• In total there are 29 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Some Notes on Evolution

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

geo wrote:
DB Roy wrote: Christianity is white supremacy: Christian activist Sandy Rios claims that when the left criticizes white supremacy, they attack Christianity.
Just dipping my toes in here briefly. "Christianity" is actually a very nebulous term, almost meaningless without adding a few very important qualifiers. It's true that in many parts of the U.S., Christianity can encompass conservative and nationalist "values", but there are very liberal "Christian" denominations as well. And then there are the Christmas- and Easter Christians who vary greatly in their religiosity and many others who may even keep their politics out of their religion altogether. Technically, a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as saviour, but even that is probably not very consistent among the hundreds of thousands of sects and denominations. Heck, most Catholics have no problem with evolution at all, since the Pope made acceptance of it official in the mid-1980s. I'm not sure why anyone would want to rely on the Pope for such things, but there it is.

In short, attacking Christianity is a bit like trying to grab hold of an amoeba with a pair of tweezers. Good luck with that. Harry is probably on the right track with his suggestion that we try to engage "at the level of values and emotions" but I also agree with you there are problems with the broad umbrella of intellectual cover provided by "Christians" of every kind for their Fundamentalist brethren to pursue anti-truth. Harry seems to be suggesting that our understanding of evolution is not everyone's cup of tea, and that science is a bit like opening Pandora's box. But it's probably very dangerous to give people permission to ever reject reality in favor of delusion or dogma. Is that what God would want? I would suggest that knowledge is not dangerous in of itself, just the twisting and distortion of it for political or personal gain. Beware of charlatans! As such I can relate to what Mahatma Gandhi once said: "Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time."
My point is, you can't know the truth if you don't study it. While many Christians do accept evolution, let's face it: they are, by far, the leading proponent against its acceptance. If there were no Christians in the US, there wouldn't be much of an anti-evolution movement. It makes no sense to politicize something just so you can feel like you have an excuse to reject it. You can't appoint conservative judges and think you can legislate it out of existence. As Gandhi said, truth will always be here, it will endure but so will lies and deception. Evolution is truth and making it a trigger word unacceptable in religious company only makes religious company stupid. My aim here is to show that evolution cuts deep. It's not superficial. It goes to the very meat of things.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

It's true that denial of evolution is based on religious beliefs, maybe not in 100% of cases, but close enough. It wouldn't be Christianity alone that uses scripture to deny evolution, but of course in the U.S., Christian scriptures are still the most prominent religious writings.

I'm thankful that Catholicism and the mainline Protestant sects decided to accept the theory of evolution. We'd be much worse off if they hadn't. Their attitudes toward evolution aren't in line with my own thinking, because they promote theistic evolution, but that is an acceptable compromise.

As recently as a century and a half ago, speaking of Christianity as a single religion wouldn't have made sense to people. The particular sect that one belonged to was one's religion. A Baptist wouldn't have felt much kinship to an Episcopalian just because they both read the Bible. Although schismatism is much less evident today, it's still with us, and the different views on evolution are one indicator. So I agree that opposition to evolution comes from Christians of a certain fundamentalist stripe, but just how many Christians in total oppose it is hard to say. Public opinion polling on the question doesn't come up with consistent results, even when evangelicals are asked. The phrasing of the question seems to make a large difference. Would it be too extreme to talk about Christian support of evolution? Maybe not.

Every issue of National Geographic, that radical magazine, has multiple references to evolution. It's hard to imagine not being able to open its pages for fear of seeing such misinformation. But I guess that the way it is for some folks.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

I once worked with a guy who believed in evolution except that God made man. Everything else was evolution but man was created the way Genesis stated. I don't know what Christian sect he belonged to. While I would wager most Americans who label themselves Christian accept evolution, most don't really understand it. The reason, I think, that most of these Christians accept evolution is simply because they are not adamant Christians but are mildly or lax, quasi-Christian. The type of people who say, "I'm not religious but I am spiritual." Whatever that means.

To the point, I find the idea that evolution is responsible for all life on earth except humankind which was created by God to be utterly unacceptable. I am not willing to compromise on that. If you're going to accept evolution then accept it. Only people who don't really understand evolution would think a God-created human race is an acceptable belief.

