'Darwin Would Put God Out of Business'
If you have faith in God as the Creator, you can't embrace Darwinism too, despite what some scientists claim.
11/18/2006 06:24:12 PM
Ahhhh, yes. The 'Butterfly Effect.' Are we all victims of circumstance? ...or did someone design our circumstances through synchronicity. Perhaps we are the designer of our own mortal existience. When we 'die' from this Earth, do we write a Lessons Learned documentary and a new Lesson Plan? I do believe vague interaction can have intrinsic value. So next time someone wants to cut in front of you or me in the checkout after waiting 15 minutes - We'll Smile as though we know some deep mysterious secret about life which we're trying to impart. The intruder will be curious and it will effect his next trip to the store. Life is Grand. God is Good and life is a gryoscope. I guess I better hang on.
10/28/2006 12:42:00 PM
Hi Quiplet, The physical scale is important for the smallest interactions do affect the larger outcomes. While proof of the interaction might be vague, the value is magnified. We can make exponential changes to make this world a better place for our children to live life aware of certain risk factors. The protection and health of the future generations is very important to me. I would think that this is a subject important to many other people as well.
10/23/2006 09:42:21 PM
Hello :) Why such a serious discussion about the physical realm? It's the evolution of the Soul that matters most. How can a soul be worthy of all of God's Graces after only one lifetime? Being an American, this life of mine is much easier -with less tribulations - than most people I see on CNN International. But my personal trials and tribulations are mine alone to bear. God is the Great Designer and the Great Mathematician. He (She) is the Landlord, we are the tenants. With 'God' - all things are possible. Including evolution, adaptation, and random development. And God, if so desired, could have complete control.
09/23/2006 04:40:48 PM
Hi Namchuck While you find the gaps filled, one of the problems remains that you can have a theory that all life comes from one common ancestor, you can't have a change in molecular structure if the chemical make up of ALL life is from the same compounds, of course we all have a common ancestor, at the very basic molecular level we all have the same composition. Did we all come from the same species lineage? How were we created and where did the first chicken come from, was that the egg or the chicken that came first. The problem from a fragmented fosil record lacks proof of truth. I'm not saying to not follow the trail of bread crumbs. Just don't try to make a recipe from the pieces you are finding until you know the whole story. (Cont'd)
09/23/2006 04:40:05 PM
I think that is the most important thing to know the whole story, before declaring that you know the whole story (what some are trying to do already.) You have a theory this is good... I'm just raising some questions about your theory... Personally I'm more interested in the Evolution of Religion!
09/19/2006 06:36:42 AM
(continued) Mammals possess a developmental pattern clearly modified from earlier forms, their fossil history abundantly documents their evolution from a group of reptiles more than 100 million years ago, and the DNA sequence comparisons show the very same relationships suggested by the fossil and the developmental evidence. There is no other alternative explanation consistent with this interlocking set of facts from so many sources. That is why I have said all along that there is a marvelous consistency to the evidence for evolution. It is the story of us all.
09/19/2006 06:31:00 AM
While it is true, TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, that there are gaps in the fossil record, the fossil record is complete enough that no 'large mind jumps' are necessary at all. And many of those 'gaps' are very quickly being closed up these days with some truly astonishing finds, like the very exciting and recent discovery of tiktaalik fossils which filled the gap between early fish and the first land vertebrates. While life may well have started as you suggest at more than one location and at different times, all life that presently exists seems to have come from one common ancestor. And evolution does 'address a common thread or link between all humans'.
09/17/2006 12:44:28 PM
Typeo patrol... degate = debate
09/17/2006 12:42:56 PM
Namchuck are you still here? Sorry, I've been pulled away from the conversation. Life happens, or shall I say that my life has been sadly compromised by failures of our society. Evolution like the Chicken and Egg degate does not address a common thread or link between all humans. In fact you realize that you are looking at a broken fossil record. A piece here and a piece there of creatures that were spared the decomposition of organic compounds. These spared creature parts fossilized to create a story that might not be true. How can we prove this information to be true?
09/17/2006 12:42:39 PM
What I'm talking about in a true account of the origins of man is that the fossil record is incomplete. You have to assume and make some large mind jumps in those assumptions. For all we know life could have started at more than one location at different times, even out of different sources having similar chemical compositions. I don't deny evolution, I'm talking about the origins of life. I want to keep an open mind about the conclusions that the evolutionsists are trying to make. Keep a close eye on the branches you might find a different base after all, but it will be hard to find a wide variety of differences because of the similar make up of original chemicals that could be thousands of years apart.
