Evolution Sunday

Am I the only one who feels a bit queasy over "Darwin day", and even more so about "Darwin Sunday"?

It's "just science", and we really don't make such days for Newton, Einstein, or, say, Schroedinger, at least not in the US. If the UK has a Darwin day and a Newton day, that would seem appropriate, however I would not want there to be any appearance of a high holy day for "Darwinism" in the USA.

I'm not denying the value in religion embracing science, of course. Whether the two are "compatible" or some such thing is not really much of my concern, but if religion evolves (in the progressive sense) to accept science in all of its implications, I can only applaud. And since I have heard sermons in the past (back when I still went to church at least occasionally) which credited God for science, the least such sermonizers could do is to include God in the credits for evolution as well as for physics. That's all well and good.

But I know I won't be making any special plans for "Darwin day" here in the USA. I don't even especially like focusing on the good, but clearly incomplete, science that we get from Darwin's hand. I prefer the tack that the journal Science took in celebrating all of the advances in evolutionary studies occurring recently, never mind the fact that the basics were put into place a long time ago. This is the real triumph of Darwin and his ideas, the fact that we continue to achieve an increasing amount of evolutionary science throughout the decades following his own achievement, so much so that we no longer bother to refer to his works except in histories of science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Newton's birthday is already celebrated in the united states. It is a paid holiday for virtually all employees. All schools and most businesses are closed. Its the biggest holiday in our country.

Paley's Birthday too.

I know certain European cities celebrate the birthdays of homegrown musicians such as Beethoven or Mozart. Do they do the same for their scientists?

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 7, 2006 01:13 PM (e) Am I the only one who feels a bit queasy over "Darwin day", and even more so about "Darwin Sunday"?

Comment #78095 Posted by chris green on February 7, 2006 01:31 PM
Newton's birthday is already celebrated in the united states. It is a paid holiday for virtually all employees. All schools and most businesses are closed. Its the biggest holiday in our country.

But wasn't that on the Julian Calender or is that already corrected for. ;-)

Sincerely,

Am I the only one who feels a bit queasy over "Darwin day", and even more so about "Darwin Sunday"?

— Glen Davidson

Am I the only one who feels a bit queasy over "Darwin day", and even more so about "Darwin Sunday"? It's "just science", and we really don't make such days for Newton, Einstein, or, say, Schroedinger, at least not in the US. If the UK has a Darwin day and a Newton day, that would seem appropriate, however I would not want there to be any appearance of a high holy day for "Darwinism" in the USA.

— Glen Davidson

Far from idolizing Darwin, most people don't know the first thing about him.

— Anton Mates

Two points: (1) The event noted in the post is "Evolution Sunday", not "Darwin Sunday". Let's hear that Litellian, "Never mind", from Glen now.

(2) Yeah, sure, let's list the things Darwin was right and wrong about. I'll spot you guys two items in each category. Right: mechanism of coral atoll formation and importance of earthworms in agricultural soil maintenance. Wrong: Pangenesis and natural selection being the main mechanism of evolutionary change.

Make your entries in this thread.

Someone on a different board equated celebrating Darwin Day with celebrating Christmas --- rather than your very sensible parallel of MLK Day or Presidents Day --- as if to do so glorified Darwin to the point of secular sainthood. I can see where certain people might grab hold of that as ammunition in the culture war, ("see? evolution IS a religion! you can't teach that in schools!") and I think the comment spooked me a little.

— ChristieJ

As a christian I would tend to agree with Glen on this one. Groups like AIG, who are up in arms about this by the way (Have a look at their special broadcast by Ken Ham and Mark Looey), often claim that evolution is a religion and I sometimes feel that having a Darwin day just gives them ammunition.

OK so maybe Newton's birthday is celebrated in the US, but what about other great scientists who have made ground breaking discoveries. What makes Darwin so special ? Why not have an Einstein day, a Pasteur day, a Lyell day, a Hutton day, a Kelvin day or even a Hubble day. Maybe in the future we might have a Hawking day or even a Dawkins day (wouldn't it be ironic if that one was celebrated in churches in years to come !)

I have no problem accepting scientific discoveries,even if they do disagree with the bible and in particular the book of Genesis. However, but I'm not that comfortable with the event being celebrated in churches. As far as I'm aware Darwin didn't express any christian beliefs (I think in the end he was an agnostic but I could be wrong) and certainly wasn't an evangelist in the same way that say Martin Luther, or John Wesley was.