We have all the evolutionary adaptations that we see in fish. Fish were the first animals to have a face--two parallel eyes, a nose in the middle below the eyes, a mouth under the nose, the mouth having a lower movable jaw. That was carried forward into amphibians, reptiles, lower mammals and primates. Fish were the first animals to have topness and bottomness, backness and frontness, leftness and rightness. So did all the creatures that evolved from them. Fish were the first creatures to walk on land. The first fish used their fins and stayed immersed enough to water to breathe it. But soon other fish developed the first lungs, their fins were becoming useless because lungs enabled fish to stay out of water indefinitely. First they developed little single bones sprouting off the skeletal mass but once fish became more terrestrial than aquatic, they needed more effective locomotive devices that could instantly adjust to changes in terrain. So, two bones sprouted from the single bone. These two bones work in tandem. From those two bones sprouted a mass of bones and cartilage that formed essentially a hand. That hand had to turn and swivel and the two bones above it worked together to allow that movement. This was passed on to amphibians, reptiles and mammals. We all--all animal forms--have a humerus/femur, an ulna and radius/tibia and fibula, a wrist/ankle and hands/feet with fingers/toes. Bones--fish were the first animals to have them. The first bones were teeth, then a skull formed and the earliest skulls--believe it or not--were made from compressed teeth. That skull belonged to a fish. Then came a spinal cord, a ribcage, a pelvis. All present in the fish first. Then enclosed inside the body were internal organs--lungs, heart, stomach, bladder, liver, intestines. All of which later animals possessed. Same with blood. The first animals to have eyes were fish and we inherited them. Now you may ask about the ear. Fish don't have ears. No they do not. What they have are gills. Once they came up on land permanently, they didn't need them anymore but gills didn't disappear. Instead, they were scrapped and reformed into the bones of the ear. We know this because human embryos form with gills that we can watch eventually become the ear bones. Otherwise, our ears are formed in the same spot on the body where the fish's gills are located. We came from fish. All our evolutionary adaptations were already present in the fish first. Some, such as the gills, got repurposed but we came from fish.

The idea that fish evolved but then God created us from some scratch recipe with all the same evolutionary adaptations as the fish doesn't make any sense.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

DB Roy wrote: Evolution is truth and making it a trigger word unacceptable in religious company only makes religious company stupid.
Agreed. I have never been in a church that preached against evolution and was anything but stupid, even evaluated solely on other grounds. Of course that doesn't change my belief that engaging on grounds of values, and specifically the wrong-headedness of an authority based approach to values, is more likely to open those closed minds.
DB Roy wrote:My aim here is to show that evolution cuts deep. It's not superficial. It goes to the very meat of things.
I would like to hear more of this. I enjoyed your first post very much.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

geo wrote: But it's probably very dangerous to give people permission to ever reject reality in favor of delusion or dogma. Is that what God would want? I would suggest that knowledge is not dangerous in of itself,
Yet those who reject evolution think they see an even greater danger: societal dissolution without firm, acknowledged authority. Religiously based, naturally. The idea that you could set aside questions of authority to "objectively" evaluate the evidence does not make sense to them. So they try to choose their own facts, and assert them because they must be true, rather than accept any threat to the authority they live by.

On the other hand, knowledge certainly can be dangerous in itself.
geo wrote: just the twisting and distortion of it for political or personal gain.
Another term for your "twisting and distortion" is "making use of the knowledge." Political and personal gain is how our society is organized. Claiming that "knowledge doesn't hurt people, people hurt people" is no more accurate than when people use that argument about guns. True in some abstract sense, perhaps, but uselessly so. If we don't manage the potential toxicity of knowledge, we will be unable to manage the toxicity that eventually materializes, because once the genie is out of the bottle, well, you know the argument.
geo wrote: Beware of charlatans!
Like the fossil fuel industry. Except I don't think that's what you had in mind.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:Christianity is white supremacy: Christian activist Sandy Rios claims that when the left criticizes white supremacy, they attack Christianity.