09/09/2006 11:13:39 PM
At least evolution give's us the evidence that 'we' are all one, all of us descended from one common ancestor. Faith, on the other hand, simply divides us one from another. There is only one evolution, not this man's or that man's evolution (that is the value of empirical evidence for you). There are untold varieties of faith, and they have kept mankind at one another's throats for millenniums.
09/09/2006 11:10:34 PM
To 'obey' means to surrender one's autonomy to another. Why would one do that when the 'other' is little more than superstition borne of human insecurity? Do we value our freedom so little as to cede it to the first comforting and consoling notion that comes along?
09/09/2006 11:06:03 PM
Compared to Darwin's achievement, it is the traditional God of the religions' that looks like a 'hack', and an inept one at that. At least Darwin provide's an explanation for the diversity of life upon the Earth. The claim, 'God did it', has no explanatory value whatsoever and is an unnecesary hypothesis. Even if it turned out that evolution was wrong - extremely unlikely given the enormous evidential support it enjoys - wouldn't make the God-hypothesis correct by default. And considering there are literally hundreds of creation myths, how would we know which of the creating gods' was the right one?
09/09/2006 06:24:39 PM
at to when = as to when... Correction, Sorry...
09/09/2006 06:22:40 PM
So can you now read the song of Moses and understand the implications? Do you understand what obey really means? To do as you are instructed, but if the instructions are amended that needs to be made known, at to when how and who made the changes. With out clear instructions you have confussion and contradictions. What is inerrant about contradictions? If errors exist, then corrections need to be made.
09/09/2006 08:29:41 AM
There is no proof of God or diss proof.He said"I exist before this chreation and if it no longer exist I would still exist".This world he needs not to exist.The chreation comes always after the chreator.The chreator comes first.darwin was nothing moore than a hack.
09/06/2006 06:21:55 PM
I suppose it depends on exactly what people mean when they use the term 'God' when it comes to the question of Darwinism putting 'God' out of business. There is little doubt that, in respect to the traditional God of the Bible, Darwin certainly reduced its utility function to little more than indulging the prayers of the faithful.
09/06/2006 04:11:32 AM
This isn't about chosing between God and Darwin. Its about chosing between reason, science and evidence and superstition, tradition and ignorance. Dump superstition, keep science.
09/05/2006 02:35:01 PM
Being lazy, I use ready-made crusts and apply a thin coat of oil. On top, I add: diced broccoli, mushrooms, green pepper, onion, tomatoes, and vegetarian Italian sausage; sprinkle on a bit of garlic powder and oregano; top with a relatively small amount of shredded soy cheese (mozzarella, romano, parmasian varieties). Bake.
09/03/2006 03:55:02 AM
hmm. i think sartre and camus explained no choice is a choice. not that this matters, though, because arteriosclerosis is the result of a choice here - "to eat pizza." as for darwinists - well, regardless of what *darwinists* may believe or feel - their business is science. as such, what they really do is describe, describe *the material mechanism* and the process it follows from what they've observed. darwinism pretty much has nothing to say about designers and guidance.
09/02/2006 11:19:45 PM
Is that like in Dueteronomy GOD said "drive out" the inhabitants of Canaan and in Joshua, the leaders convinced Joshua to "Kill" annihilate all living things in the city of Jericho... Darwin could only put the Church out of business, GOD will be around forever. At least a pure and holy GOD...
08/30/2006 10:16:08 AM
The entire premise of this column, as encapsulated in the title, is false. Darwin does NOT put God out of business. The ONLY thing that is put out of business is a narrowly literalist reading of the Bible. Why is so hard for religious people to recognize the difference between faith in God and faith in the Bible?
08/28/2006 11:26:06 PM
Thanks Windbender for the address on Care-mail! It was great! I belong to that, but never fool around with it, just the cards.
08/28/2006 11:23:07 PM
Mr. Klinghoffer makes a very strong case for freedom of speech and the right to be as ridiculous as you can possibly be. He is in excellent company with the flat earth movement, flying saucers in Roswell, New Mexico and Loch Ness Nelly. In a world with perhaps 4000 professional paleontologists and biologists concerned with evolutionary studies and phylogeny, the marvelous fossil record available to anyone to study, and legitimate scientific journals available at even modest college libraries, ID in all its absurd forms, can be seen as the last haven for folks uncomfortable in the history of the world and organisms as it actually is. The right to believe silly things is precious, no matter how silly.
08/28/2006 10:16:47 PM
Klinghoffer writes "If the process that produced existence and then life was not guided, then God is not our creator." This is a very narrow-minded interpretation of science and the scriptures. Evolution theories explain how monkeys could descend from amoebas. They are, however, incapable of explaining how intelligence and soul was injected into a small, clawless and fangless biped who then "fill(ed) the earth and subdue(d) it. Rule(d) over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." . Compared to the evolution of other species, these events happened at extrabiological speed. Only the intervention of God can explain this. For a believer to reject evolution can be compared to a skeptic who, after visited a Bible printing press, rejects the scriptures because the workers he saw working the presses had nothing godly about them. Silly.