I do feel though that the church, and especially the evangelical wing, should make a statement regarding a persons belief in origins and their salvation. I always thought that what a person believed on say the age of the Earth for instance, should not affect their salvation, but the message that I am now getting more and more from the fundamentalists is that unless a person believes in a young Earth then they are not really saved. All too often I have heard the statement "If you can't believe the book of Genesis then how can you believe John 3:16"

What makes Darwin so special?

— Peter Henderson

Christie: I see what you are trying to say about Darwin and I don't disagree with you. My person on that list however would be Edwin Hubble. I think his achievements in the field of astronomy are often over-looked.

Up until his distance measurements with Cepheid variable stars people thought that the boundary of the universe was the edge milky way. All of a sudden it became a much bigger and larger place. For anyone alive at the time his observations were surely mind-blowing and at least on a par with those of Darwin. Even the great Einstein was thrown off by his discovery of cosmological red-shift and the destruction in the belief of a static universe

Two points: (1) The event noted in the post is "Evolution Sunday", not "Darwin Sunday". Let's hear that Litellian, "Never mind", from Glen now.

Though we now celebrate Lincoln's birthday on President's Day, Feb. 12th is still referred to as Darwin Day and celebrated around the world.

(2) Yeah, sure, let's list the things Darwin was right and wrong about. I'll spot you guys two items in each category. Right: mechanism of coral atoll formation and importance of earthworms in agricultural soil maintenance. Wrong: Pangenesis and natural selection being the main mechanism of evolutionary change.

OK so maybe Newton's birthday is celebrated in the US, but what about other great scientists who have made ground breaking discoveries. What makes Darwin so special ? Why not have an Einstein day, a Pasteur day, a Lyell day, a Hutton day, a Kelvin day or even a Hubble day. Maybe in the future we might have a Hawking day or even a Dawkins day (wouldn't it be ironic if that one was celebrated in churches in years to come !)

— Peter Henderson

OK so maybe Newton's birthday is celebrated in the US

I guess I can back off slightly from some of what I said, since apparently "Darwin Day" is being called "Evolution Sunday" by clergy. Whatever. The article did not make that clear in the least, I didn't bother with the link (it's really going to be informative?), and in any case it's "Darwin Day" on Sunday which hardly changes because of the fact that some have chosen to call it "Evolution Sunday". The particular title used was hardly what I was questioning, unlike what Wayne falsely suggests.

The concept was my concern, and clearly it is a Darwin Sunday via derivation (or evolution) from the fact that "Darwin day" falls on a Sunday. Attacks based on a shifted label, and facts left out of the article, are hardly called for, and merely pretend to deal with the substance in a manner analogous with renaming creationism "Intelligent Design".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I think people here are conflating the notion of a 'Day' for something with 'National Holidays' 'Street Parties' 'Ticker Tape parades', and the like.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this - although if a lot of my compatriots thought they could get a day off work for it - then they'd sign up whatever their beliefs.

What is wrong with celebrating the birthday of the greatest biologist that ever lived? Other sciences may have their heroes - but Newton has to fight it out with Einstein and others in Physics for example (plus he wasn't a aparticularly nice bloke); Chemistry doesn't seem to have one single leading figure .

Darwin was clearly the greatest Biologist that ever lived. Even Wallace - who deserves credit for coming up with the same idea and prompting Darwin to publish - deferred to him.

Darwin's rather simple ideas are still poorly understood by the public. What's wrong in indulging in an opportunity for a little public education and a chat with friends over a few pints? (which I am looking forward to with Steve et al - all paid for with British 'Tenners with a picture of Darwin on the back!)

We mark enough wars, deaths and nationalistic struggles between people with 'real' holidays. Why not informally celebrate the life of a peaceful and kindly man who shone a bright light on our understanding of life on earth?

Unless your a Creationist of course - but then you have Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday and all sorts of other Christian festivals including a Saint's day for every day of the year if you're that way inclined. Today is Saint Ava's; Saint Richard's and Saint Nivard's day if you're interested: 'Saint's Days'

we're celebrating Darwin Day on Monday by the way - so won't be offending any Sunday observance kind of thing. The SaintsDay link I gave earlier may be innacurate unless you're a German child - Wikipedia give a better account.