Rios, the American Family Association’s Director of Governmental Affairs and a popular defender of extreme conservative Christian values, suggested that criticism of white supremacy is criticism of Christianity while speaking on her radio program, “Sandy Rios in the Morning” on American Family Radio.

So when the left is talking about white supremacism, they’re talking about the roots of this country. They’re talking about Christianity. They’re talking about hard work, about capitalism and free-market values. They’re talking about everything that has made America what it is. That’s what they mean.
I have never heard of Rios, but this doesn't particularly surprise me. The equation of civil rights with ("godless") Communism has deep roots in the Southern society, including Southern Evangelical Protestantism. Fred Clark has something new to say about the link between racism and Evangelical Christianity almost every week on his "Slacktivist" blog on Patheos Progressive Christianity. From him I learned that Liberty University, of Jerry Falwell's family involvement, began as a haven for white Southerners seeking to escape integration. From him I learned that Bob Jones University had close ties to the KKK until its status as a legitimate university was threatened by the Klan connection in the 60s.

Needless to say, homophobia has given fresh umbrage to that movement's motivation. The Southern Baptists tried hard to put racism behind them, giving prominent status to black pastors, for example. Some of those have felt the need to resign from the denomination over Dear Leader's shenanigans and the embrace of his racism by the members in the pews. The tension over the Divider-in-Chief is tearing the denomination apart as young members and People of Color try to hold them accountable and the aging white gentlemen in charge of things try to avoid the topic (along with the topic of sexual harassment by leading pastors).
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

For those deny evolution and don't think we evolved from fish, explain why we get hiccups.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:I once worked with a guy who believed in evolution except that God made man. Everything else was evolution but man was created the way Genesis stated. I don't know what Christian sect he belonged to. While I would wager most Americans who label themselves Christian accept evolution, most don't really understand it. The reason, I think, that most of these Christians accept evolution is simply because they are not adamant Christians but are mildly or lax, quasi-Christian. The type of people who say, "I'm not religious but I am spiritual." Whatever that means.
My impression is that "spiritual but not religious" is more a thing with "nones," those who don't subscribe to any institution but want us to know they have their own thoughts on divinity. But that's a quibble, anyway. Your co-worker seems to be onto the creationist talking point of macro- vs. micro-evolution. The more sophisticated believers in that distinction will say that there's no proof that any species, not just humans, have evolved from different species. No one lives long enough to have observed that change, so evolutionists are making "a leap of faith" in asserting otherwise. Evolution does occur within an existing species, that is at the micro level, by means of gene drift and mutation, but nothing really new comes of it.

There would seem to be no threat of such weak claims ever winning the day, but I wonder whether creationists might be able to get away with claiming that they're teaching evolution in schools, by substituting micro-evolution for the real thing. In fact, this is the important issue in the whole evolution "debate": how is evolution being taught in public schools? I know of no research on that question. Unless evolution is front and center in biology instruction, biology isn't being taught. But it's not hard to imagine that teachers could focus on the non-threatening micro aspects while ignoring the actual history of life. And what are the textbooks saying?
To the point, I find the idea that evolution is responsible for all life on earth except humankind which was created by God to be utterly unacceptable. I am not willing to compromise on that. If you're going to accept evolution then accept it. Only people who don't really understand evolution would think a God-created human race is an acceptable belief.
Agreed. My assumption about theistic evolution is that all parts of neo-Darwinian theory are accepted, but God is overlaid on it, either by saying he invented the process or by saying he is somehow directing it as it happens. Now that probably indicates some lack of understanding of Darwin, but politically for evolutionists, it's damage control.
The idea that fish evolved but then God created us from some scratch recipe with all the same evolutionary adaptations as the fish doesn't make any sense.
The need to believe that is diminishing, I think. Better science education can make people excited about the wonders of evolution and blah about the magical claims of Genesis.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

