It’s time that this blog tackle the issue of Charles Darwin, evolution, and the Culture of Death as they relate to one another. I’ll probably succeed in pleasing nobody on any side of this debate, but it’s a discussion that needs to be had by pro-lifers. The issue of Darwinian evolution evokes rather strong sentiments, and I welcome them all. In the words of Churchill, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.”
So, where do we begin? I’d like to begin with the science and then proceed to the philosophical and anthropological consequences.
First, I am a molecular biologist, and I thank God every day for the window into His creative mind that science has given me. If there is one thing that I can say with absolute certitude it is this:
Life Evolves!
That is a wholly separate issue from the question of how life began, and we’ll tackle those issues as well in later posts. However, for now it suffices to say that Darwin and I both happened on the scene quite some time after the appearance of life on this planet and that we both see the evidence for change over time.
It’s hard to see the evidence for change in humans over time, if only because we don’t live long enough to witness it first-hand. That’s why biologists who study evolution like to use organisms with short generation times. Fruit flys have generation times that are mere weeks, and bacteria such as E. coli reproduce every 20 minutes in liquid growth medium when grown at human body temperature.
It’s much easier to see genetic changes over the generations in an organism that reproduces every 20 minutes than in organisms that reproduce every 20 years.
At the cellular and molecular level, we see that DNA recombines in sexually reproducing organisms to create a riot of uniquely different members of the species. This enables the species to survive if some lethal threat arises that some members happen to be resistant to. We see this with antibiotic resistance in bacteria (which do not reproduce sexually).
Perhaps one in a billion bacterial cells might have acquired a mutation, or a gene from another species, that makes the cell resistant to a certain antibiotic (which are made by other organisms). When we take antibiotics, the drug kills the cells that are susceptible and leaves behind the ones that have developed resistance. These cells grow back in the presence of the drug. Over time, with excessive use of that antibiotic in a community, we see that almost all people coming to the hospital with an infection to be afflicted with antibiotic resistant strains.
The resistant strain has become the new norm.
That’s evolution, the endless cycle of mutation, adaptation, reproduction.
The evidence for evolution is so abundant that evolution has become biology’s prism through which all else is filtered. And that leads to evolution rising to the level of a Theory.
In everyday language, the words opinion, theory, idea, belief, hypothesis, conjecture, all tend to be used interchangeably to denote the cognitions of a single individual. In science, the same words have vastly different meaning.
A well-informed idea is called a Hypothesis. We design experiments to test the hypothesis, and the experiments must be designed in such a way that the hypothesis is open to being disproved.
When the same hypothesis is proven repeatedly and universally, it rises to the level of scientific Theory. There are only a handful of ideas that have risen to that level. Einstein’s Relativity is one.
When Theory has all of the wrinkles ironed out, it rises to the level of a scientific Law, and there are only a handful of those: The laws of Thermodynamics and Gravity being examples.
So when we say that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, we mean that there is a mountain of evidence to support that idea.
Was Darwin a racist or eugenist? We’ll consider that separately as we tease apart the science of evolution from the philosophical and political consequences that flow from the misapplication of the scientific reality. Today’s blog was just the opening round.
Next time: The core biological ideas surrounding evolution by means of natural selection. It would help if people posted comments here, and not just on FB, as not everyone reading the blog comes through FB. Thanks.
Also, Darwin is getting his own Category in the box on the right.
{Serendipity moment. After publishing this post, WordPress tells me it was the 666th post published on my blog. That ought to mean something to Darwin’s detractors 😉 }
Coming Home 
Intresting post Dr.Nadal, it’s good study break reading as Iam currently studing for a Bio II test with chapters titled “Decent with Modification: A Darwinian View of Life” , “The evolution of Populations”, and “The origin of species”. Look foward to the other posts!
666th post – hehe (God has a such a great sense of humor !)
Interesting post – looking forward to the rest.
Chris,
My friend is the pastor of Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Mount Kisco, New York. Look up their phone number. It starts with 666. Now that’s just wrong!
I’m interested in reading more.
I appreciate your delving into this area. You seem to have the proper grasp of this field, and I would hope you can delve a bit further from the basics you have outlined. Molecular biology now has a set theory in regard to carbon hydrolase bonding causing nuclease reactive Endosymbiosis from Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic animation. Since this now defines evolutionary transitions of Transcription and epigenetic Chimeral DNA in both Animal and plant Variegation, we no longer rely on older, outdated genotype to phenotype classifiers. I applaud your efforts to tackle Evolution, yet the advances in the field might make it outside the realm of comprehension to some of your readers. Unfortunately, too many people are still referencing 1950’s Moody science explanations for Evolutionary processes. Good Luck!
Stephen,
We need to start from Darwin and see the world through his eyes. Molecular mechanisms will come later on. Amazingly, Darwin wasn’t too far off the mark, given the state of technology in the early nineteenth century. I’m tackling this because I’m hearing increasing echoes from within the pro-life movement that Darwinian evolution, and Darwin himself are responsible for abortion, which is patently absurd. Abortion has existed for thousands of years. Whether or not Darwin contributed to eugenics is another matter, which we’ll deal with as well.