08/28/2006 09:40:48 PM
08/28/2006 07:14:16 PM
600 scietists doubt evolution? ROFL the steve list alone is longer than that .....just scientists named steve are allowed to sign it ....all support evolution ...one of the steves is stephen hawking http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp The statement reads: Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
08/28/2006 07:06:41 PM
QUOTEDarwin did't postulate that the strong always survive over the meek and the weak because it is fairly obvious that this is not true.UNQUOTE that strong-should-abuse-the-weak nonsense ISN'T true darwin used "survival of the fittest" to show that organisms better adapted to the environment survived and produced more offspring ...IOW the fit was to the environment only ignorant people and or deliberate con artists who want to discredit a valid biological theory try to claim nonsense and then state that that nonsense is evolution/darwinism LEARN SOME REAL BIOLOGY and you won't fall for these stupid con games
08/28/2006 06:57:47 PM
part 2 of prev. post most medical advances of the past 250 years has been based on evolutionary principles -yeah you read that right, 250 years .....most laymen dont know that and a lot of doctors dont realize that common descent is the reason a lot of our current medical procedures work this nonsensical essay is a fairly typical type of ignorant and superstitious creationist rant that will put us back in the dark ages of our freely polluting , medically ignorant past
08/28/2006 06:57:25 PM
david klinghoffer is just ignorant ...and like a lot of ignorant people he's fond of making assertions about something he knows nothing about all the theory of evolution points out is that every organism that has ever lived on this planet is either one of your cousins or some kind of distant grandparent ...i did mean every organism ...sponges, bacteria plants etc HOW DOES THE FACT THAT ROSEBUSHES ARE YOUR KIN "PUT GOD OUT OF BUSINESS"? i would think that having everything as a relative would engender more respect for the all of the life on this planet ..and further the understanding that we as technological humans, can no longer do the careless treatment of our home-Island Earth, that we've barely gotten away with up until recently
08/28/2006 12:35:43 PM
Thanks for your input, Carisin. Everything starts from our thoughts, so it is reasonable for me to assume that how everything got here on earth it was started by the infinite spirit, or God's thoughts. Nothing stands in one spot, if it expects to grow, and progress. The net address, said it is being built, not finished.
08/28/2006 02:12:28 AM
Henrietta22,Here is an example of survival of the fitest: www.flyingpizzas.com Rugelach, too. As a scientist, I always thought there are many ways to describe the same event, depending on you level of education and trust. For example, the Garden of Eden, as located by archaeologists, actually was the description of our ancestors living in the tree canopy, walking four-legged as any great ape does. At this point, the genitals are not appreciably visible. When one type of ape (unohoo) became upright, genitals were directly visible, thus the animal was "ashamed," and the hands were freed for more complex tool-using than other apes, and the upper respitory system became more useable for communication than the other apes. This progression of stories is like the progression of explanations man accepts for things in this earth. In Galileo's time, few could accept panetary rotation. Today, some are horrified that Pluto has been bounced as a planet.
08/27/2006 03:06:46 PM
And you're right about cats, helena13. Just the other day I had a nice mediug-rare fillet on my plate and the phone rang. I got up to answer it and turned my back for two seconds. That was all the time that furball of a housecat we live with needed to dash across the kitchen toward the dinning room table. Sure as the world he was after the wax bananas in the arrangement at the center of the spread. Stupid cat.
08/27/2006 03:01:02 PM
"In those early days, it was not a sin for brothers to marry sisters." Still, it was considered to be in very bad taste. I mean, seriously, a wedding shower where mom and dad have to foot the bill for ALL the gifts?!
08/27/2006 09:34:36 AM
This post referes to MBStruss's post of 8/26. Darwin did't postulate that the strong always survive over the meek and the weak because it is fairly obvious that this is not true. Rabbits existed at at the same time as when Sabertooth tigers and wooly mamoths walkerdthe Earth,but there are still many rabbits while wooly mammoths and sabertooth tigers are extinct. What Darwin tells us is that those beings which are able to adapt to their environment survivewhile those who are unable to adapt die. In societies where cooperation isprizedthosewho cannotadapt to this are expoelled and left to live or(moreprobable) die on their own. The time of Man is not the time of HaShem. Since He is without beginning or end He can very patient with slow changing processes. Darwin certainly doesn't put HaShem outof business.