It also mentions my favourite Saint - Saint Fiacre (1st Spt or 18 Aug) the patron Saint of:

Taxi Drivers

Veneral Disease

Heammerroids

- and if you don't believe me! check here:

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

Re "Chemistry doesn't seem to have one single leading figure"
Maybe the guy that invented the periodic table? (Mendelev?)

Henry

Two points: (1) The event noted in the post is "Evolution Sunday", not "Darwin Sunday". Let's hear that Litellian, "Never mind", from Glen now. How about getting it right, Wayne? I did notice the title, but I read more than the title. Why didn't you?

we're celebrating Darwin Day on Monday by the way - so won't be offending any Sunday observance kind of thing.

The point at issue is not Dick Hoppe's reportage, but how the organizers have presented the event, which Glen later seems to have come to realize, at least in part.

As for Darwin being wrong, I never said that that part of my text was directed at Glen.

Hint: I don't usually use a plural to refer to one person.

Nor is any part of what I said there in any sense "ad hominem".

Then why don't you try to find anyone on this thread who was claiming that Darwin was wrong? I know very well that you can't do it.

It's also, of course, a good chance to explain the things that Darwin was wrong on, to illustrate that no scientist's work gets taken as gospel no matter how respected he is. [and] That aside, I like your idea of pointing out where he was wrong and emphasizing the self-correcting nature of science. It really is a great opportunity and potentially a lot of fun.

Well, OK, I guess I owe you an apology, Elsberry. I am sorry that I jumped to conclusions, even if the lead-in tends to suggest that I was one of the ones who said he was wrong "on some things".

One problem is that one typically responds to one poster at a time, or mentions the switch to another person. Another problem is more definitely mine to own, that I took your link to mean that someone was saying that "Darwin was wrong", which is what I found to be wrong (the implication is there, but the proper distinctions are also made, and I should have recognized them), not the correct "wrong on some things." I may be excusing myself, or at least explaining, but I remain apologetic because I should have certainly been more careful.

The upshot is that I was wrong, and continued to be wrong, and I sincerely apologize.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Thank you, Glen. And I will apologize for not having been more clear in distinguishing what comments referred to who in my initial set of points. I'll try to do better on that in the future.

With that concluded (except to say that I appreciate your graciousness, Dr. Elsberry), I'll expound a little on the "wrongness" of Darwin accepting the idea that acquired characteristics are inherited.\

In truth, I don't know how "wrong" he was to accept the notion of the inheritance of acquired traits, when experimental evidence was presented to back up the claim.

On the other hand, it is said that Wallace did not accept the "experimental evidence" that convinced Darwin, and surely one must think it likely that he refused to believe such results for good reason. A lot of fairly obvious reasons exist to doubt that acquired traits are passed on, like the blacksmith's son who becomes a doctor and hardly develops the same way, or various human features that the possessors hate in a presumably Lamarckian sense, but which nevertheless persist (certain noses, perhaps, or hemophilia). Many traits aren't amenable to phenotypical change at all, while the rest of the changes don't obviously persist in the lineage except as one might expect non-acquired traits to do.

One other factor that Darwin would know which almost certainly tells against inheritance of acquired traits, or at least allows only a bare minimum of this kind of inheritance. This is the rather slow change of organisms through time, which was known early on. One would think that acquired traits would speed up evolution tremendously, which is also how many in the 19th and early 20th centuries understood the issue. I know that Freud and Nietzsche tended to suppose evolution to be rapid compared with what we recognize today, and this was precisely because they thought that wills and aquisitions substantially drove evolution.

The fact, though, is that it is difficult to be sure whether Wallace dismissed "experimental evidence" for good reason, or if Darwin accepted such "evidence" for the same reasons that we accept most results published in good journals. We'd have to know how plausible the report of "verification of the inheritance of acquired trains" was in order to know if Darwin really should have rejected the spurious results.

What is the case, I believe, is that Darwin's agreement with the claim that acquired traits are passed on seems to have prolonged that idea in the minds of some scientists. I know that Freud (quite arguably not a scientist, but taken to be one for a considerable period) kept the idea alive in his writings even after most biologists had rejected the claim--and he defended his belief in inheritance of acquired traits based on Darwin's acceptance of same.