What is outside the realm of comprehension for middlebrows like me (or perhaps I’m a lowbrow, my wife thinks so) depends, Stephen, at least in part, on the quality of the instruction. Oh, I’m sorry Stephen — to put it in language you might understand: “Expository writing now has a set theory in regard to plebian illumination causing intellectual requirements from pedagogues to troglodyte phraseology. Since this now defines didactic transitions of Cognizance and euphamistic Peanut Brittle in both copper kettles and transdermal venders, we no longer rely on older, outdated supercilious trends towards claptrap to trumpet our ephemeral air of competence.”
Howard, my remarks were directed to Gerard and his level of understanding of molecular biology. I will be most happy to restrict any expository writing directed to you in a more simplified manner.
I am looking forward to this series of discussions on Darwin. I want to understand what is true about evolution and what isn’t. I hope you can be patient with my uneducated questions along the way! You’ll see from the questions how very little I know and what my prejudices are. Do you think that the fossil record supports Darwin’s theory? How can we distinguish between the evidence for a certain kind of evolution and atheistic evolution, which is what is taught in schools and which is fundamentally false? I have assumed evolution was false ever since I felt it was was being pushed down my throat in grade school, and it drives me crazy to see *everything* assigned to evolution. I stopped reading a book about emotions recently because the author kept referring to the “fact” that our emotions have evolved from the emotions of early man. What evidence he had for his statements, I don’t know, because too often, it is considered fine to discuss aspects of evolution with no evidence whatsoever. We’re obviously supposed to believe it all without question.
It upset me recently to read a discussion on a Catholic blog regarding the idea that humanoids evolved, a humanoid Adam was given reason and sinned, and through marriage we all eventually became his descendants, making us heirs to his original sin. According to this theory, an historical Eve was unnecessary. To which I give a very unscientific, “I don’t think so.”
Do you have a “beginner” level book on evolution that I could read? It could save you from answering a lot of my questions!
PS – my family lived Katonah, NY for a short time. Wish I could get back and see the places I used to go with my children back when I only had two! Such a beautiful part of New York, and if I remember correctly, Mt.Kisco was just a town or two down the road.
Stephen, dear Sir: I also read your remarks on the question of abortion and breast cancer. If you could kindly match the sophistication of your language to the sophistication of your true level of understanding, I will be happy to send you $20.00. No kidding, I’ll do it. But I’m quite confident my money is safe. Nonetheless, it is yours to earn, Sir! To quote you, Sir: “Good luck.”
Sharon, Howard, Stephen,
I need to have my head examined for kicking over this particular hornets’ nest. It is evocative of the strongest emotions, and for good cause: Our entire Christian Anthropology and telos is tied up in it. Still, I believe that when we boil it down there are two realities that endure.
1. The Church teaches that there was a real Adam and a real Eve. How they got here (humanoids infused with a soul, and thus created human…) we’ll never know this side of the grave. However, I accept in faith the teaching of the Church that however they got here, they were here.
2. Regardless of how we came to be, Jesus the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on human flesh and entered into our history for the purpose of sharing in our humanity so that we might also share in His divinity (think Eucharist and salvation).
Secure in those two realities, I have no fear of where the science will lead us as it can only lead us to the truth taught by the Church. God is singular and one, and so is His truth.
As for how I’ll proceed, I always proceed as though the target audience knows absolutely nothing about the subject, as indeed there may well be those who do not. I try to minimize the use of jargon as I go along, and define it as I introduce it. Often the definitions are kept relatively simple, which can sometimes cause my peers in science no small amount of heartburn. A certain amount of beauty and molecular elegance must be sacrificed lest the posts become endless pages of defining endless jargon, losing the reader along the way.
I’d be glad to address more advanced concepts within the discussions, but ask that we remain cognizant of those who may feel locked out by the language, much as I do when friends begin conversing at length with waiters in French.
Somewhere along the way, I think we can strike the balance between jargon and simplicity, taking Albert Einstein’s admonition as our guide:
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Sharon, I’ll look for a good beginner’s book but, then, that’s the purpose of this series. Ask as many questions as you want!
A wonderful quote by Einstein – and apropos too! I actually met the great scientist in my younger days. It was on a trans-Atlantic journey (the Queen Elizabeth),and the trade winds were particularly brutal that time of year given the trade fairs they were having on the continent. I saw the great man, his white hair tossing to and fro between the alabaster hands of a two young barmaids. When he rose, I approached him with the utmost respect to ask a question I had about the speed of light in a vacuum. Much to my surprise, as he brushed past me he knocked the vacuum out of my hand (an Electrolux Z25 if I remember correctly) and said: “Get that ridiculous thing away from me you sniveling brat!” Or maybe it was scrawny brat — I was 3 years old at the time and hard of hearing. Much to my wife’s chagrin, I have never attempted to use a vacuum since.
I always figured Galton, Darwin’s cousin, was more or less responsible for how we view eugenics today. This is a great post- I have a hard time discussing evolution with my fellow Catholics because most are not willing to see things through Darwin’s eyes; they are, however, more than willing to bash his findings.