08/27/2006 09:10:16 AM
Also, for those who think “Survival of the Fittest” and the innate competitiveness of human beings is the way God intended things to be on this Earth, think again! Aggression, murder, and conquest are sinful traits, and the whole world fell into sin with Adam and Eve. Before that though, all animals ate fruit, vegetables, and other vegetation. For instance, the big cats were natural-born fruit-eaters, with their sharp teeth, and ability to climb trees. Now, however, big cats usually kill animals because fruit is scarce in their natural habitats, and they always eat the entrails first, because that is the easiest part of the animal to digest, and frugivores like big cats had, and still have short digestive tracts.
08/27/2006 09:09:49 AM
After God created Adam and Eve, they had many children, not just Cain, Abel, and Seth. The Bible explains this by saying that Adam, and every antediluvian patriarch except Noah had other sons and daughters before they died (See Genesis, Chapter 5). In those early days, it was not a sin for brothers to marry sisters. That prohibition came after the Great Flood.
08/27/2006 08:35:37 AM
Adding to the conversation of the snake in the garden you would promote Adam and Eve as the first when in fact they were created at different intervals and some claim that Adam had first a woman named Lillith... Even so, where did Cain go after he slew Abel, as though there were no other humans created, some say Cain went to live with the savages. The Garden seems to have some weeds; the Wilderness knows the beauty of GOD. Cain entered the Wilderness. D'evil should not have Live'd Cain should not have killed Abel. Why did Cain kill Abel? How would you create a story to be convincing to control others? Creating fear and commanding tithes. Gifts come from the heart, how do we learn to give from the heart? The devil never existed, only GOD can make you a giver of Love and Life. Blessings to All that Bless...
08/27/2006 08:28:20 AM
JulianaWinsor Your last premise is taken from passed down stories written down and changed. The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is the lack of facts. Evolution does create the facts that set the Biblical record straight. Consider the evolution of numbers, 3,000 years ago the largest number in normal use was not in the millions. Probably not even in the thousands, some might try to count into the thousands, but not the average person. The normal use was not so high. What was the highest number thought of in the 1950's? Okay' off the beaten path? Let's go back twenty years and ask someone what a gigabyte is... Get my drift? With increased potential come changes, new words and greater numbers. Out of the sea all creatures were brought forth. Or only the moving creature that has life? Does that mean that man could not have grown in and from another source? The possibilities are endless, because the time line breaks down. There is no recorded record.
08/26/2006 10:47:44 PM
Indeed an all-wise God created the heavens and the earth. He saw great possibilities for fellowship and for individual blessedness when He created mankind. In the fulness of time, He sent Christ Jesus into the world to restore the possibility of access to the Father. Darwin has a clever and interesting concept that some degree of variation within a species takes place over an extrapolated timespan. Scripture does not take an opposite stance. "Let the sea bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life," came the command, and the seas brought forth.....
08/26/2006 10:32:32 PM
While I desire to believe in a God created everything with a sense of purpose, there are several things that seem contradictory to this principle when I look at the "real world." One of them is the fact that all of nature is based on competition and one species devouring another in order to insure it's own survival. Just consider the fact the same God that supposedly created us with a supposed purpose, also created viruses and bacteria whose purpose is to destroy us! Evolution seems to depict organisms with seperate pathways whose sole purpose is to preserve and maintain their own welfare - at the expense of others. Consider the fact that the same God who supposedly said the weak would inherit the earth also created natural selection - of which the purpose is to not to favor the weak, but to advance the strong for the preservation of a species.
08/26/2006 07:54:31 PM
"To stop learning as a condition of faith is to miss the fullness of Creation." I love that.
08/26/2006 06:55:04 PM
08/26/2006 06:54:31 PM
Flying Pizza, NYC, Kosha Pizza! Wish they would open some in MO.
08/26/2006 06:44:39 PM
helena13, You said, God created a perfect world, Eden, and put mankind, Adam and Eve in it with an immortal life ahead of them. It wasn't all perfect, he put a "sneaky snake" in that perfect world with them. I'd like to know your opinion or anyone else's, really, why do you think our Creator would only put one man, and one woman in this perfect world? Never thought of it before I read your post. Your explanation for evolution being the result of mankinds sin is also a unique thought to me.
08/26/2006 01:46:35 PM
Evolution is DNA explained by someone who didn't understand DNA. Now, we--at least those with an education--understand how DNA works. Perhaps DNA didn't put G-d out of business, but was and holy form of automation. There is even a built-in form of fail-safe, where spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur in about 20% of pregnancies for those embryos/feti that have such a genetic error they will not survive. As Nietsche said, "Truth is the most useful form of error." As we learn more about this world, we understand it better. To stop learning as a condition of faith is to miss the fullness of Creation. As far as pizza and your arteries, you obviously are not eating Kosher pizza, such as the one, for example, Flying Pizza, NYC, makes. Eat anything in moderation, of course, and know that we now live longer, have pacemakers, heart transplants and artificial hearts on the horizon, not heart attcks at 40 and 50 from pizza.