DWill wrote: My impression is that "spiritual but not religious" is more a thing with "nones," those who don't subscribe to any institution but want us to know they have their own thoughts on divinity. But that's a quibble, anyway. Your co-worker seems to be onto the creationist talking point of macro- vs. micro-evolution. The more sophisticated believers in that distinction will say that there's no proof that any species, not just humans, have evolved from different species. No one lives long enough to have observed that change, so evolutionists are making "a leap of faith" in asserting otherwise. Evolution does occur within an existing species, that is at the micro level, by means of gene drift and mutation, but nothing really new comes of it.
I think the most desperate and ridiculous claim against evolution is that God made fossils and put them on the earth to give it the appearance of age. But it is at least an acknowledgement that fossils gum up the creationist works. It's an annoying business for them to have to explain them. If we have to assume that all these fossils were, at one time, living creatures that no longer exist and yet bear striking resemblance to creatures currently living then we have accept that, yes, life forms do indeed evolve over time. Sure we could mumble out some garbage that God just creates similar looking creature and some of them died out but the evidence is too close to bearing out what evolutionists assert. It's better to simply assert that God put them there as mere decoration.

Image

I love posting this photo. For years, the creationists said that if wasps, bees and ants were evolved from a single creature, why are there no fossils showing ant-bees or bee-wasps or wasp-ants or bee-ant-wasps? Every fossil of a bee we had going back about 50 million years showed bees were just bees. Where's transitional fossils? Entomologists said that we simply haven't found any fossils that date back far enough. When we do, we will see hybrids. Creationists laughed and said what a convenient answer! We just haven't found any old enough!! Then, some years ago, the above fossil was discovered in the Hukawng Valley in Myanmar. It shows a 100-million-year-old bee. But it has wasp-like traits not found in modern bees! It is, in fact, a wasp-bee! What do creationists say about it? Nothing. They simply don't acknowledge it. But its presence--no pun intended--stung deep. It not only shows a transitional life form but its discovery happened just as the evolutionists predicted it would--go back far enough and we'll find them and that's exactly what happened. And we can't say it was only put there for decor. The specimen is preserved in amber and very obviously a living creature at one time. Micro-evolution disproved.
There would seem to be no threat of such weak claims ever winning the day, but I wonder whether creationists might be able to get away with claiming that they're teaching evolution in schools, by substituting micro-evolution for the real thing. In fact, this is the important issue in the whole evolution "debate": how is evolution being taught in public schools? I know of no research on that question. Unless evolution is front and center in biology instruction, biology isn't being taught. But it's not hard to imagine that teachers could focus on the non-threatening micro aspects while ignoring the actual history of life. And what are the textbooks saying?
Good question. I don't know. It's worrisome that different areas of the country are teaching different things. If Kansas allows ID to be taught, I would never hire anybody from Kansas to teach a biology class. It hurts those Kansans who don't buy that stupid stuff. All education has to be standardized across the country. All must be taught the same thing so we can gauge how much American students actually know and don't know.
Agreed. My assumption about theistic evolution is that all parts of neo-Darwinian theory are accepted, but God is overlaid on it, either by saying he invented the process or by saying he is somehow directing it as it happens. Now that probably indicates some lack of understanding of Darwin, but politically for evolutionists, it's damage control.
It's more than that. In many ways, it's a victory for them because a very large number of Americans accept that. They are willing to go with that idea and if you disagree, you are being intolerant and wanting everything your way. They don't understand that adding god to it doesn't improve it in the slightest. It allows them to hold on to their comforting god beliefs so they'll buy it.
The need to believe that is diminishing, I think. Better science education can make people excited about the wonders of evolution and blah about the magical claims of Genesis.
I'm quite fascinated with evolution. The deeper I study into it, the more fascinating it is. Every time I look at a fish, I see the animal we came from, the animal that gave us everything we have, the animal without whom we would not exist. It is fascinating to think that all life forms on this planet are actually related. We all came from some cell that existed maybe a half a million years after the earth formed. We are everything and everything is us.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Some Notes on Evolution

Unread post

DWill wrote:My impression is that "spiritual but not religious" is more a thing with "nones," those who don't subscribe to any institution but want us to know they have their own thoughts on divinity.
But in practice it's also a way to avoid thinking about their spirituality. It is theoretically possible to have a deep mystical relationship with Life/God/The Oversoul, without interacting with religion on a regular basis. Annie Dillard and Anne Rice and Elaine Pagels seem to have been on that track for a while, each of them. Mary Chapin Carpenter has a poignant song about it. This may very well be related to the lack of professional opportunities for intelligent women interested in religion.