I read the book “Architects of the Culture of Death” by Wiker (which is a Catholic book and draws a lot on the Catechism) and found it very interesting so I am very excited to see what follows!
“As for how I’ll proceed, I always proceed as though the target audience knows absolutely nothing about the subject…”
Whew! Thats good to hear. ,
Gerard, the discussion about Adam and Eve, with the assertion that the Church teaching is that Adam had to exist but a particular Eve did not, was at Mark Shea’s blog. In reading your posts, I will be glad as I go along that I can disregard almost whatever I want about evolution. I do want to understand what is true about evolution and in what way it is true, but I will leave behind what is not useful to me. That can include things I see as bunk – nothing you’ll say, I’m sure! but things that I see elsewhere, for instance where an entire skeleton is shown as a portrayal of a fossilized animal when in reality, only two of the pictured bones were actually found.
I believe God made the world (as I understand it, Darwin did not share this belief, and I am certain that this is not taught in public schools). I suspect that He made it in grand style, putting almost all of it place already as He intended it to be, not leaving it to be finished off in random style over billions of years. I have a slight understanding of microevolution but it’s so slight I can’t even quite explain it, other than to say that some species specialized within their genetic code and became other species. I am very comfortable with those beliefs, in that they leave me very grateful to God for His grandeur, and in that my beliefs do not violate Church teaching. It looks like you will be discussing evolution on a cellular level and I’m sure I’ll learn a great deal and maybe I’ll even understand some of it! Along the way I will give proof that there is, most definitely, such a thing as a stupid question! 🙂
Sharon,
There are NO stupid questions, here or elsewhere. I’m not out to sell Darwin, or evolution, but merely to enter into his mind, to see the world through his eyes as it existed in his day, and to come to understand the man and his life’s work. My next objective is to see were science has taken Darwin’s work in the great evolutionary synthesis, and to finally examine all of this in light of the Culture of Death and contentions that Darwin was one of its architects.
My studies in evolution are far from over, and I am wrestling with Stephen J. Gould’s master work in the field. completed shortly before his premature death. I had hoped to meet with Gould in New York before he died, but now am left to discern on my own his rather dense opus magnum.
In any event, I think it’s a journey worth taking together!
Dr. Gould in his own words:
“Wind the tape of time back to Burgess times, and let it play again. If Pikaia does not survive in the replay, we are wiped out of future history — all of us, from shark to robin to orangutan. And I don’t think that any handicapper, given Burgess evidence as known today, would have granted very favorable odds for the persistence of Pikaia…
“And so, if you wish to ask the question of the ages – why do humans exist? – a major part of the answer, touching those aspects of the issue that science can treat at all, must be: because Pikaia survived the Burgess decimation. This response does not cite a single law of nature; it embodies no statement about predictable evolutionary pathways, no calculation of probabilities based on general rules of anatomy or ecology. The survival of Pikaia was a contingency of “just history.” I do not think that any “higher” answer can be given, and I cannot imagine that any resolution could be more fascinating. We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in the most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes – one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.”
Dr. Gould is tough read at times — but fascinating always. Too bad you never had a chance to meet with him. Of course, Dr. Gould had very clear ideas on evolution, so including him and his ideas in your summaries would be valuable, I would think.
Dr. Nadal,
Thank you for this upcoming series of blogs on Darwin. I’m looking forward to learning about his role in life issues. Somewhere I got the idea that evolution was deliberately used as a way to justify class distinctions…or something like that. I do appreciate your trying to make all of your blogs easy for anyone to understand. For me, the point of following your blogs is to learn everything I can regarding life issues. Bottom line, I need to be able to take what I’ve learned from here and utilize it in my everyday, oridinary life and be better prepared to change hearts and minds.
Dr. Nadal,
666th post? That’s bad luck! Put another one up quick!!
Happy Mardi Gras and a Blessed Lent to everyone.
Hello Dr. Nadal. I disagree with your view on evolution. We do see animals change, such as breeders manipulating to get a desired breed of dog. We do see mutations, such as the fruit fly being manipulated to get an extra set of wings, which was detrimental to that fruit fly and it died. We do see mutations but they are not beneficial. We do not see additional information added to an organism’s DNA. Each organism starts with the DNA given to it by God. There is endless variety present in that DNA but that is not evolution. Evolution would be when an organism acquires a new trait that is not accounted for in their current DNA. That has never been proven to have happened. Of course, evolutionists have faith that something of that type will be found but that faith is baseless, lacking any evidence. We also have not found an organism in the midst of evolving. We have found plenty of fossils that look just like organism’s we have today with no change. We have found lots of fully formed animals that people presuppose to be links but it cannot be proved that those are not just a different kind of animal, one of the variety available from that “Kind’s” DNA. Never has an animal been found that would have 1/2 a wing, on it’s way to evolving that wing. An animal of that type would be eaten and would never have survived. Molecules to man evolution is not possible.