08/26/2006 09:43:41 AM
catch22, Your chain of reasoning is invalid. The Garden of Eden is neither proved nor disproved by evolution. Even if God created the first man directly out of the dust, there need not have been a garden. Yes, it is the same scriptural account. But suppose a religious person who is not a literalist believes that the first person was created miraculously but rejects the notions of a Garden and a fall from grace. It is not faith in God that is threatened by scientific fact; it is faith is scriptural literalism and inerrancy. And the fact that it is Christian literalism about Jewish scriptures is doubly ironic. Jews who have studied their own scriptures for millenia do not automatically accept everything as literal; Christians to this day repeat long-discredited mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Hebrew scriptures to support their claims that Jesus was the messiah of prophesy. And then they insist that THEY alone hold the truth. Astounding.
08/26/2006 09:15:56 AM
"the Bible teaches that mankind was created immortal and perfect" Where? Didn't last very long, did it?
08/26/2006 01:08:24 AM
Helena is right when she says, "Evolution invalidates the need for a Savior, I have recently come to that same realization. If evolution is true then there was no garden of eden, no fall of man. Hence no need for Jesus.
08/25/2006 11:55:17 PM
There is a difference in evolution and evolutionism. If one believes that creatures change over time, one does not have to believe that everything is random and that there is no God.
08/25/2006 05:25:04 PM
This article it is a complete waste of time and bandwidth no matter what your view on creation, evolution, Darwin, or "intelligent design."
08/25/2006 11:37:00 AM
helena, Christianity is a belief system; evolution is science. To declare evidence-based science invalid because it conflicts with faith-based belief is to scorn and betray God's own gift of rationality, which is one of the cardinal manifestations of God's spiritual presence within us. God said "Let there be light." Religious dogmatism is clinging to darkness.
08/25/2006 08:24:22 AM
Evolution is a belief system that says death and decay is necessary for biological progress and advancement. However, the Bible teaches that mankind was created immortal and perfect. Since all life on earth was like mankind, there was no need for change, or evolution. All life was already perfect, and ideally suited for eternal life. But when mankind sinned, death was the sad result of their rebellion against God. Therefore, evolution, which is driven by death and change, can only be a product of sin, and is therefore a punishment, not a blessing. Evolution invalidates the need for a Savior, and the reality of sin. It is therefore totally incompatible with a Christian worldview. Read my Language of God book series to find out more: www.pillar-of-enoch.com.
08/24/2006 08:54:48 PM
Why does this guy think God cannot handle Darwin? My God is a God I adore, and Darwin doesn't budge Him, whether evolution is real or not. My faith is not so insecure as to be paranoid over people disagreeing with the way I believe.
08/24/2006 10:48:39 AM
Especially after the Dover case where ID was found to be a Christian teaching from its proponents own mouths and writings. Klinghoffer's full spelling of G-d in a secular piece is of interest. Klinghoffer also puts up a false dichotomy between a mythical "Darwinism" and G-d that Brother Mendel didn't have at all.
08/24/2006 06:53:06 AM
The fact this author is writing under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute should give one pause in considering his claims and rhetoric.
08/23/2006 10:11:14 PM
"...necessary choice, between Darwin and God." Balderdash. I'm reminded of the story about the guy who, on the day of his Bar Mitzvah, confesses to his rabbi that he's really unsure as to the existence of G-d. "Trust me," says the rabbi, "it worries you more than it does Him."
08/23/2006 10:06:51 PM
Again with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm beginning to get suspicious.
08/23/2006 05:48:10 PM
Why is it always "The Bible" vs "Evolution?" It seems very clear that this is not a debate between a Deity or Evolution, but about Christianity vs Evolution. I always think it's interesting that "Intelligent Design" or "Creationists" never, ever, mention any theories of God-produced life other than what is found in Genesis. If they were serious about promoting the idea that The Deity produced the universe, they would be as adament for teaching that Brahma or Shiva, The Great Spirit, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, created the world. INSTEAD, when they do talk about the "creation," it is ALWAYS the Judeo-Christian version. If you ask them about other religions, they are very quite. They do NOT want to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, Zeus or Kali Mai created the world.
