Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Thestral]

As I said, a "theistic evolutionist". An evolutionist who holds that God (or whoever) created the universe through evolution.

Le sigh. You're conflating again. I don't believe God created the universe through evolution - I believe evolution is the best mechanism we have to explain the development of life. But it has nothing to say about astronomy, geology, the formation of stars and planetary bodies, etc., etc.

Established by whom, is the question. Those two terms are colloquialisms. On the other hand, as you have implied, "theistic evolutionist" is effective as philosophical terminology.

They're not simply colloquialisms, they're slurs. The point is, just because a word or phrase is commonly bandied about doesn't make it right or useful or dignified.

"Evolutionist" was coined as a way to falsely claim that evolution is some sort of belief system, in opposition to creation - implicitly, in opposition to God. It's a tool to put them on the same level, when they're simply not.

I said "theistic evolution," not "theistic evolutionist" is useful in philosophy or apologetics - note the difference.

I did not say otherwise, per se. I was, again, simply using the example of the Big Bang theory--which even some creationists accept as a possible interperetation of "let there be light".

You've already conceded it was a mistake to use "evolutionist" there; but it's interesting to note you're still not willing to concede that someone can believe in both Creation and the scientific fact of evolution.

"Accept" a creator?

Well...accept the premise of a creator.

I was more taking issue with you saying people like me merely "accept" a creator...

 

[Thrawn]

Stanley Miller? Yes, I heard of that.

Yet, first of all, Miller only created amino acids--not life, per se.

Second, he was in complete control of the sytem he had set up, at times intervening in the expirimental process. (In effect...he was the Intelligent Designer.)

Third, the atmoshpere he used was the then-accepted mixure of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Over the years, however, the scientific community revised its opinions as to what the atmosphere was like at the time of life's beginning. Had Miller's experiment been conducted with that atmoshere...he would have failed.

I don't know either way on this one, but if that's true (and I don't see any reason to disbelieve you here) it doesn't change anything. If that experiment didn't work, we'll try others. Chemically, it's not absurd; it's not like life is constructed of things that don't exist without it. The atoms are all the atoms that are already here.

Yes, we don't know how it happened, but that's what research is for. We also didn't know why the dots in the sky moved the way they did, and God was given as the reason for that, a few hundred years ago. Then: planets and gravity.

This of course, depends on how a scientist presumes to distinguish sapiens from non-sapiens. "Neanderthal Man". for example, was originally held to have been an old man who suffered from a bone disease.

Right, and now we know that it wasn't. Again: science invalidates prior conclusions all the time. "We used to misunderstand fossils" is not a reason for evolution to be invalid! That's like saying that Greek philosophy invalidates Einstein.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

Actually, this is wrong too. Macroevolution, based on our current understanding, is a process that would happen so slowly that there would be no possible way for us to observe it happening within a human lifetime. Consider that we've been studying genetics for, at best, a little over a hundred years, and evolution takes place on timescales of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of years at least.

But: this is not as much of a problem as you might think. The differences between the observable and unobservable parts of quantum physics, for instance, are roughly equivalent to the differences between micro and macro evolution. (It's just that no one thinks that contradicts the bible, so people don't spend so much mental energy taking misunderstandings and gussying them up so they look like scholarly research that DISPROVES QUANTUM PHYSICS!)

Every fossil ever discovered fits into the paradigm that macroevolution would've dictated. Thus, even though we cannot observe it happening (and never could), we can theorize that it is true.

Here's your fundamental misunderstanding: Science is not concerned with *provable* things. It is in fact impossible to prove any scientific theory; the very next observation you make could invalidate the whole thing (as Pasteur, Einstein, and many others have shown). Science is concerned with *disprovable* things. Every science paper has an understanding of what it would take to invalidate that paper.

People have been trying to invalidate evolution for over a hundred years, though. It's very clear what would do so, and not a single anachronistic fossil has been found. (That is, if a biological homo sapiens sapiens skull was found next to Leakey's skull, it would've been a hell of a lot more famous than it is! That would've meant either someone could travel in time or evolution was wrong. But that isn't what happened.)

