|
Darwin
Feb 17, 2009 16:09:45 GMT
Post by Noelfitz on Feb 17, 2009 16:09:45 GMT
Hazelireland,
Many thanks.
You wrote: "People commonly think of fittest as bigger, stronger, more advanced."
I did write that the 'fittest' is the 'most adaptable'.
I find it hard to appreciate that a simple cell is not less primitive than a complex organism.
However you do clearly answer my difficulty.
I am grateful to you.
|
|
|
Darwin
Feb 17, 2009 16:48:58 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Feb 17, 2009 16:48:58 GMT
Not at all, its the first time I have written at such length about it and I think I benefited from doing so just as much as you may have.
Sometimes writing down and explaining things you hold to be true helps clarify exactly what you are thinking in yourself. I think its part of the reasons I visit so many forums.
|
|
|
Darwin
Apr 9, 2009 16:08:13 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2009 16:08:13 GMT
The name of Fr. Stanley Jaki OSB ( a physicist and historian of sceince) has frequenty come up in our exchanges about science and religion, so this is an appropriate place to mention that he has died. More details on Ignatius Insight and Mark Shea's Catholic and enjoying It! blog. I also hear Fr. Benedict Groeschel has suffered a stroke. Prayers are requested for both.
|
|
|
Darwin
Sept 17, 2009 17:08:45 GMT
Post by hibernicus on Sept 17, 2009 17:08:45 GMT
This discussion from the CORNER of the american conservative magazine may bo of interest for what it's worth; I'm not in a position to judge the value fo the arguments myself (at least not at present) but it looks interesting. Here are the introductory paragraphs. The original post (follow the link) has links to other items in the same debate . Does Accepting Darwin Require Atheism? [Jim Manzi] Lots of scientists say yes (or more precisely, that evolution forces you either to retreat to pure mysticism or a conception of God that is so abstract as to be functional atheism), but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. While guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan last week, I responded to a book review by eminent biologist and prominent New Atheist Jerry Coyne in TNR in which he made this claim by showing in detail that genetic evolution can in fact be teleological. This stirred up a lot of blog commentary, including a fairly intemperate response by Professor Coyne. I replied to him at The Daily Dish, but wanted to lay out a specific case that responds to my more thoughtful critics. Here goes. First, I am making a fact claim. My fact claim is this: The findings of the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology (MES) do not demonstrate that the universe is not unfolding according to a divine plan that privileges human beings. An informal specification of what I mean in my claim by “does not demonstrate” is not restricted to something like “does not demonstrate it because it’s possible that everything we believe we observe through sense data is an illusion” or things of that ilk, but instead is closer to the sense of “does not make it obviously unreasonable to believe it.” Some claims I am not making include: • There is compelling evidence of a divine plan that privileges human beings made available to us by the structure or result of evolution through natural selection (for convenience, “evolution”). • There are no other findings or observations external to the MES that render untenable a belief in a divine plan that privileges humans. • Darwin’s work has not undermined many beliefs that many people have held about their religious views and their place in the universe. • Quantum mechanics (QM) demonstrates that there is irreducible uncertainty (i.e., “true randomness”) in the physical universe. Note that I am neither asserting nor disputing the truth any of these claims in the context of this argument, merely stating that neither my fact claim nor the reasoning by which I produce it depends on any of these statements. corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWJlMWQ0NjA4YTc0NmI1MGNjMGUxYjA3OTA0YmQyZjU=
|
|
|
Darwin
Sept 21, 2009 8:07:23 GMT
Post by hazelireland on Sept 21, 2009 8:07:23 GMT
I think the answer to this is neither a yes OR a not. It merely depends.
Each person has a different reason for believing in a god. In fact, when you really get down to talking about god with them, you find that each believer has a different meaning or concept of what they mean by “god” in the first place. This makes it really hard to demand evidence for said god, until you can establish what they even mean by god.
There are a lot of reasons why people believe in god. Some have had personal experiences. Some just believe it because they were taught to.
However another lot of people believe it because of a human failing that we like to accept ANY answer rather than NO answer at all. People often only believe in a god because it is the only answer they know. How often have non believers been asked, upon declaring their lack of this belief “Well how do YOU think the universe came about?”
The more questions science, including Evolutionary science, answers, the less questions people have for which “god” is the only answer. In this way Evolution is a direct attack on SOME forms of religious belief. It is also a direct attack on a literal reading of Genesis.
However, does this mean that ANYONE who accepts evolution MUST reject religion? Clearly not, as there are other reasons people believe.
Biologist Kenneth Miller who I love to hear speak many times more than I would Richard Dawkins on the subject of Evolution is in fact a devout Catholic. He is one of many examples.
The only problem I have with the pasted article above is that, like many people, the writer just SAYS there is evidence “There is compelling evidence of a divine plan” but as usual fails to provide or even mention any of it. How often I wonder will I be told again and again there is evidence by people who refuse to show it?
|
|