08/23/2006 04:29:11 PM
zenmonk, the difference between belief and knowledge. We can ultimately gleen from this experience the fact that perception (aka belief) warps "knowledge" in order to make reality fit the preconceived belief. the same is as true for Klinghoffer as it is for ardent creationists. This exercise of releasing old mental patterns in order to perceive what really IS, is a path that many, on both sides of this issue, cannot take. So the debate continues, wasting mental energy that could be spent on real issues that lay at the root of this debate, like where is the intelligence NOW? What would we do with it if we found it? How would we use it, the "prove" something exists, or to make life better? Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmm.
08/23/2006 04:01:34 PM
It's not true at all. Dolphins rape and attack other dolphins and they don't do that for food. Chimpanzees and other apes have territorial wars, cats indiscriminately kill birds. In fact in Australia, cats are now one of the biggest threats to native wildlife. Klinghoffer is both ill informed and doesn't seem to understand the difference between belief and knowledge.
08/23/2006 12:05:59 PM
The article omits the dispensationalist view, that the Genesis creation story is a divine prophecy covering 7000 years. The last 1000 years (Day 7) is now fast unfolding, when God rests for a thousand years. Barry
08/23/2006 11:55:46 AM
Is it really so important to know if there is a God or not? I mean, isn't having some sort of faith the real question? People who believe in God--myself included--don't get on our knees to ask God to give us a car, a house. We get off our butts and work towards these goals. We know damn well that stuff isn't going to fall from the sky just because we pray. If it makes people less lonely to think there IS a God, so be it. JMO Peace.
08/23/2006 11:44:50 AM
WHY does the cosmology of creation have so much energy behind it? What does it matter if some people have to define an "external source of intelligence" that dinked with matter over 6o billion years (or six days)? What does the world look like NOW? What works NOW? Adaptation of species happens NOW. Look in a petri dish. Look at viruses and bacteria. Most importantly, look at ourselves. WE are evolving and THAT is the biggest issue that any church, ID org or fundamentalist is trying to avoid. Humanity is at a crossing point and some folks would literally rather die than face the idea that there's an INNER Intelligence guiding our evolution. cont
08/23/2006 11:44:34 AM
cont The fight over creationism and evolution is a metaphor for a greater mental jihad that's taking place all over the planet, over the literal, ancient viewpoints of God and man vs. the idea that we are evolving as a species. This fundamental shift is the crossroads that we find ourselves. Like some in Moses' tribe, many want to go back to the prison of their slavery mindset and some need to carry on into this manna-filled wilderness. I believe that the Infinite Intelligence that's present NOW is guiding us into that undefined and indefinable next step in human existence. it's not about what happened eons ago. it's about what happens next....
08/23/2006 11:44:30 AM
I don't see the bible as wrong, perse, but I prefer facts to the stories written some few thousand years ago by men. As humans and storytellers, we are fallible and mistakes and embellishments happen.
08/23/2006 11:39:52 AM
Traiteur, That's a common misunderstanding. The overall entropy of a closed system must increase when spontaneous change occurs. Spontaneously interacting parts of a closed system, such as humans or, more specifically, genetic material, can both gain or lose entropy due to spontaneous change. Intervation from outside the closed system, divine or otherwise, is not required by the second law of thermodynamics for portions of the system to move toward higher or lower states of entropy.
08/23/2006 11:19:12 AM
I see God as the Author of the Laws of Nature (or the Laws of Physics). Since evolution is a natural process and God is Author of Natural Law, there is no conflict for me whatsoever.
08/23/2006 10:54:58 AM
It is all very simple. Darwin is right, the Bible is wrong.
08/23/2006 10:51:11 AM
"His guidance was necessary to produce the chief glory of the world, life. If the process that produced existence and then life was not guided, then God is not our creator." (from Klinghoffer article) Physical scientific laws, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics posits that "order" breaks down to "chaos" naturally. Things decay, in other words. Evolution is exactly opposite of that...it is "chaos" moving toward "order." Evolution is proof that a "force" guides this process. Just because it's not in our time frame (self centered that we are) does not mean there is not a force guiding evolution. If it goes against natural, scientific laws, which would mean that "evolution" as a process would be doomed to break down...then evolution can be seen as proof that god exists. It's a "force" and process that acts against the laws of entropy.
08/23/2006 10:30:10 AM
Godfactor, Neanderthals also made clothing and buried their dead with flowers. It's quite possible that other culturally advanced species similar to us didn't survive because our own species was more aggressive and violent and eventually marginalized them out of existence. As evolved as we are, we undoubtedly have a long way to go... which I believe is why we're here.
08/23/2006 10:07:47 AM
Sorry this part was regarding the neandertals. "after all they only made stone tools which makes them only a bit smarter than other apes."
