whole lot about anatomy then. A couple really quick examples:
Our brains are wired backwards. The right side of the brain controls the left side of the body and vise-versa.
Our eye has the photosensitive material behind the nerves, resulting in the infamous ‘blind spot’ that all vertebrates have. Invertebrates have a much more sensibility designed eye, with the photosensitive material not blocked by nerves and blood vessels. And as a result Cephalopod eyes are superior to those of mammals.
The human spine is a complete engineering disaster and simply NOT designed to carry around any real weight.
The mammal spinal cord is inside-out. The brain has the white matter on the inside, protected by the far more resilient and resistant to damage gray matter on the outside. The spine has this reversed, with the white matter wrapping around the gray.
Those are just the first few I can think of off the top of my head, there are many, many more examples. The human body is described by engineers as a ‘kludge.’ Or a collection of jury-rigged and barely working systems. Its true that despite these shortcomings it does work pretty well most of the time, but it is extremely un-intelligently designed.
I had read that the spine isn’t made to bear any weight because it hasn’t caught up to bipedal locomotion; that is, our spines aren’t all that different from our quadrupedal relatives, despite the fact that we’ve taken to walking on our hind legs exclusively. So if you’re ever wondering “what’s up with this lower back pain?” there you have it.
My other favorite example is teeth, and how we have to many teeth to fit our jaw (our jaw has shrunken over time, but the number of teeth we have hasn’t caught up). Nevermind things like tooth decay… If a human were to create something; say, a car, he would probably use materials not prone to decay. If Ford Motors can do it, god should be able to. (Unless tooth decay is a tool he uses to test our faith, or some such nonsense.)
Damn, I had no idea. I guess we are ‘kludge’.
I have to give you a lot of credit Todd. I may not share your beliefs but I do respect you for being open to other possibilities and being willing to discuss it openly.
I’ve spoken with many theists in the past who, when confronted with something similar to what I said will either ignore everything I say or lash out at me with childish name calling.
Thanks for the chat. Its been a pleasure, and I hope the next theist I run into is half as open minded as you.
Blacksheep, the feeling is mutual. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. That’s why I eagerly welcome other viewpoints. That’s the only way to learn and grow. Plus, if everyone agreed all the time, life would be pretty boring
It is my understanding that Darwin himself told people of his day that his theory was just that, a theory. Nobody on earth knows the truth about our origins. I belive in Creation. No matter what you belive about our orgins, the bottom line is it takes a faith of some kind. I tell my kids that if a teacher tells them that evolution is our origin, than ask the teacher why it stopped and where is the living missing link. If evelution is correct we shouldn’t we be seeing the process continue? Or did the designer decide that creation was finished. I do believe that our creator put into his design the ability for his creations, plant or animal, to adapt.
@Stonedaddy
OK, normally the defense that proponents of evolution use when confronted with a statement like this is: “the scientific definition of the word ‘theory’ is quite different from the lay’s” (and it is).
However, having said that, when Darwin first introduced it, I guess you could say that it was “just a theory”. The problem is, your statement ignores the 150 years of research and advancement that have happened since.
I would further argue that it doesn’t take faith to believe in evolution. All the evidence is there, but you must concern yourself with looking at it. Furthermore, evolution _hasn’t_ stopped; just because it happens in geological time (that is, too slowly for it to be visible) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s like saying that rocks don’t erode because you can’t see the accumulated effects of thousands of years of wind, water, and light on them. Remember, a watched rock never erodes.
If you want to see accounts of evolution continuing, they’re there to be seen. In fact, the New York Times’s science section has many articles on evolution this week, due to the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species. I suggest you read a couple.
Evolution hasn’t stopped, its still ongoing all the time. And we do see it ongoing all the time.
Just one out of many, many examples: About 20 years ago some scientists took small lizards from Africa and transplanted them onto a tiny island many miles off the coast. The lizards they started with were highly active and territorial, with flashy coloring and eating insects to support their high-energy life.
The island they were transplanted to however had fairly few insects living on it, and was not large enough for them to continue their territorial lifestyle.