On the other hand, everything God talks about in the Bible is confirmed by what we see both in the DNA of organisms and in the landscape of our earth. I know that you have strong faith in God. By believing in evolution you are taking men’s words over the words of the Bible. It’s either all true, or none of it is. God is not a liar. Please reconsider you stance on this issue. A good site for all your questions would be “Answers in Genesis.” God knows everything about how this earth began. He was there. He tells us that He made each animal kind fully formed and that He made man and woman intelligent from the start. We did not evolve from monkeys. I challenge you to examine the evidence for the creationist side. You will be amazed and God will be glorified by what you find.
Thank you for considering this matter.
Dona
Hi Dona,
I’ll be posting the evolution blogs every Wednesday and Saturday. I welcome all sorts of disagreement on this. That’s how science gets done. Thanks for writing in, and I look forward to seeing you here for our discussions.
God Bless
We do not see additional information added to an organism’s DNA? Can you (or Dr. Nadal) clarify what is meant by that statement, Dona? Thinking back, I remember reading an interesting article in the Times a few years ago, and I know that additional work has been done (and continues) on evolution in human DNA. Cool! While I’m typing this, I actually found the Times article online (link below), but like I said there has been more recent work on which I’m sure Stephen can wax poetic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?ref=science
From the Times article:
“They say that some 7 percent of human genes bear the signature of natural selection.”
But…. so what? Obviously, stronger genes will prevail. Healthier people will tend to stay alive long enough to reproduce. But what does that have to do with anything? Are we somehow more ‘human” than our ancestors? Are we another species? Isn’t the changing of one species into another what evolution is supposed to be all about?
I don’t believe that human beings used to be something else. If we are, what happened to the something elses? And if the descendants of the something elses are still alive, then there are some “humanoids” who are actually inferior to those who are more evolved. And to which group might I belong?
Dona said, “Evolution would be when an organism acquires a new trait that is not accounted for in their current DNA. That has never been proven to have happened. ” That expresses my understanding as well. So – Gerard, is Dona’s statement incorrect? Is there an organism that is KNOWN (not guessed) to have had a trait ADDED to its DNA? And if evolution as taught in schools is correct, are there many many species KNOWN to have had this happen?
New traits? What do you mean? Do you mean the way humans are increasingly tending to not be born with the propensity to develop wisdom teeth? What do you mean by trait? Terribly unclear. Or do you mean trait as in this group at Berkely? Although Dr. Nadal will certainly do stupendously in clarifying the main issues, you might also check out other links on the Berkely site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080101_recenthumanevo
Or do you mean trait in the same way the authors of the following?
Taking advantage of data collected as part of a 60-year study of more than 2000 North American women in the Framingham Heart Study, the researchers analyzed a handful of traits important to human health. By measuring the effects of these traits on the number of children the women had over their lifetime, the researchers were able to estimate the strength of selection and make short-term predictions about how each trait might evolve in the future. After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendents of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.
“The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving,” said Stearns. “Natural selection is still operating.”
The changes may be slow and gradual, but the predicted rates of change are no different from those observed elsewhere in nature, the researchers say. “The evolution that’s going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,” said Stearns. “These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things,” he added. “But what that means is that humans aren’t special with respect to how fast they’re evolving. They’re kind of average.”
Additional authors on the study were Sean Byars of Yale University, Douglas Ewbank of the University of Pennsylvania, and Diddahally Govindaraju of Boston University.
The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) is an NSF-funded collaborative research center operated by Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University.
Taking advantage of data collected as part of a 60-year study of more than 2000 North American women in the Framingham Heart Study, the researchers analyzed a handful of traits important to human health. By measuring the effects of these traits on the number of children the women had over their lifetime, the researchers were able to estimate the strength of selection and make short-term predictions about how each trait might evolve in the future. After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendents of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.
“The take-home message is that humans are currently evolving,” said Stearns. “Natural selection is still operating.”
The changes may be slow and gradual, but the predicted rates of change are no different from those observed elsewhere in nature, the researchers say. “The evolution that’s going on in the Framingham women is like average rates of evolution measured in other plants and animals,” said Stearns. “These results place humans in the medium-to-slow end of the range of rates observed for other living things,” he added. “But what that means is that humans aren’t special with respect to how fast they’re evolving. They’re kind of average.”
So what you’re saying, Howard, is that we are becoming a new species? Yes, or no? Now I understand that people right now tend to be taller than they generally used to be. This is what we were told when we visited Colonial Williamsburg and Jamestown. Ships were built for shorter people, for example. So would you say that we “evolved” into talker people, but are now evolving back into shorter people?
[…] Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal starts a series investigating whether Charles Darwin was an “architect of […]
[…] Part I here. […]
I watched a very interesting program some months ago about the discovery (through, I think DNA) that scientists have discovered that there really was one man from whom all of us came. Of course, I am ignorant of all the scientific stuff, but I always believed that anyway. I do not believe at all in evolution unless you are referring to evolution in terms of some small adaptations that species employ–such as color, etc. After reading much about the universe, the human body, the amazingly immense hugeness of everything, there simply is no possible way all of this came to be without the creative powers of a Being so far beyond our imagination and understanding. I believe somewhere it says in Church teaching that (I’m paraphrasing, of course) “Let those who say Adam and Eve were not real human beings, let them be anathema.” The Church has spoken, the matter is settled….or something like that!