Nevertheless, this continued mistaken belief was hardly due primarily to its persistence in Darwin's writings, instead it was a belief widespread throughout biological community, up to about the 20th century. I doubt that Darwin's acceptance of the idea made a huge difference in the biological understanding of evolution. One perhaps could even argue that Darwin's acceptance of inheritance of acquired traits kept natural selection alive as an option among those who rather preferred to believe that evolution proceeds via the breeding of acquired traits into bloodlines. Wallace's stance might have provoked opposition to the idea of natural selection, had Darwin concurred fully with Wallace.

Perhaps I should have posted this on the linked site, but I'm not registered for it, and I didn't know if it might be too much trouble. Anyhow, the issue of "where Darwin was wrong" was raised here, and might also be discussed here. On the whole I am not inclined to make too much of where he was wrong, since it seems like one ends up reaching, and discussing a whole lot of ambiguous factors like I did above. It is rare indeed that Darwin was very wrong on scientific matters that could be readily known at the time.

One could easily resort to caviling with regard to the areas where "Darwin was wrong", in the same way that it appears specious and tendentious for school boards to mandate "teaching the criticisms of evolution" in a manner that is not done in the other sciences.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by **Wesley** R. Elsberry on February 7, 2006 04:30 PM (e) Two points: (1) The event noted in the post is "Evolution Sunday", not "Darwin Sunday". Let's hear that Litellian, "Never mind", from Glen now.

How about getting it right, **Wayne**? I did notice the title, but I read more than the title. Why didn't you?

1) who cares if the creationists/IDers choose to paint 'Darwin Day' or 'Evolution Sunday' as proof of the religious nature of science. They will make that incorrect point regardless of whether there is a Darwin Day or not.

2) No one would object to a day honoring Beethoven or Michelangelo. Why should scientists and their acheivements be left out?

Remember Darwin on 12 February. Drink a Shiner Bock in his honor. And if you're religious, thank your god(s) for Charles and his work.

Glenn:re. Newton's birthday: I hadn't realised that it was on Dec. 25th. Please excuse my ignorance !

The point I was trying to make though, was that all the other great scientists that I mentioned all complemented one another. Lyell, who was an acquaintance of Darwin, along with Hutton revolutionised geology. Didn't Darwin take a copy of "The principles of geology" along with him on the Beagle ? But Lyell, who I've heard being attacked by creationist John Mckay on more than one occasion because he said that we relied too much on the book of Genesis, developed the idea of uniformiterianism, and long periods of time for the processes which have shaped the Earth's surface, rather than the flood geology model which was prevalent at the time. He resisted Darwin's theories for a long time but when he did finally accept the concept that one species could change into another, given enough time, he realised it was so obvious that he wondered why he didn't accept it sooner.

Darwin was also heard to say that he was frightened of Kelvin (who did a lot of his work here in Belfast by the way). His work on calculating the age of the Earth using the Earth's primordial heat, resulted in a figure of 20-30 million years, nowhere long enough long enough to allow macro-evolution to occur and to explain the bio-diversity that Darwin observed. Kelvin of course did not know about radio-activity, which was discovered later and I'm sure Darwin would have been fascinated with modern radiometric dating techniques which would have complimented his findings.

I have no doubt that He would also I have been amazed at the work of Einstein and Hubble, again confirming the great age and vastness of the Universe and that it wasn't a mere 6,000 years old.

Personally, I think the idea of an Evolution Sunday is a great idea. The good majority of americans are Christian. There is no getting around that. They also tend not to have that good of an understanding of science. Perhaps that is something we can change. But so long as they are predominantly sympathetic towards creationism, and as a result of an overly-literalistic interpretation of Genesis (as opposed to something more allegorical in nature), we can expect a certain amount of defensiveness and hostility whenever the subject of evolutionary biology come up. This is an instance of a basic principle of human psychology: when someone feels that either they or some of their most cherished beliefs are under attack, they tend have difficulty thinking clearly. They are less rational. They tend to view those who are challenging their most cherished beliefs as the enemy, and try to grasp at any possibility to disagree.

The Discovery Institute, the Intelligent Design movement, and the rest of the creationists have been playing on this for quite some time, trying to argue that the essential reason why anyone would support evolutionary biology (i.e., "Darwinism") is not due to the recognition of any facts or evidence, but because one is fundamentally opposed to the more traditional view of a Christian god, that it is a matter of hate-filled rebellion against "God." Just as certain extremists in the past complained that the Jews had taken over their society, today's extremists claim that "atheists, materialists, humanists, secularists and evolutionists" (or any subcollection of the above, since in their view all of these terms are interchangable) who are part of some vast conspiracy and who have already largely taken over our society. But since their more extreme rhetoric won't necessarily play that well with the majority of americans as of yet, rather than advocating the end to the Separation of Church and State or the overthrow of secular society, currently they are simply asking for a degree of "balance" and "fairness" in the presentation of "the two opposing worldviews."