As a result, in just 20 years (or about 30 – 40 lizard generations) we have an entirely new species of lizard. Sluggish, social creatures with a multi-chambered stomach to accommodate eating plants instead of insects. Their bodies are larger to hold their expanded guts, and their legs are shorter and stronger to support larger bodies. Their flashy colors, no longer needed for territorial displays, have given way to stone-colored camouflage to help them hide from seabirds.
You may argue that that’s not evolution, since one species of lizard simply changed into another species. But that is the very crux of evolution. If one species of lizard can become another in just 20 years, there’s no telling what might happen in a thousand, or a million years.
We’ve only been scientifically observing the world for a few hundred years, so we dont have first-hand accounts of the huge shifts that you probably would want to see. Instead we have to turn to the fossil record, which is imperfect. Fossilization is a rare process, it doesn’t happen a whole lot. Which is why we have alot of holes in it. But some parts we’ve mapped out pretty well. Look up the evolution of the horse, we have many intermediate species, or missing links, included in their family tree.
I submit to you the idea that every creature that has ever existed is in fact a ‘missing link.’ Even the creatures that exist today are simply the next link between their ancestors and their descendants.
@Blacksheep
That was beautiful… T_T
@fromclouds
Thanks. Its good to be appreciated sometimes. I’m used to a lot of hostility when I say stuff like that.
Blacksheep,
I will try not to be hostile, but it is going to be difficult. My apologies in advance. I have no idea of the state of the evidence for your African island story. I am skeptical. However, if all is exactly as you stated you have demonstrated a shocking lack of understanding about biology and evolutionary theory. Indeed you highlight one core problem for Darwinism (and the reason as a theory it is dead in the water supported only by the faith of its adherents.) If one has a LaMarcian view of genetics (as Darwin did)your story makes some sense. The lizard adapts and passes on those changes to its offspring. This is provably not true. Our adaptians to our environment are not passed on unless we have genetic change. Genetic change is not responsive to the environment – it happens by random chance during the reproductive process. The possibility of random chance producing adequate variation to lead to selection of the changes mentioned (different bodies, different stomachs, different coloration, different social interaction, etc) is zero. It is not possible. To believe that has happened is entirely irrational, one step below believing in Thor the thunder God.
Possible explanations to your data set in my best guess of order of likelihood:
1). Fabricated or exaggerated story.
2). Bad control and data collection leading to a couple of possible results:
a). “New” species is simply a pre-existing species that out competed and thus defeated the imported species. The imported species may even have improved conditions for the existing species (decreasing the insect population, thus increasing vegetation?)
b). “New” species is cross breed of the imported species and a pre-existing lizard. This gets to the whole question of speciation. In general it is not a separate species if it can breed and produce viable offspring.
3). There is no “new” speicies, but just a selection for certain traits that pre-existed in the existing species. This is possible but unlikely in the limited number of generations available and given the reported level of change. This kind of “evolution’ is non-controversial, everybody agrees it happens and has nothing to do with Darwin’s core arguments as understood today in light of Mendellian genetics.
4) Some group of scientist, aliens, or God himself was playing games with the lizards for fun or to confound us.
788). Thor, god of thunder missed and hit the lizards frying their genetic code in a beneficial.
1111111111). The demonstrable effects of darwinian evolution.
Again, I apologize for the potential hostile tone.
@MFJ
I would tend to agree that the story seems infeasible in terms of scale and time, but that does not disprove Darwinian evolution. Specifically, your claim that:
“If one has a LaMarcian view of genetics (as Darwin did)your story makes some sense. The lizard adapts and passes on those changes to its offspring. This is provably not true. Our adaptians to our environment are not passed on unless we have genetic change.”
Is spurious at best. The story makes no claim that successive generations of lizards were the benefactors of individual lizards’ successes, and that these successes accrued over the life of said lizard improved their offspring. Furthermore, I’m fairly sure that Darwin’s own theory of natural selection was the death knell of the Lamarckian theory. After all, Darwin espoused “variation and selection”. The evolution detailed in this study does not hinge upon the adaptability of individual lizards.
The changes introduced in the lizard population, under the framework of Darwinian evolutionary theory would be attributable to mutation, and the story makes no claim otherwise. This of course does not make the account true, though your arguments do nothing to falsify it (other then your [and my] incredulity at the numbers). Though blacksheep could put that all to rest with a well-placed citation.