So...are you saying, then, that scientific theories--such as evolution--are taken on faith?

Perhaps you should get you terminology in order.
The only difference between these two (which are still just one) in one of scale.

Not necessarily. Microevolution is simply a matter of breeding...adjusting, that sort of thing. The structure, however, remains basically the same.

Macroevolution requires radical changes in structure--reptiles to birds, and so on. Changes require reasons for changes. And evidence is required for this, too.

Even Charles Darwin admitted that the eye is so complex that it seems absurd that it would be formed by "mere natural selection".

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

I'm sorry, but you are simply repeating creationist talking-points here.

You don't understand that 'macro'- is the accumulation of 'micro'-evolution but are still explaining the very same thing; the distinction is mainly made for simplification of explanation.

And, you clearly don't understand the point about complexity Darwin was making.
He goes on saying:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
and
"We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind."
and
"In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another,..."

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Darwin's evolutionary tree sounds reasonable--it may even be logically consistant--but it did not, and does not, coincide witht he fossile record.

 

[JB2005]

Microevolution requires simple changes. Macroevolution requires changes so radical that it begs for the question of why such a process would commence in the first place.

Actually, this is wrong too. Macroevolution, based on our current understanding, is a process that would happen so slowly that there would be no possible way for us to observe it happening within a human lifetime. Consider that we've been studying genetics for, at best, a little over a hundred years, and evolution takes place on timescales of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of years at least.

But: this is not as much of a problem as you might think. The differences between the observable and unobservable parts of quantum physics, for instance, are roughly equivalent to the differences between micro and macro evolution. (It's just that no one thinks that contradicts the bible, so people don't spend so much mental energy taking misunderstandings and gussying them up so they look like scholarly research that DISPROVES QUANTUM PHYSICS!)

Every fossil ever discovered fits into the paradigm that macroevolution would've dictated. Thus, even though we cannot observe it happening (and never could), we can theorize that it is true.

Here's your fundamental misunderstanding: Science is not concerned with *provable* things. It is in fact impossible to prove any scientific theory; the very next observation you make could invalidate the whole thing (as Pasteur, Einstein, and many others have shown). Science is concerned with *disprovable* things. Every science paper has an understanding of what it would take to invalidate that paper.

People have been trying to invalidate evolution for over a hundred years, though. It's very clear what would do so, and not a single anachronistic fossil has been found. (That is, if a biological homo sapiens sapiens skull was found next to Leakey's skull, it would've been a hell of a lot more famous than it is! That would've meant either someone could travel in time or evolution was wrong. But that isn't what happened.)

So...are you saying, then, that scientific theories--such as evolution--are taken on faith?

No, because faith in the sense you mean requires you not to alter your views when a better explanation is found.

 

[ST-One]

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Well, no. Wrong again.
To quote another evolutionary biologist:

"if we arrange all our available fossils in chronological order, they do not form a smooth sequence of scarcely perceptible change"
- Richard Dawkins

 

[Thrawn]

So...are you saying, then, that scientific theories--such as evolution--are taken on faith?

Absolutely NOT. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. We expect every scientific theory to be incomplete and/or wrong. We only have faith in our ability to continue to find out where.

This is what happens when you fundamentally misunderstand one side of an argument. Faith is all about saying "I don't have proof this is true, but I choose to believe it". Science is all about saying "this seems like the best idea right now, but I can't wait to learn what's wrong about it and change my mind."

A lot of the religious critiques of evolution love to mock all the parts where scientists decide on one thing, get contradictory evidence, and then change their minds. Like that means the whole enterprise is falling apart. They fail to realize that it is, in fact, the whole point in the first place.

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Darwin's evolutionary tree sounds reasonable--it may even be logically consistant--but it did not, and does not, coincide witht he fossile record.

And now we know that *Darwin's* evolutionary tree was wrong. There are now several other competing models that take into account all the data acquired since then. Again: we don't believe Darwin was a deity. He proposed a theory that began a conversation; many of his specific details have been invalidated, but that's what science is supposed to do.