Now I think that it would be very foolish to believe that "balance" and "fairness" are all that the creationists are interested in. What they want taught alongside evolution (to the extent that anyone is permitted to teach evolution) is propoganda -- essentially fundamentalist propoganda against science, against secularism, and against their enemies, to the extent this becomes possible. Their purpose is to foment blind, ignorant hatred which they hope will grant them the power with which to transform our society into a theocracy. This is why the Discovery Institute has received so much financial support from the Dominionists.

Recognizing the value of science and the threat posed by fundamentalism, a great number of clergy have come together to voice their support for evolutionary biology, science. They have come together to proclaim that the fundamentalists do not speak for them. They have chosen to put themselves on the line as far as the support of their congregations are concerned as part of an effort to defend science and a pluralistic society against a campaign being launched by the fundamentalists. As such, in my view, they are defenders of freedom, and I must regard their efforts as heroic. And they are trying to open the minds of their congregations to understanding the scientific case for evolution by demonstrating that in their own view, there is nothing threatening and nothing to fear in the recognition of evolution.

I realize, of course, that many of those who are not religious will have certain mixed feelings regarding Evolution Sunday. This is understandable. But I would remind them that it is difficult to change the minds of those who think that their most cherished views are being attacked by those who are "gunning for God." Changing someone's basic religious views through reason is a nearly impossible task. Attempting to change the basic religious views of an entire nation, foolish. Indeed, when those who are non-religious argue that the conflict between evolutionary biology and creationism is simply a conflict between science and religion, and expecting people to side with science as opposed to their own personal religious views, they are unwittingly handing the creationists victory on a front we cannot afford to lose. But if religious leaders show the majority of americans that a more allegorical understanding of their religious views is possible, one which does not threaten their most basic beliefs, I believe this stands a chance. Moreover, it knocks out from under the creationist movement the most central pillar of their argument and illuminates the extremist nature of their crusade.

Rather than attempting to convert the rest of society to some form of "scientific atheism" as some suggest on various occasions, I believe that those who are not religious would best serve the cause of their freedom by calling for and defending the principles of religious tolerance, religious freedom, the Separation of Church and State, and the importance of a pluralistic society. Moreover, rather than attacking those who may not agree with them on all points, but who have chosen to be their allies, I believe they should applaud the efforts of those who have chosen to act in common cause.

...the message that I am now getting more and more from the fundamentalists is that unless a person believes in a young Earth then they are not really saved. All too often I have heard the statement "If you can't believe the book of Genesis then how can you believe John 3:16"

— Peter Henderson

If it's a choice between a supernatural explanation and reason, AC, to explain things then I will choose reason ( which in my opinion is truth arrived at by looking at the evidence ) every time. I feel that John 3:16 is a separate issue from someones beliefs in origins. If the truth contradicts Genesis then how can you tell lies in order to make it fit your own presuppositions ?

In my opinion Young earth creationism destroys science. Why bother doing any scientific research when the answers are there already (I've even heard this view from the pulpit by the way)

Five days of Darwin Day festivities start today in America's most enlightened town. February 9-13, 2006.

Dr. Michael Zimmerman is the dean of science at our local university here in Oshkosh, the spearhead of Evolution Sunday, as well as the sponsor of the Clergy Letter site that proves evolution is a religious concept by having members of the clergy profess their faith in evolution. He is the best proof for evolution that exists. A few years ago he turned into a chicken right before my eyes.

He published a book called "Science, Non-Science, and Nonsense". We had Kent Hovind coming in right after Zimmerman's book was released, so I tried to arrange a debate between the two. Zimmerman is a brash, arrogant evolutionist - the American version of Richard Dawkins. I called him, left a message, and he never returned my call. So I sent him a registered letter, which was returned because he refused to sign.

I knew most evolutionists are afraid to step out of their office to defend their faith, but I thought Zimmerman would jump at the chance to publicize his new book.

The newspaper caught on to the interest because of several letters to the editor calling him out. They said they tried to get him to do a written debate and he wanted nothing to do with it. Then a local radio station said they tried to get him to do an on-air phone debate and he refused that. He ducked Hovind so many times I think he needed to see a chiropractor. Finally I challenged him myself (letter to editor) and he won't even debate me.