As for your claim of trying not to sound hostile, _there_ is something for which I have to suspend disbelief. When you disparage someone’s account (though it’s true its validity is questionable), likening it to a belief in Thor is just being an asshole.
@MFJ
This is going to be a long one…
I may not have all the answers, but you seem to misunderstand genetics as well. I don’t have the original article at hand because I read it well over a year ago, but I will look for it.
Anyway, to disprove your claims:
1) Even the original scientists were shocked at the speed of the transformation, so they brought in other groups to confirm the experiment.
2) Genetic testing was performed that showed that these new lizards were direct descendants of the original group, not a preexisting one or a hybrid.
3) You’re actually very close on this one, and you help me to disprove your earlier claim that the likelihood of this happening is zero.
You are exactly correct that this new group is just a recombonation of genetic diversity that already existed in the parent group of lizards, a related species to the parent group even has the chambered stomachs as our new group, even though the parent species did not. So one could say that this new group arose with very little genetic mutation, and thus would very likely still be able to breed with the parent species.
However, you are wrong in that The technical term for a separate species is one that is reproductively isolated from another. While these lizards could likely successfully reproduce with the parent species it was found that they wouldn’t due to differences in behavior.
We find this is actually quite common between closely related species. Many species of finches are closely related and if artificially inseminated will produce hybrid offspring, but this never happens in the wild because the birds refuse to mate with each other.
Another good example was a study of african cichlids. Cichlids are a family of fish containing some 1600 species, many of which share habitat with each other. The fish avoid mating with each other thanks in part to their bright coloring, which can be quite spectacular. However, due to pollution from humans the rivers and lakes they live in are becoming cloudy, and the fish can no longer see their mates as well. As a result, we are seeing more and more hybrid fish appearing between species of cichlids.
If we followed your definition of a species, then we would be forced to declare that all these cichlid species are in fact the same species. Thus, the reason for the slightly broader definition than you used.
4) I cannot disprove your theory of God having helped the lizards along, since I cant comment on magical powers. I can assume though that if Thor was involved did he probably had the help of the various other classical gods. Or at least Dionysus, the Greek god of partying. Since copious amounts of godly wine had to have been involved for Thor to have missed his target that badly.
HOWEVER, even if you HAD been right on all these points, it does NOT mean that evolution (Which is not ‘Darwinism’ as you claim. But that’s a whole rant of its own so I’m not going to go into it now) is a dead theory. This was only one example, as fromclouds kindly pointed out, there are many such articles in Time’s science section this week. Or you can just look around online and find dozens of such articles in minutes with a quick google search.
I’m going to leave you with an argument I’ve come up with after many such discussions with theists.
Assuming that all we believe about God is true, that He is divinely good and wants the best for us, which is more likely?
That God would give us senses to observe the world around us and free will and intelligence to interpret what we see as it makes sense, but would then fill the universe with evidence contrary to the truth of the bible and punish us for believing the evidence that He Himself has presented us with…
OR that the writers of the bible misinterpreted His word and His work and put together stories that made sense with what they knew at the time? Wouldn’t it make more sense to base our beliefs on the actual WORKS of God that surrounds us as opposed to His WORDS as interpreted and written then reinterpreted and rewritten by small, flawed, limited humans over and over again over the last 2000 years?
As Todd said in his original article, belief in scientific ideas is not mutually exclusive to belief in God, only the literal word of the bible. Which even the most devout of theists have to admit has a lot of parts that don’t make sense in today’s world.
Ok, now I feel like the ass for having to correct myself. My comment was too long and had too many ideas to properly proofread in the tiny box available and I screwed up and lost a sentence and a half when trying to copy/paste something.
My one paragraph should look like this:
However, you are wrong in that something is not a separate species is ‘if it can breed.’ The technical term for a separate species is one that is reproductively isolated from another. This could be a genetic divide, meaning that two species physically cannot produce offspring with each other. Or a behavioral one, meaning that they could but don’t. While these lizards could likely successfully reproduce with the parent species, they wouldn’t due to differences in behavior.