But it may also be related to the compromises needed to have an institutional base capable of perpetuating received wisdom. Religion tends to turn people off because it is pretty much a given that some of its institutional structures will be out-dated and off-putting at any given point in history. And we are moving so fast, culturally, these days that the problem of "old wineskins" or outdated forms is getting acute. To use a gentle but serious example, large portions of Christianity are questioning the whole idea of a theologically educated clergy. It seems unlikely to me that in 30 years many members of any given church will care if their pastor can read Greek (or Arabic or Chinese). When the local Lord could appoint the rector as a sinecure, they also paid them. But to get the pay out of parishioners, the pastor should be good at "tickling their ears."

The longer I live, the more convinced I am that we meet God by encountering other people. So I am deeply suspicious of those claiming spirituality who are not willing to plunge into religion and get their hands dirty. Getting along with other people is what spirituality is really (though not obviously) about. Yes, I know, it's about the meaning of life, but I don't think even the most dedicated yogi has a legit take on the meaning of life that does not pull them into engagement with other people. Pursue some solitude, by all means. Get acquainted with your self. But if you do that and are still running from the life of others, you skipped over some important parts.
DB Roy wrote:I think the most desperate and ridiculous claim against evolution is that God made fossils and put them on the earth to give it the appearance of age.
Yes, and She went to the trouble of burying them in their proper strata of geology, with others from the same Age that wasn't an Age, and with the right matching carbon isotopes in the ratio corresponding to their Age that is not their Age. All for a laugh, evidently, at how easy it is to get people into Hell by just burying fossils. It's a really sick view of God, regardless of what you think of that view of evidence and science. Sort of Stockholm Syndrome run amuck.
DB Roy wrote: Where's transitional fossils? Entomologists said that we simply haven't found any fossils that date back far enough. When we do, we will see hybrids. Creationists laughed and said what a convenient answer! We just haven't found any old enough!! Then, some years ago, the above fossil was discovered in the Hukawng Valley in Myanmar. It shows a 100-million-year-old bee. But it has wasp-like traits not found in modern bees! It is, in fact, a wasp-bee! What do creationists say about it? Nothing. They simply don't acknowledge it.
Yes, it's always striking how ready the Creationists are to move on to the next talking point when the previous one went bust. Much like conspiracy theorists. Their job (in both cases) is not to find truth, but to find talking points to cover the gap between evidence and their worldview.

The examples of transitional fossils claimed to be non-existent and then found are getting to be so numerous that one might think the Creationists would give up on that approach. But since no one in their support structures holds them accountable, they won't. The same specious claims of impossible complexity, etc. will be made in 50 years, but with "new" examples. And the world will still be about to end.
In many ways, it's a victory for them because a very large number of Americans accept that. They are willing to go with that idea and if you disagree, you are being intolerant and wanting everything your way. They don't understand that adding god to it doesn't improve it in the slightest. It allows them to hold on to their comforting god beliefs so they'll buy it.
The "intolerant" idea about mainstream culture is relatively new. I think some of it came from being asked to accept gay marriage, and that this taps into resentment still lurking because people were asked to accept race-mixing, which they had told themselves was wrong.

It requires some values clarification. Are we obligated to teach flat earth just because some people have convinced themselves it is religiously based? No. We can tolerate flat-earthers, but not claims that it has a right to be taught in schools. We probably need to insist on vaccination, and the discussion with Orthodox conscientious objectors will have to be polite but firm. I personally think it would help if we hold religion accountable for basing their religion on prescriptive, not descriptive, claims.
Every time I look at a fish, I see the animal we came from, the animal that gave us everything we have, the animal without whom we would not exist. It is fascinating to think that all life forms on this planet are actually related.
So what's the significance of hiccups? I had not run across that one.
We are everything and everything is us.
That's very mystical and non-dual.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”