08/23/2006 10:05:51 AM
One must wonder, if there is no God and evolution only, Why are we the only animals who have attained such high intelligence that we can change our environment? Other than Neandertals there have been no other animals with this level of intelligence. I am not even convinced that the neandertal's were all that intelligent. After all they all disappeared around 10,000 years ago. Why are there not dozens or even thousands of species of high intelligence after all they only made stone tools which makes them only a bit smarter than other apes. Just think about the odds. Billions of species of animals yet only one has "evolved" to this level.
08/23/2006 10:01:13 AM
here's my take on the whole thing, in case anyone ever asks.... This whole "debate" causes us to rethink the very idea of God, not "put him out of business" but to redefine our perceptions of Deity. For me, "God" is not some distant tinkerer, assembling a preplanned project on a galaxy-sized workbench. The idea of a Clockmaker God no longer works in light of the scientific proof of species adaptation. And this gives us a chance to rethink what God means (which, for me, is a divinely-inspired next step). cont
08/23/2006 10:00:53 AM
cont There is an inherent intelligence in all things. Atoms combine intelligently to create molecules. Molecules intelligently combine with others to create newer forms. This intelligence coalesces itself into new expressions. This intelligence works thru calling available energy to change itself. The intelligence is in everything. The intelligence isn't located out there in some distant being, but is spread out across the Universe, creating as it goes. This Intelligence IS God, it's here now, and we can use it.
08/23/2006 09:43:43 AM
I believe that the Bible's interpretation of our Creator is indeed "put out of business" by Darwinism. We have to stop demanding that our Creator must exist in a manner that we ascribe to him or her or it. Random chance does not negate God. Our Creator uses random chance for the very act of our conception. Any group of 100 humans can exist with 70 males and 30 females or some such standard deviation but when you put more than 6 billion people on the earth, almost exactly 50 percent are males and 50 percent are females. That is an example of random chance being well within the attributes of a Creator who is using intelligent design.
08/23/2006 09:39:20 AM
As much as I have admired some of Klinghoffer's previous works, he's essentially a fish out of water when it comes to this area. What he's confusing is the general process of evolution versus causations of that process. An analogy would be if I said that because we have questions about "God", there must not be a "God". ALL the evidence that we have in the scientific community is that there was an evolutionary process that took place over millions and billions of years. What we don't necessarily know is all the details with exactly how that process worked. Shalom, Vern
08/23/2006 09:21:41 AM
BlessedCelt, not all Christians insist on a literal interpretaiton of Genesis. There is a loud vocal minority trying to push their agenda. As to your assertion that sin exists because man is an animal at the core, I feel the opposite...look to the animals to see true sinless behavior. Animals are totally honest, rarely jealous (and never kill because of it) and have no problem expressing themselves openly. They kill purely for food. Man was given the power to reason, an attribute that comes from the "in God's image" thing. We have the power to go beyond survival instinct into compassion and aid, but unfortunately we also have the power to go beyond survival instinct into envy, greed and senseless violence. BTW, I'm still waiting for Sinsonte to elaborate also.
08/23/2006 09:16:01 AM
Jesus as sacrificial lamb also represents spiritual evolution: the realization that blood sacrifices have nothing to do with "appeasing" God (see, by the way, Isaiah 1:11); that was a primitive superstitious notion about God as an external superbeing. Spiritually, we have evolved far enough to begin to recognize that God is within us, and that our choice is not about which fatted calf to slaughter but about how to start living by the direction of the spiritual attributes that God's presence within us provides.
08/23/2006 08:51:24 AM
Sin came into the world because human beings are still, at their core, animals and, like all animals, are often guided by their baser instincts. It is sin to us because, as self-aware beings, we can comprehend the consequences of our actions and have chosen through religion and society to regulate those baser behaviors by making them sinful or illegal. Sin comes from within us -- even the story of Adam and Eve tells us that. The redeeming power of Christ is his willingness to submit to the will of the Father and die for all mankind --the true Passover lamb whose blood protects us from the Angel of Death. His sacrifice was an example for all who follow Him of what we may have to do if we truly love God -- and his resurrection shows us that even death is not the final chapter.
08/23/2006 08:44:09 AM
Great posts, Merlock, H4C and Godfactor! I'm not sure how much I can add to what you said but here goes :) I beleive that God's creation worked through evolution to create all that is in the world. He set things in motion and subtly guided the process. For me, the "missing link" is when God infused humanity with His own Spirit and we becase self-aware. As for the creation story in the Bible, anyone familiar with Torah and Talmud studies knows that the stories in the Genesis are metaphorical and written versions of an oral tradition that spans thousands of years. The Torah is 5 books - the Talmud (the interpretation of those 5 books) is several thousand because each story, each verse has multiple interpretations. Given that the OT is THE scripture of the Jews, and given that THEY don't consider Genisis as a literal history, why do the Christians insist on doing it?