You should be worried about anyone that takes The Origin Of Species as the literal truth about the universe. Not only was it never intended to be, we now know for a fact that it isn't! It merely coined the terms that have been used for the descendants of that theory ever since.

 

[Rush Limborg]

As I said, a "theistic evolutionist". An evolutionist who holds that God (or whoever) created the universe through evolution.

Le sigh. You're conflating again. I don't believe God created the universe through evolution - I believe evolution is the best mechanism we have to explain the development of life. But it has nothing to say about astronomy, geology, the formation of stars and planetary bodies, etc., etc.

And yet you claimed to believe in a Creator. So where does said Creator fit in? How is this consistant?

Established by whom, is the question. Those two terms are colloquialisms. On the other hand, as you have implied, "theistic evolutionist" is effective as philosophical terminology.

They're not simply colloquialisms, they're slurs. The point is, just because a word or phrase is commonly bandied about doesn't make it right or useful or dignified.

"Evolutionist" was coined as a way to falsely claim that evolution is some sort of belief system, in opposition to creation - implicitly, in opposition to God. It's a tool to put them on the same level, when they're simply not.

I said "theistic evolution," not "theistic evolutionist" is useful in philosophy or apologetics - note the difference.

"Evolutionist" is simply someone who believes in the theory of evolution. To assert that it is a "false claim" that evolution is "some sort of belief system" is to assume that it is an undeniable and undebatable fact. It is not.

You've already conceded it was a mistake to use "evolutionist" there;

See the context. My "concession" was for the sole purpose of putting aside the quibbling over the term.

but it's interesting to note you're still not willing to concede that someone can believe in both Creation and the scientific fact of evolution.

Ah...I just did--that was what is meant by "theistic evolution"!

"Accept" a creator?

Well...accept the premise of a creator.

I was more taking issue with you saying people like me merely "accept" a creator...[/QUOTE]

O-kaaaaaaaaaaay....

Stanley Miller? Yes, I heard of that.

Yet, first of all, Miller only created amino acids--not life, per se.

Second, he was in complete control of the sytem he had set up, at times intervening in the expirimental process. (In effect...he was the Intelligent Designer.)

Third, the atmoshpere he used was the then-accepted mixure of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor.

Over the years, however, the scientific community revised its opinions as to what the atmosphere was like at the time of life's beginning. Had Miller's experiment been conducted with that atmoshere...he would have failed.

I don't know either way on this one, but if that's true (and I don't see any reason to disbelieve you here) it doesn't change anything. If that experiment didn't work, we'll try others. Chemically, it's not absurd; it's not like life is constructed of things that don't exist without it. The atoms are all the atoms that are already here.

Yes, we don't know how it happened, but that's what research is for. We also didn't know why the dots in the sky moved the way they did, and God was given as the reason for that, a few hundred years ago. Then: planets and gravity.

But again, the idea that, "we haven't proven the idea yet, but we might in the future"...isn't that a statement of faith?

Right, and now we know that it wasn't. Again: science invalidates prior conclusions all the time. "We used to misunderstand fossils" is not a reason for evolution to be invalid! That's like saying that Greek philosophy invalidates Einstein.

I did not say it was a reason to call Evolution invalid. I am simply asking how we know that it was, in fact, a "missing link"--and not simply, say, an old man who suffered from a bad case of arthritis.

 

[6079SmithW]

As per the "Cambrian explosion" there have been recent fossil discoveries of soft-bodied animals that are more primitive then the cambrian explosion fauna in form and they pre-date them by about 100 million years or so. These are the Ediacaran/Vendozoan fauna. They are dated between 600-700 mya and the fauna of the cambrian explosion are 530 mya.

 

[label]

You know, the evolution argument is pointless to debate on both sides of the coin.....no matter where the discussion goes, it yields no answers.

If you're a

Theist & Evolution is True => God used the system of evolution to create you.
Theist & Evolution is not True => God used some other means that we'll probably always be oblivious of to bring us here.

Atheist & Evolution is True => It doesn't prove or disprove that a Creator is required for First Cause/Prime mover issue.
Atheist & Evolution is not True => There's still no evidence or empirical data to prove or disprove a creator and you still have to deal with the First Cause/Prime Move issue.