As to Darwin, if we look at his contemporaries and examine the “trinity” at work, we have Darwin, Freud, and Marx… all bent on one objective: to extinguish the belief in God, and to put all power in man. I think they accomplished that to a great degree. All three were atheists. And, we certainly cannot forget Margaret Sanger, although she came around a little later, but she certainly is, if not the main cause, at least a major cause of abortion, birth control and eugenics. She was a racist, anti-semite, and an atheist herself.
Yikes, I return to this blog to see that I mistakenly posted the same message twice. I thought the first post didn’t go through.
It is probably too late to post this to you, Sharon, but I am saying the out DNA is evolving. Evolutiont to a new species requires several conditions, which are not likely to be met in the case of humans. But we may evolve to be better humans — physically, at least, if not mentally. We are evolving away from a propensity towards heart disease, they say. That is an example of which there are many. If you want to discuss puntuated equilibrium, we cannot do this with our species at this time for reasons that I’m sure Dr. Nadal will discuss. But if you’re looking to find evidence that we did not evolve from earlier forms of hominids then you’re also probably going to be disappointed with Dr. Nadal’s future posts… I’m no mind reader, but just based on his first post here I’d say he’s a supporter of the theory of evolution. In any case, to disprove evolution would be easy, just one fossil being found in a strata in which it theoretically didn’t belong…. it’s never happened. A theory so easy to disprove is that much stronger when all the evidence points to it and none refute it. Your theory, on the contrary, cannot be refuted, at least not by mortal men.
You may never read this, as I stop by only occasionally, but I wish you well.
Thank you, Howard. I know I have to bow out of this discussion because I have many questions, and before accepting – or even being able to understand – the answers, I would need to do research that includes opposing points of view so that I can have an educated opinion on the matter. I don’t believe that “all the evidence points to (evolution) and none refute it.” That sounds like what we are “supposed” to believe. I think that some well-educated scientists would be able to argue against your statement, but I don’t have the time to properly research it. I need to figure out first why my brand new kitchen faucet is leaking and thudding (the installer tells me it us not uncommon, and that I may just have to live with it!) and how I am going to get my hot water heater to stop leaking. You know how it is!
Sharon, I have done some — but like so many I have not done enough — research on evolution. In fact, I know of no serious and credible scientist in the field of life’s origins who refutes evolution. So much evidence in support, and not one credible shred of evidence — not even one fossil that meaningfully refutes the model — that many argue for evolution as LAW. While strictly still meeting the definition of a theory, I agree that while some of its details may be refined that evolution is a fact. If you have some time, you may wish to read exchanges between David Berlinski and Richard Dawkins regarding intelligent design. Highly entertaining, and sometimes difficult to follow. I believe Dawkins prevails, but you may have found your champion in that debate after all. Meanwhile, I suggest you use your hot water heater as a faucet, thereby solving both both water problems at once.
Have a good evening!
PS: If all other arguments ultimately fail to convince you, it sounds like your kitchen installer himself is sufficient proof of evolution!
If anyone wants a truly scientific view on evolution, get the DVD “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”. It is AMAZING. It is all done from the premise of “intelligent design”. Now, I know a lot of people have difficulty with that, but it simply means that evolution is scientifically NOT scientific, AND that some greater entity, be It called God, or some other name, created everything from nothing. There is no other logical or scientific explanation.
I just read where a NASA scientist was just fired because of his belief in intelligent design. Wow…
As for Darwin, he was just another atheist trying to disprove the existence of God along with his other buddies, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and eventually Margaret Sanger. It is no mistake that those three knuckleheads were contemporaries of each other.
Howard: There are MANY outstanding scientists who do refute the theory of evolution. Try starting with Francis Collins who was a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project! There are many, many more. Another amongst many is Michael Behe, an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. Try doing a little research on intelligent design and you’ll find a website which lists thousands of credible scientists who signed some document stating that intelligent design is the most logical explanation for the universe.
Teacher – greeting. I like your line: “There is no other logical or scientific explanation.” A true classic!
Please don’t misunderstand my statement — I said no “serious or credible” scientist refutes evolution, including those who have dabbled in intelligent design arguments. For that matter, the great mathematician Godel believed terrible dragons were orbiting the earth. Newton (Sir Isaac, of course) was a firm believer in god.
Not all scientists who discounted god as a necessary argument were contemporaries of those you listed. But there are so many, it’s difficult to choose. Napoleon asked Laplace why there was not a single mention of God in Laplace’s entire five volume explaining how the heavens operated. Laplace replied to Napoleon that he had “no need for that particular hypothesis.” I’ll bet Napolean’s retort was “Nonsense, Laplace, old man, there is no other logical or scientific explanation.”
I suggest you not only cite a DVD as sole support for a theory, e.g., intelligent design. Rather, assist Dr. Nadal here by stating the arguments against evolution, point by point, and how this DVD of yours effectively disclaims whatever logical and evidentiary potency Evolution has amongst scientistis like Dawkins, Gould, Darwin,Dobzhansky, Stuart Kauffman, etc., etc., etc.