Later he ducked Dr. Joe Mastropaolo and last year he ducked John Pendleton. This Evolution Sunday stunt proves that he is proselytizing for a Darwinist religion rather than a science, but he'll only defend his religion on a one-way street.

Teno Groppi
GEM (Genesis Evidence Ministry):
http://www.genesisevidence.org/

I just learned of Evolution Sunday. It seems to me that when most people speak of evolution, they talk about biology and Charles Darwin. Now, I'm just what I guess most of you would probably call a Christian "fundamentalist." So, I'm wondering if anyone out there could say just exactly how the celebrated Darwin explained "the origin of species." I mean, I can see finch beak sizes (etc.) changing, and I can see how some could extrapolate such things to the production of new species, but would someone tell me how such processes explain (to use Darwin's phrase) the origin of species. i.e., life itself. Now, please don't offer some vague abiogenetic philosophy --- just show me some real scientific evidence. And while you're at it, please explain where all this evolving stuff came from in the first place, i.e., the origin of the universe. Again, no philosophy please, just hard science (i.e., no pretending the Big Bang explains it unless you can scientifically prove where that came from, etc.).

Now, if you can't scientifically account for abiogenesis and/or cosmogony, then maybe you're worshipping the wrong person. And maybe your lifestyle reflects (and/or precedes) that. Have you read Romans 1:18-32 lately?

Douglas Williams

I just learned of Evolution Sunday. It seems to me that when most people speak of evolution, they talk about biology and Charles Darwin. Now, I'm just what I guess most of you would probably call a Christian "fundamentalist." So, I'm wondering if anyone out there could say just exactly how the celebrated Darwin explained "the origin of species." I mean, I can see finch beak sizes (etc.) changing, and I can see how some could extrapolate such things to the production of new species, but would someone tell me how such processes explain (to use Darwin's phrase) the origin of species. i.e., life itself. Now, please don't offer some vague abiogenetic philosophy --- just show me some real scientific evidence. And while you're at it, please explain where all this evolving stuff came from in the first place, i.e., the origin of the universe. Again, no philosophy please, just hard science (i.e., no pretending the Big Bang explains it unless you can scientifically prove where that came from, etc.).

Now, if you can't scientifically account for abiogenesis and/or cosmogony, then maybe you're worshipping the wrong person. And maybe your lifestyle reflects (and/or precedes) that. Have you read Romans 1:18-32 lately?

Now, if you can't scientifically account for abiogenesis and/or cosmogony, then maybe you're worshipping the wrong person. And maybe your lifestyle reflects (and/or precedes) that. Have you read Romans 1:18-32 lately?

We had Kent Hovind

he won't even debate me

Dr. Lenny

Evolution Sunday extols the virtues of dispassionate science. Please notice that I didn't mention ID --- you did. My only agenda is getting scientific answers to my questions. If you can't provide any --- fine. No need to be rude or disingenuous about it. I would think that any good scientist would stay away from straw man and ad hominem fallacies and stick to the relevant data.

Anyone out there who can do more than "snicker and giggle"?

Douglas

but would someone tell me how such processes explain (to use Darwin's phrase) the origin of species. i.e., life itself.

# CB0: Abiogenesis * CB000. Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). * CB010. The odds of life forming are incredibly small. o CB010.1. Even the simplest life is incredibly complex. o CB010.2. First cells could not come together by chance. * CB015. DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA. * CB020. Why is new life not still being generated today? * CB025. Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally. * CB026. Abiogenesis experiments produce toxins, such as cyanide and formaldehyde. * CB030. Early molecules would have decayed. o CB030.1. Early molecules would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. * CB035. Miller's experiments had an invalid assumption of the type of atmosphere. o CB035.1. Earth's early atmosphere had abundant oxygen. o CB035.2. Earth's early atmosphere had no reducing gases. o CB035.3. Amino acids are not generated from just CO2, nitrogen, and water. * CB040. Life uses only left-handed amino acids. * CB050. Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. * CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis.

Claim CB090: Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have. Source: Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199811/0040.html Response: 1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Now, if you can't scientifically account for abiogenesis and/or cosmogony, then maybe you're worshipping the wrong person.

So many times have we seen creationists arrive with absolutely no knowledge of biology or evolution, but asserting it's wrong, we really should have a standard welcome package, an intro to evolution, cooked up or linked to.