Whether evolution or some other means explains how we actually ended up here is completely irrelevant as it doesn't advance or detract from either position.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Well, no. Wrong again.
To quote another evolutionary biologist:

"if we arrange all our available fossils in chronological order, they do not form a smooth sequence of scarcely perceptible change"
- Richard Dawkins

And how does Dawkins presume to explain the "Explosion", then?

So...are you saying, then, that scientific theories--such as evolution--are taken on faith?

Absolutely NOT. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. We expect every scientific theory to be incomplete and/or wrong. We only have faith in our ability to continue to find out where.

This is what happens when you fundamentally misunderstand one side of an argument. Faith is all about saying "I don't have proof this is true, but I choose to believe it". Science is all about saying "this seems like the best idea right now, but I can't wait to learn what's wrong about it and change my mind."

A lot of the religious critiques of evolution love to mock all the parts where scientists decide on one thing, get contradictory evidence, and then change their minds. Like that means the whole enterprise is falling apart. They fail to realize that it is, in fact, the whole point in the first place.

Thrawn...you made a big deal over my alleged misuse of a term. Let me point out a similar problem on your part.

The term "faith" does not mean accepting things blindly, in spite of lack of evidence--or the existance of contradictory evidence. It is simply a matter of filling in the blanks when our reason does not answer all of our question.

I would venture to assert that you are assuming a "false dicotomy" between science and faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Blind faith is inconistent with science. Faith as a whole is not. Blind faith rejects any facts. Rational faith builds on facts.

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Darwin's evolutionary tree sounds reasonable--it may even be logically consistant--but it did not, and does not, coincide witht he fossile record.

And now we know that *Darwin's* evolutionary tree was wrong. There are now several other competing models that take into account all the data acquired since then. Again: we don't believe Darwin was a deity. He proposed a theory that began a conversation; many of his specific details have been invalidated, but that's what science is supposed to do.

You should be worried about anyone that takes The Origin Of Species as the literal truth about the universe. Not only was it never intended to be, we now know for a fact that it isn't! It merely coined the terms that have been used for the descendants of that theory ever since.

And again, the current explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is...?

 

[Rush Limborg]

As per the "Cambrian explosion" there have been recent fossil discoveries of soft-bodied animals that are more primitive then the cambrian explosion fauna in form and they pre-date them by about 100 million years or so. These are the Ediacaran/Vendozoan fauna. They are dated between 600-700 mya and the fauna of the cambrian explosion are 530 mya.

I know--but then, in a relatively short (to put it mildly) spanse of time, a burst of life appears in the fossil record, and the majority of the forty phyla of the animal kingdom appear.

 

[ST-One]

Atheist & Evolution is True => It doesn't prove or disprove that a Creator is required for First Cause/Prime mover issue.

Atheist & Evolution is not True => There's still no evidence or empirical data to prove or disprove a creator and you still have to deal with the First Cause/Prime Move issue.

So?
Evolution is still a fact.
Science can never disprove a creator (since he/she/it is a philosophical construct) - as there will always be uncertainties about this or that (here: Abiogenesis). But that creator's niche as a tool to 'explain' things is getting smaller and smaller with each verifiable discovery.

 

[6079SmithW]

As per the "Cambrian explosion" there have been recent fossil discoveries of soft-bodied animals that are more primitive then the cambrian explosion fauna in form and they pre-date them by about 100 million years or so. These are the Ediacaran/Vendozoan fauna. They are dated between 600-700 mya and the fauna of the cambrian explosion are 530 mya.

I know--but then, in a relatively short (to put it mildly) spanse of time, a burst of life appears in the fossil record, and the majority of the forty phyla of the animal kingdom appear.

There are competing ideas to the specifics of natural selection. One hypothesis is "stable state" in which evolution occurs very slowly and gradually, with the other hypothesis being "punctured equilibrium" in which populations change slowly until some major/drastic event occurs which causes rapid divergence and speciation.