PS: Margaret Sanger? An evolutionary biologist? Huh???
Howard: The DVD I cited is not the only argument on which I base my opinion. I’ve done lots of reading, too. Plus, I am well-versed in the opposing opinion as I have been to university, not to mention high school and elementary school. In the DVD, the scientists pay particular attention to the mechanics of life. They use the example of a mousetrap. If one part of the mousetrap is missing or is not working properly, the mousetrap ceases to do its job. On a molecular level, he used the example of a one-celled organism (I don’t remember its name) that propels itself using a flagellum. If, according to evolutionists, a minor change is made to its structure, the organism would not be able to thrive and would die. It has been sometime since I last saw the movie, and I am not intellectually gifted to be able to explain it all, but that is the basic tenet.
I did not mean that Margaret Sanger was directly involved in evolutionary biology. I meant that her political and social beliefs (euthanasia, eugenics, racism and anti-semitism) added to the mix of Marx, Freud and Darwin.
I am not familiar with any of the scientists you listed except for Dawkins. I do not feel that I am intellectually able to do what you ask of me. All I know is that the theory of evolution doesn’t make sense. Judge Judy always says, “If something doesn’t make sense, then it’s not true.” She’s not a scientist, but she sure has a lot of common sense!
I respect your education, and I’m also a fan of Judge Judy, and I liked Judge Wapner and Mayor Ed Koch on those shows! I don’t really know Sanger, but from what I’ve read I don’t much care for her. Nor am I a big fan of Marx. Freud, on the other hand, has been greatly misinterpreted by his detractors. So much so that at times I feel sorry for those who pretend to really understand his work. Needless to say, I am a big fan of Freud. Given the fact that we’re both not up to the task to write powerfully convincing exegesis on Darwin, perhaps we should switch the argument over to Freud — since you mentioned him as someone whose ideas you detest (which requires intimate knowledge of those ideas). I’m assuming you come into that argument well-armed, given your written statements. Of course, when I say argue I mean in good spirit, no acrimony from my part. OK, now let me have it, Teacher…
I do not detest Freud. I believe that these gentlemen, all had one agenda–albeit a hidden one–and that is the elimination of the belief in God. Marx and Engel wanted a utopian, communistic world–and the first marxist commandment was, “there shalt not be a god.” Then came Darwin with his theory that the universe, and ultimately mankind had no creator, but evolved from sludge in a pond. Then to round things out, we have Freud and his theories that all human problems can be solved with a little sex. So, therefore we have the unholy trinity. Now mind you, Freud, unlike his brethren, did have some meaningful contributions to humanity. It has been so long since I studied him and his psychology that I honestly do not remember it all. I have been in therapy myself and have found the therapists I saw who were supporters of Freud and his methods, to be less in touch with the complexities of human behavior, at least in my case. I also worked for the doctoral department of a university in the behavioral sciences department and believe me when I tell you, the professors and “doctors” who are training those to be psychologists need therapy themselves! They’re all nuts! My own boss, who was the clinical director of the entire doctoral program was a thief and a liar. Ugh…even thinking about him makes me want to….you know…
I enjoy a good “argument” Howard. Unfortunately, I am not able to argue my point or side well enough to make any ground with the opposition. Now, if you want to argue about the teachings of the Catholic Church, well then, ring that bell! 🙂
If Darwin believed there was no creator, he never let on, to my knowledge. Dr. Nadal is better equipt to clarify this, but I think he did not see evolution as necessarily proof against the existence of god or god’s role in creation. Rather, it allows science to encroach into the domain of more literal interpetations of the bible. Freud did the same thing in his way. This has led to wrathful accusations against both men, and disdain for their belief and theories. Fine. They ‘re big boys and can take it! Of course, both pursued their theories knowing full well they would suffer such attacks and disdain. However, I really don’t agree that their agenda was simply an atheist one. Just like I don’t think Copernicus set out to quell belief in god when he suggested the earth revolved around the sun, and not the reverse. Just like I don’t think that modern views of what determines our daily weather stemmed from a inherent desire to condemn the Native American rainman to antiquity. Science just happens,. and always has! Evolution happened, why is it wrong to discover it’s workings as best we can, and acknowledge when evidence is overwhelming, as in this case it surely is? As Dr. Nadal will almost certainly point out, evolution and divine creation are not entirely incompatible or irreconcilable.
The teachings of the Catholic church are interesting to me, Teacher, and I look forward to your future posts on this subject. I’m afraid I’m no match for you, though. I am out of my league here and I know it. But I do sense that you are a very decent and thoughtful person — whatever got you there I applaud you.