Blacksheep,
Let’s backtrack a second. The purpose of the story you presented was to show that evolution is ongoing. Now maybe by that you meant that over time a species will vary as influenced by its environment and even produce sub species. However, this is uncontroversial and has been known (if in not always in the same language) for thousands of years.
Instead I assumed (rightly I believe) that the story was intended to buttress the core argument of evolution as it stands today – that more complicated life forms have arisen over time from simpler life forms through a process of random genetic change and natural selection. The story as recited provides zero evidence for that proposition. To believe it does is entirely irrational.
The question of when something is a separate species may be interesting, but is not really relevant to the larger questions. I would just suggest that reproductive viablity is a bright line standard or at least closer to one, whereas behavioral divides are speculative and as your example shows here likely to breakdown quite quickly. THat is if their was a behavioral divide between the parent and child species in your example, what would happen if you imported more of the parent species? Would their offspring be able to bridge that divide as they faced the same environmental factors. I would hypothesize yes. This is obviously different from bringing dogs to the island, which we would never expect to be able to breed with the lizards. Some of this discussion is semantics.
I too believe that we should use our senses to understand the world, although I do not live in the delusion that our senses are adequate to understanding all of it. When examined the universe and life in it look created not random. And the more detail and data we have the more created it looks. As best as I can tell it is the evolutionists that seek to close off debate and ignore facts. That is without a doubt true in our public schools. When I read the arguments for both sides the quality of the argumentation is not even close. The intelligent design side makes cogent, reasonable arguments based in data. The evolutionists make smoke and mirror arguments (like your lizard story), straw man attacks (like your scripture vs. reason argument above), ad hominem attacks, etc. Most people who believe in evolution do so as a matter of faith. Sometimes it is faith in those who taught them. Often it is faith that all events must have natural causes and therefore assumes out the possibility of God.
There is a reason why hardcore evolutionists often turn to atheism – it is the only sensible retreat. The God that we are going to see in nature outside of some divine revelation is an evil God. A God who creates by death, going through billions of trials to get to the end result is either a very scary or very weak God. If you believe in a divinely good God who wants the best for us who created us through natural selection you are entirely irrational. These ideas are not compatible.
I would flip your question around a little. If God is divinely good and wants the best for us, but has also allowed us by our choices to screw up His creation, how will He communicate to us. He cannot do it adequately through His creation – it is screwed up. He must find a different way. He does it first by His word which is divinely inspired, and then by the Word made flesh, who through His willing sacrifice overcomes death. Your false God of nature uses death for His creative purposes. The true God revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, accepts the death that we have brought about into Himself for our benefit. This is what I believe. It may be wrong, but unlike the position you stated (which may or may not be yours) it is not irrational.
I see you are simply not willing to look at the evidence that surrounds you. There is myriad evidence of evolution, it does not require faith to belief in it. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Every day more proof emerges, such as this one on human genetics http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123062/
Your claim that you agree with me that we should use our senses to understand the world is a bald-faced lie. You reject your senses and the world around you. You reject the facts of the world in favor of a book written by humans over a thousand years ago.
I see you also completely ignored the second half of my example. You are basing your world view solely off the bible. No one would suggest using the bible as a guide for parenting (stone disrespectful children to death) or astronomy (the earth is the center of the universe). There are dozens of stories in the bible that make no sense, why should genesis be any different? Very brief list of very weird stories in the bible http://listverse.com/bizarre/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/
Finally, you claim that “When I read the arguments for both sides the quality of the argumentation is not even close. The intelligent design side makes cogent, reasonable arguments based in data. The evolutionists make smoke and mirror arguments” … I have to thank you for this one, I really needed a good laugh today. Lack of satire like that is the problem with TV today. Lol
In all seriousness though, this claim is the absolute proof of what I said in that you are rejecting the facts of the world. Thus far, I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for intelligent design. Even the Vatican has come out in support of evolution and said that ID is simply “bad science” and “not supported by the evidence” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece
They also shoot down your claim that evolution and christian beliefs are incompatible.
But no reason to listen to the pope if you’re not catholic. So I’ll bite. I’d like to hear these claims that are so spectacular that they make fossil evidence and everything we know about genetics seem like a “smoke and mirror” claim.