 

[ST-One]

Unfortunately, even in Darwin's day, the fossil record, while supporting the plausiblity of microevolution, severely challenged macroevolution. Again, I refer to the "Cambrian explosion".

Well, no. Wrong again.
To quote another evolutionary biologist:

"if we arrange all our available fossils in chronological order, they do not form a smooth sequence of scarcely perceptible change"
- Richard Dawkins

And how does Dawkins presume to explain the "Explosion", then?

That there simply are more fossils from that period preserved than from those before.
Besides, evidence seems to be mounting that there wasn't an explosion but a gradual evolution.

 

[Thrawn]

But again, the idea that, "we haven't proven the idea yet, but we might in the future"...isn't that a statement of faith?

No, it's a statement of fact. "We never will" or "we definitely will" are both statements of faith. "We might" is a statement of fact.

I happen to think the possibility is likely, given a historically remarkably well-attested pattern of science explaining things that religion claims must have been the work of a god. That's just historical awareness. But of course I admit the possibility I could be wrong, and we will never spontaneously generate life.

I did not say it was a reason to call Evolution invalid. I am simply asking how we know that it was, in fact, a "missing link"--and not simply, say, an old man who suffered from a bad case of arthritis.

That's a great question, as are your questions about the current explanations for punctuated equilibrium. I've got a suggestion: why don't you go find out what those answers are? They're complicated and require a lot of specialized knowledge, but the resources are available.

Until you've done the research though, it might be a good idea for you to not doubt things that hundreds of people have studied and postulated explanations for. I certainly make no comments whatsoever about specific Christian beliefs, because I don't have any knowledge on the subject; I've never read the Bible or any of the scholarship on it.

Saying "this sounds ridiculous to me" is not a valid point in an argument about science. Much of scientifically accepted theory is counterintuitive at best, but always built on a foundation of observation and experimentation. It's completely obvious from your posts that you're unaware of the current state of evolutionary biology.

 

[Thrawn]

Thrawn...you made a big deal over my alleged misuse of a term. Let me point out a similar problem on your part.

The term "faith" does not mean accepting things blindly, in spite of lack of evidence--or the existance of contradictory evidence. It is simply a matter of filling in the blanks when our reason does not answer all of our question.

I would venture to assert that you are assuming a "false dicotomy" between science and faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, at a certain point, we all must "fill in the gaps". The question is not how we fill them in, but what are the standards for us revising those guesses.

Let me ask you a question - what would it take for you to have your faith in Jesus Christ reversed? What would it take for you to no longer believe in his divinity? Speaking purely hypothetically here. I've already told you what it would take to disprove evolution - your turn.

(Sorry about the double post; I know it should've been one longer one. My mistake.)

 

[ST-One]

...

One other thing...
label, I apologize. I've just realized how completely and utterly I misunderstood your Adam and Eve sentence earlier.
All I needed was a few hours and a shower...
Sorry.

 

[label]

Evolution is still a fact.

That evolution occurs is a fact. That evolutionary theory can satisfactorily explain mankind's existence and current place on this planet has yet to be determined.

But that creator's niche as a tool to 'explain' things is getting smaller and smaller with each verifiable discovery.

No matter how much or little we know (or think we know) about creation, it will always require a first cause. If a singularity is at the heart of the big bang, then what created the singularity? It can't be matter ex nihilio. That's why the evolutionary debate is meaningless. That the universe exists requires an explanation whether mankind was ever around to question it in the first place.

 

[label]

...

One other thing...
label, I apologize. I've just realized how completely and utterly I misunderstood your Adam and Eve sentence earlier.
All I needed was a few hours and a shower...
Sorry.

No worries, it's all good.

 

[Stevil2001]

My wife-- an ecologist and evolutionary biologist-- actually considers herself an "evolutionist." But in the sense promulgated by the scientist David Sloan Wilson, which argues that evolutionary theory can explain more things than the origin of species and the development life. I have some quibbles with some aspects of that (I've never read/heard a convincing piece of evolutionary literary analysis), but it's an interesting premise, and Wilson's Evolution for Everyone is an absorbing read, as well as a really good primer to the basics of evolution.