Thanks, Howard! And, the same goes for you! What got me there were my parents and the baptismal font! I was a devout Catholic until I discovered boys in high school…then, well…other things became more important. But, it didn’t last forever, thank God. A good friend of mine, whom I knew in high school, had been a very good Catholic. Then she became a “born-again” and tried to convert me. Well, even though I wasn’t practicing my Catholic faith then, I knew that she was mistaken. She would spit these bible quotes at me left and right that I felt like she was using me for target practice! So, in order for me to combat her bible quotes, I bought all sorts of books on the Catholic faith–elementary books–and studied my faith. I attended many classes for converts because in away, I was converting, too. I guess one could call it my “born-again Catholic” experience. She never won another argument after that! She even returned to the Catholic Church for a short time. Since that time, which was a good 30 years ago, I have continued my study since to include St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many of the Church Fathers. I have studied many Church documents prior to and during Vatican Council II. The Church’s history is so rich in doctrine and history that it would take 10 lifetimes for me to study it all, and even then, I doubt if I would be able to compete it. Not only is my heart convinced that the Catholic Church is right, but my intellect tells me, too. Yes, the Church has said that as long as the theory of evolution does not eliminate God’s creative actions, then theory of evolution is not in conflict with the Church’s teachings. However, I believe that one simply cannot join the two. And, I can’t explain why. How can one speak what only the heart can say? Plus, I killed a lot of my brain cells back when I was doing some “tokin” in the 60’s…;)
I will give Freud and Darwin a little credit, grant you. But, I do believe that both men were atheists. If one is an atheist, one can’t entertain the possibility of God’s influence in creation. Do you know what I mean? My poor words cannot express everything that I’ve read and learned. But, if you have questions or do not understand why the Church teaches certain things, I can help in that manner. Dr. Nadal is MUCH better at it than I am, but I’ll give it a whirl!
Thanks for a sincere (and sometimes funny) post. When you said “it didn’t last forever” I laughed, because at first I thought you were talking about high school (which in my case almost did last forever). And I chuckled when you suggested your “tokin” in the 1960s may have limited your ability to fully articulate your feelings (I guess my own cerebral paresis to excessive masturbation in the 1970s — my mother always said it would make me an idiot). Yes I do understand, I think, what you mean when you have some trouble accepting that atheist scientists might not be totally open minded when constructing their theories, but I don’t know if I fully agree. But I certainly respect the question. Meanwhile, I’m thinking about inventing a new drink, mixing vodka with vingegar and baking soda, and calling it the Darwin. (Wait, that could also explain my Homo habilis IQ….)
OMGosh! That drink sounds AWFUL!! Are you serious? Why would you call it the “Darwin”? Too hard to swallow, maybe? LOL! Funny, the nuns in high school would always tell us (it was an all-girls’ school) that masturbation would cause blindness…hmmm… Too funny! I can honestly say that I’ve been involved in a number of “debates” on these blogs which can only be described as “mental masturbation”! I wonder what will happen if I do that too much?? Make my brain mushier than it is, perhaps?
Ok…what does homo habilis IQ mean? I used to tell my boyfriend who was an engineering student that every time he walked into the kitchen his IQ dropped 75 points. He was a little kitchen-challenged, shall we say.
Anyway, I love talking with you and just wish I could debate with you on your intellectual level, but as I said, the 60’s pretty much went up in smoke…literally!
Tell me why you don’t agree that atheistic scientists might not be totally open to the possibility of the existence of a greater being. I know that Francis Collins was an atheist and because of his work became a believer. (That’s what his book says, anyway.)
Have you ever heard of a guy named de Chardin? If so, I’d be interested on your take of him.
Because I’m sitting upside down, and everything is topsy-turvy, I’ll humbly attempt to answer your last question first: because there is no atheist bible, so to speak, or atheist tradition that involves 1) the indoctrination or conscription of children, 2) the totalitarian control of individuals behaviors and even thoughts, including even human sexuality, 3) the fear of eternal punishment or hope of reward in the hereafter, or 4) the subjugation or punishment of those who do not abide by its dictates prior to their deaths (more in the past than today’s religions, but one can point to some religions still). As a result, an athiest has less to fear from being open to a greater being (especially a benevolent one) than a religious person has to fear from being open to the possibility that there is no god, no eternal rewards, and that death is the final stop on this train. I truly believe the atheist has more freedom to be open to all possibilities (those open-minded ones are sometimes called agnostics).
Ah, yes — the “Darwin.” A man’s drink if there ever was one. I was away for the weekend at a mountain retreat (when the mountain saw me coming it retreated). I did not drink a “Darwin,” I only drink that drink when I’ve had too much to drink. I know that sounds a bit confusing. This weekend it was small batch bourbon, and used the leftovers to make bourbon chicken. The chicken retreated from me too, but not fast enough.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a 20th century philosopher and paleontologist who wrote a book, The Phenomenon of Man, in which he abandoned traditional interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a less strict interpretation. According to Wiki, this displeased certain officials in the Roman Curia and in his own order who thought that it undermined the doctrine of original sin developed by Saint Augustine. Teilhard’s position was opposed by his Church superiors, and some of his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office. His ideas came into conflict with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and several of his books were censured.
I read that book in college, but need to read it again. I probably drank a Darwin before reading it.
Homo habilis was an early form of man (or, if you will, a more advanced form of ape) whose iq was less than most of us internet users. My iq fluctuates drastically, and can atavistically regress to levels that haven’t been seen on this planet for several eons. In fact, my brain has a sign on the back of it: “This organ brakes for all railroad crossings, stop signs, traffic signals, school zones, pubs, bars, speakeasies, any other establishment that serves alcohol, blondes, brunettes…. and will back up five blocks for a redhead.”