08/23/2006 02:49:36 AM
How can something I have become conscious of be put out of business? Can I just forget the most amazing, joyful, fruitful, compassionate and insightful experiences that I have had in over 50 years of life just because no one can explain it? I may forget some of the details about meeting that beautiful lady while on leave during the 70s, but those times that the Spirit has "moved" I can never forget. Science AND religion both fail at describing, reproducing, and explaining, what being "filled in the Spirit" means. Define and Prove God??? LOL that all ya want? As we see the building blocks of life being pushed further back in time, and existing in space itself, more and more it seems that the universe Was always on the path to being conscious of itself.
08/23/2006 01:22:27 AM
What is interesting is the title. "Darwin WOULD put God out of business." This indicates some time frame. I just wonder when this WOULD happen?
08/23/2006 01:20:44 AM
I wrote a paper in college about this very subject. This was before I became a Christian. I found that the Bible actually illudes to evolution and I am completely convinced that it is true. What bothers me is people like this author who obviously spend a great deal of his time trying to "put God out of business." To me this type of person is so conviced that they know it all that they cannot accept anything that is not provable by science. However, this person as well as many other denyers don't look at the things that they do beleive that are not provable by science. There are literally thousands of things that "science" thought were true only to find out they were wrong. Sorry dude, I am not buying your rhetoric.
08/22/2006 11:10:39 PM
sinsonte, Need for Christ? Maybe we periodically need people of great spiritual insight (which IS what is divine in them and in all of us) to remind us that while there are evil acts, there is no such thing as "sin" separating us from God, for God is and always has been and always will be right there within us. Maybe we need reminders that we are evolving spiritually as well as biologically, and that God is the ultimate spiritual expression toward which we are evolving (this is not really all that different from Genesis; in English translation, it says that knowledge would make man like unto God, and surely wisdom and clear vision and comprehension and reason are spiritual attributes). Maybe we need Christ to help us rescue our faith from the death-grip of dogmatic religiosity.
08/22/2006 10:50:52 PM
If you think that Darwin would put God out of business, you don't have much faith in God. I believe that faith in God and evolution are compatible. However, I also believe that the Bible and evolution are not.
08/22/2006 08:51:10 PM
Help me out with that, would you, sinsonte?
08/22/2006 08:49:03 PM
"science of redemption"?
08/22/2006 08:47:26 PM
"The key point is whether, across hundreds of millions of years, the development of life was guided or not." I think what Mr. Klinghoffer is denying is the "deist" idea of God: that God started loading the Humanity computer game, but then walked away because it was taking too long to load. What I THINK he's saying (and I may be wrong here) is that God had to have been more active in it, and that he was there, tweaking everything to make sure this mutation appeared instead of that one, etc., through the whole process. ID (which seems too vague of a concept to me) seems to say that God popped in every once in a while, creating this or that, making an eye suddenly appear on a blind animal, etc.; I don't think this is necessarily right. Just like in our modern life, God was working subtly; evolution was His tool. God bless!
08/22/2006 07:59:47 PM
As a serious inquiry: Where is there a need for a Christ if Genesis is not literally true? If Adam and Eve are metaphore, how did sin and death enter the world? If evolution is true, why do we need a Christ? How does one reconcile the science of fossils with the science of redemption?
08/22/2006 07:39:29 PM
I would have to agree with you heretic. Evolution in no way destroys the concept of a creator and the truth is there probably will never be a way to "destroy" religion entirely. There are far too many people who just feel that there is something more, including many of the leading scientists of the present era. Evolution, in the sense of the diversity of life, has so much data and proof behind it that to deny it because of a belief system is to close your eyes to the world around you. I just wish that the average person would take the time to research the scientific world. So many debates could be ended with just some basic research.
08/22/2006 07:36:12 PM
As an atheist, I have to say that yes, one can believe in a god/goddess/pantheon of deities and accept evolution. One is science, the other faith.
08/22/2006 07:17:59 PM
I disagree with Klinghoffer's premise. Evolution does not "put God out of business." It merely shows that a certain simplistic notion about God is untenable. And so what? Is it better to cling to a lie than acknowledge that certain beliefs have been wrong? Also, evolution says nothing about how life first formed; it deals with how life proliferated and diversified. Finally, about the list of hundreds of scientists who doubt Darwin: hundreds are still a small percentage of the scientists who accept evolution; and I wonder how many of those who are now categorized as "anti-Darwin" do NOT really reject evolution but merely raise legitimate questions about the incompleteness of the fossil record, which all experts in the field readily acknowledge (the charge that evolutionists claim to know everything - every last detail of every step in every evolutionary thread of life - is a strawman; no serious spokesperson for evolution would ever make such a claim).