Steve S

Please notice that i didn't claim that evolution doesn't happen, only that whatever biological evolution takes place must logically do so within two larger contexts: 1) inanimate stuff must somehow become animate, 2) All this stuff must first somehow come from somewhere.

If you think my logic is wrong on these two points, i'd appreciate you showing me where up front. If you can do that, then, if you like, we can wade through some of the reams of data you feel supports your position. OK?

Douglas

Douglas

My only agenda is getting scientific answers to my questions.

Angelina Jolie?

Please notice that I didn't mention ID --- you did

Teno Groppi GEM (Genesis Evidence Ministry): http://www.genesisevidence.org/

if you like, we can wade through some of the reams of data you feel supports your position. OK?

Steve S Please notice that i didn't claim that evolution doesn't happen, only that whatever biological evolution takes place must logically do so within two larger contexts: 1) inanimate stuff must somehow become animate, 2) All this stuff must first somehow come from somewhere.

Steve S Please notice that i didn't claim that evolution doesn't happen, only that whatever biological evolution takes place must logically do so within two larger contexts: 1) inanimate stuff must somehow become animate, 2) All this stuff must first somehow come from somewhere.

— Douglas Williams

Dr. Lenny and Steve S

I'd rather not have to say this, but based upon your responses it's pretty difficult for me to see how you are being honest. All the straw man, ad hominems, and school yard antics in the world can't hide the fact that biological evolution must necessarily operate within a larger ontology. Why are you (apparently) afraid to admit or even discuss that? Maybe Romans 1:18-32 isn't so far off the mark after all, eh?

Like I said, if you can refute that ontological necessity (in your own words please (instead of lengthy and spurious importations and/or denials)) I'll be happy to read whatever relevant data you feel supports your position. That's part of what scientists do, right - review theory and data? If that doesn't interest you, I guess there's no reason to talk further.

Douglas

Comment #79011 Posted by Douglas Williams on February 11, 2006 04:38 PM (e) Dr. Lenny and Steve S I'd rather not have to say this, but based upon your responses it's pretty difficult for me to see how you are being honest. All the straw man, ad hominems, and school yard antics in the world can't hide the fact that biological evolution must necessarily operate within a larger ontology. Why are you (apparently) afraid to admit or even discuss that? Maybe Romans 1:18-32 isn't so far off the mark after all, eh?

Douglas

Anton Mates

I don't think I said I had a problem with nor do I see where I was "complaining" about evolution Sunday, only that when most people speak of evolution they mean only biological evolution, usually to the exclusion of the evolution of the planets and universe(s) necessary to produce biology. You may be right that some churches may address this issue tomorrow, I don't know. But either way, most people don't, as evidenced by recent responses on this site. So, since science is said to be an institution that seeks naturalistic explanations for phenomena, I was hoping to hear some naturalistic explanations for biological context, i.e., abiogenisis and cosmogony. Instead, all I've heard are dispersions and references to someone else's (often irrelevant) works. I was hoping someone on this site could instead give me their own naturalistic explanation of such phenomena in their own words. As you can see, this hasn't happened.

Interesting, don't you think?

P.S. If i ever hear of a Big Bang and/or abiogenisis sunday i'll be sure to log on.

Thanks,
Douglas

Holy crap, is this guy going to go all Jack Chick on us?

( http://www.chick.com/tractimages5269/0055/0055_08.gif )

Steve S

OK, so you think I'm stupid. I don't mind the stereotype. But I do mind your logic. I've already said a couple of times that I'm not objecting to the functionality of biological evolution. OK, do you hear me saying that? What I object to is I guess what I'll call some form of biological ostrichism, like ontologically what supports biological evolution is unimportant (which is a different concept than does evolution work, OK?). Nowhere is this better spelled out than your referenced CB090 #2 response, which is pure tautology. Yes of course abiogenisis is fact, but that's not the question. The question is just what, exactly, in the name of science, is the naturalistic explanation and evidence for it. If you yourself have something to say on this exact topic, I'd like to hear it. If not, I guess that speaks for itself.

Douglas

I'd rather not have to say this, but based upon your responses it's pretty difficult for me to see how you are being honest.