There is so much presumptions here I am not even sure where to begin
Fromclouds – Ford motors created some thing responsible for pollution and obesity and God didn’t The spine was meant to carry lean body mass in an aerobic manner NOT have the majority of the weight confine to the posterior 75% of the time. So that lower back pain could be an indication the need to have a lot less couch and a little more bi-pedeling
Because most of man kind sits on his duff at work in traffic and in front of TVs computers ect it may indicate God designed us to be more interactive with our environment
{The problem is, your statement ignores the 150 years of research and advancement that have happened since.}
This ignores the fact that 150 years of research still have yet to prove GOD DOESN’T EXIST – they are no closer to proving simple things like reality Science can’t prove WE exist without bias –
Having fun yet ????? I may actually get a bit of a warm up
Blacksheep –
{Faith is the belief in something without evidence}
You mean like the evidence we exist in time and space – that we are ??? Science is based on this “faith” called an assumption.
All these flaws in human design are use as evidence that an intelligent God could not have designed us – would this same line of facts also fly into the face of “natural selection” or evolutions “survival of the fittest”???
I do love a good irony in a debate –
Thus far, I’ve yet to see a single coherent argument for intelligent design
{What ever}
I would like to direct your attention to the article hyperlinked in the past blacksheep post “Human evolution kicks into high gear”
{Article Quote}They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and ever faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history.{End Quote}
Who is to say this is the first time evolution kicked into high gear – meaning that evolution did not take as long as once thought – at one time speciation wasn’t considered possible. The article continues to back up my presentation
{Article Quote}“We aren’t the same as people even a thousand or two thousand years ago,” he says. “Almost every trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”
By his account, Hawks’ theory of accelerated human evolution owes its genesis to what he could see with his own eyes. But his radical view was also influenced by newly emerging genetic data. Thanks to stunning advances in sequencing and deciphering DNA in recent years, scientists had begun uncovering, one by one, genes that boost evolutionary fitness. These variants, which emerged after the Stone Age, seemed to help populations better combat infectious organisms, survive frigid temperatures, or otherwise adapt to local conditions. And they were popping up with surprising frequency{End Quote}
The answer is elementary and right before your eyes and you have proven my point extremely
The Xiphoid process a bony prominence used as a marker for CPR and the Heimlich Maneuver. I asked in a class what happens if some one doesn’t have one I was told every one has one – Well not any more! They disappeared in two generations and the newest generation carries the same changes so it is a dominate gene no less.
Mutations are NOT taking millions of years – it is happening in thousands and less The scientific time line you are refuting creationist views is flawed I wonder how many other “facts” are screwed by erroneous interpretations –Ruling out the possibility of intelligent design is a informal fallacy
I was browsing my internet history and rediscovered this page. Lol
tl scott
You do make some good arguments. But I’m not going to argue with you because you’re getting into philosophy. Which isnt to say that you aren’t right, just that we could debate forever and never get anywhere.
I do have 2 things to say though:
1) The term ’survival of the fittest’ is an oversimplification and somewhat misleading. It would be better to say that the more accurate term is ’survival of the fit enough’
Basically, you dont need to be the fastest wildebeest on the savannah to survive. Just NOT the slowest.
2) “Science can’t prove WE exist without bias”
This is a fair argument. But its not one worth debating. If we dont exist then theres no point debating the subject at all. Lol! So if we plan on discussing the subject we have to start out with the assumption that we exist.
Accepting the fact that, at some point, something came from nothing seems to be the primary push for forming religions. While I remain agnostic, I have to say that disproving an argument based on marginal uncertainty does not make all alternatives more plausible. The point of science is not to be right all the time, it is to take an objective viewpoint on facts and evidence and form the best thing we’ve got. If you find that intelligent design is what makes the most sense and has the most evidence then that’s fine, believe it, evolution has been the most concrete theory explaining increasing complexity of organisms found in the fossil record for me. Therefore, I and all other people who believe in evidence and the hypo-deductive method will continue to believe it until something else becomes the best thing we’ve got (which probably won’t happen). Religion is great if you want to think you know how it started but evolution does the best job of explaining what happened since.