You know, I cook alot with alcohol — it’s not all destructive. Bourbon chicken, penne ala vodka, whisky-infused chili, turtle soup with sherry (the turtle drinks the sherry, then I eat the turtle)… the list goes on and on….
Oh YUCK!! I’m half Italian and I can never understand why someone would put VODKA in their spaghetti sauce! A little vino, yes, but vodka??? BLECH!! Ahhhh…homo habilis…some of my relatives knew him…the ones from Italy, I imagine.
You are on the mark regarding Teilhard, yessiree! The only thing you didn’t mention is that in his attempt to prove his theories, he perpetrated a fraud. Yep…he saw himself as an archeologist and somehow managed to discover…what??? the missing link!!! Yep…a tooth that was supposedly from an earlier humanoid. As it turned out, it was nothing more than a pig’s tooth that had been dyed and shaved down to look like it might have belonged to a humanoid.
You are right about atheists being freer than we believers. Although, I’m not too sure how free they’re gonna feel once they come face to face with their Creator! LOL! Just kidding…
Anyway, I love your humor! Hmmmm…I USED to be a redhead…but that was many moons ago! Have to go but will check back here later….GBU!
I know you’re kidding, but I doubt you’re kidding 100% (see the first paragraph of my last post). When I die, if, rather than complete and utter nothingness, I find myself face to face with the Creator, I would extend my hand to Him and assume that He would appreciate my reason and honesty that drove my beliefs while on earth.
Now, down to more serious business: vodka is a wonderful addition to pasta sauce when done correctly. It adds a kick and spiciness that can be tamed most wonderfully with a touch of heavy cream. Vodka is also the drink of my ancestors. For example, this from Uncle Bill, who wrote in his memoirs: “..the cold hard floor of the Gilded Peacock, half consciously nursing a flourishing hangover. The drink was designed as a personal “evolutionary aid,” providing just enough gastric lift to raise the stupefied body up from the floor, to encourage crawling on all fours, then gradually moving one to balance shakily on two legs, and then – in defiance of all the odds of nature producing such a creature, and with a silly grin and the absurdly satisfied look of the first example of a new species – walking almost upright, dizzy with strange new mental faculties (or it could have been the un-numbing of former ones) flooding his brain, until – usually by 3 pm – he is finally able to walk fully erect to the local pub to start the whole process again with another double whiskey and soda.” Now THAT my dear is evolution! I never did meet Uncle Bill. The family tried hard to sober him up, even sending down to Florida to a clinical which, in the mid 1950s, was considered the very best. It was costly, but Mom and Pop thought the last attempt to sober him up, succeed or fail, do or die, should be a good one. And it worked – the Bill they found at the end of 6 months looked nothing like the Bill they deposited, smelling of cheap vodka (I think his brand was called Idealna), face blackened with bits of red scabs visible through the grime, hair (what was left of it) encrusted on his head like dried plaster… well you get the picture. Upon exiting the clinic he was a new man, nicely dressed, with closely cropped even hair, clean-shaven, smelling of “old English” cologne, and teeth that looked to be at least 13 shades whiter (but still quite yellow). On the train-ride home they said he read quietly his favorite auto-related magazine, sipped on water and milk, and refused all offers of alcohol. He was the absolute picture of a changed man, heading home to work with my Grandpa in the auto-service industry in Gary, IN. Well, he never made it home. The story is somewhat legendary, at least in our family, but they say one of the porters on the train offered him one of those chocolate…. You know…. The ones with the cherry liquor inside. He had no idea, and he ate one, then another, then another…. When he was tracked down a few weeks later, somewhere in Nevada on a train to Los Angeles, the porter said that after eating the chocolates my Uncle was observed muttering loudly to himself as he existed the train in Charlotte, NC. To this day, no-one has ever heard any news of our dear Uncle. There’s a lesson in there somewhere. At least, I think the lesson is to drink whatever alcoholic beverage one wishes, in unlimited quantities, but to avoid, at all costs, cheap chocolate. I hope you’re not in tears right now, I know I am. Condolences can be sent directly to me at hborkman@yahoo.com.
Howard: What a riot!! I had a bunch of uncles like that! They were mostly on the Italian side of me. You lived in Gary, IN? I’m originally from Chicago! The greatest city in the world! I lived in Hammond for awhile and taught in Munster, IN. Small world, eh? I’ve had those cherry chocolates…they’re awful!
No, I was not being even a little serious! I believe in to live and let live. The only problem I have is when someone is trying to force their beliefs or lifestyle down my throat. That’s when my fur goes up. But, hey, if someone wants to live their life wiggling their toes in peanut butter, I say, go for it! But, don’t expect me to wiggle mine in peanut butter…
I think it takes a lot of guts to be an atheist. I have a friend who claims he’s an agnostic. To me, that’s being a coward–straddling the fence, so to speak.
Is that your correct email? If so, I’m going to email you. You’re a pretty cool guy!
Ok…the next email you get will be one from me!! Thanks!