Dr. Lenny

I guess now we'll have to add 'red herring' to your list of automatic fallacious responses. Perhaps you didn't notice that I made no reference to the age of the earth. I didn't even know what a YEC is until I saw the context in which you used it. Nevertheless, even if you're afraid to answer my questions (I guess because you're also afraid to admit (even to yourself) that you don't have one), I'll answer your (protective distractions) anyway --- how old is the earth? I don't mind saying that I don't know, and I'm not sure you do either. Since most of us haven't done our own primary research on the matter, it seems to me the best most of us can do is take the "experts" word for it. Is that what you've done?

I can understand having faith in consensus of opinion, especially if that opinion tends to legitimize one's own personal preferences, and if it's backed up by a consensus of research. But none of this group think has the certainty of some basic logic, which any one in their right mind has direct access to. Though you struggle against it, somewhere, at some time in your life I presume you've considered the obvious --- that necessarily, there are things outside the realm of biology which biology itself is dependent upon. To assert/believe that its just more natural processes without reasoned scientific evidence is an unwarranted leap of faith and an ironic betrayal of the scientific method. Does that therefore prove there is a God? No. It just proves that science doesn't have (scientific) answers to some of lifes biggest questions.

So, continue in denial if you think you need to. Throw in as many distractions and insults as you like. Does it make you feel better? It won't always. Some consensus psychologists say such things are a measure of your own desperation and depravity. Do you believe them (too)? It's your life, and your future. And deep down, both of us know you're busted.

Douglas

how old is the earth? I don't mind saying that I don't know, and I'm not sure you do either. Since most of us haven't done our own primary research on the matter, it seems to me the best most of us can do is take the "experts" word for it.

I think celebrating _only_ Darwin Day (or Evolution Sunday, if it pleases you) would be strange. I am therefore going to start celebrating Heliocentrism Day, to honor Copernicus and Galileo. I hope you all will join me.

Don't expect Douglas to be there. He'll be busy retaking Brahe's data, and performing Copernicus's calculations, so that he can say for sure whether the earth goes around the sun, or vice versa. Primary research, don't you know.

Hey Douglas, this guy's right up your alley. You'll probably find him wise and insightful.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-creation11feb11,0,1477689,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Perhaps you didn't notice that I made no reference to the age of the earth.

I don't think I said I had a problem with nor do I see where I was "complaining" about evolution Sunday, only that when most people speak of evolution they mean only biological evolution, usually to the exclusion of the evolution of the planets and universe(s) necessary to produce biology. You may be right that some churches may address this issue tomorrow, I don't know. But either way, most people don't, as evidenced by recent responses on this site. So, since science is said to be an institution that seeks naturalistic explanations for phenomena, I was hoping to hear some naturalistic explanations for biological context, i.e., abiogenisis and cosmogony. Instead, all I've heard are dispersions and references to someone else's (often irrelevant) works. I was hoping someone on this site could instead give me their own naturalistic explanation of such phenomena in their own words. As you can see, this hasn't happened. Interesting, don't you think?

— Douglas Williams

I am not opposed to reaching out to different persuasions. This is our duty, but to sacrifice vital points of doctrine for unity sake at the expense of violating your own conscience and dishonoring God or the gods that our worshiped is, not nor will ever be the best policy.

Evolution though not on the same level as atheism, it is atheism in another form. It is essentially another species of atheism. To deny that God created the earth and man in six literal days is both insensible and without foundation. God is denied. If one would reason unbiasedly and objectively from cause to effect they would not and cannot candidly at least at heart deny the existence of a personal God who created all things from a heart of love. But in a pluralistic society they have the liberty to deny God.

Another disturbing point that is often overlooked even by those who support it is "Sunday Sacredness". Though there is no scriptural basis, an overwhelming majority of Christians who I believe love the Lord will not yield up nor investigate this subject for various reasons, let Go be the judge.

Sunday sacredness denies the seventh day of creation. This doctrine essentially denies God as the creator. Therefore, evolution and Sunday sacredness though not on the same level as atheism are an extension of atheism in another form calculated to attract the christian but does not lead to true worship. So Sunday sacredness and evolution have some similarities in this area.

In conclusion, I would be very careful with this movement "evolution Sunday" there seems to be an agenda, possibly to bring Sunday back into public law, thus repeating history. For all forced worship always lead to persecution of "so called heretics" and is not in harmony with the supreme principle of scriptures "The Law of Love & Liberty". The bible says, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty".

Calvin, may I direct you to http://uncommondescent.com . There you will find people who share both your religious beliefs, and your command of science.