Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in Evolution?

[lonewolf23k]

Just saw a documentary about the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and I have to say, it's left me thinking..

...I'm well-educated in the concept of Evolution. I know it's real. I've seen the evidence, and I think favoring a completly supernatural creation theory in it's place is silly.

...On the other hand, I'm a christian, and I believe in God, and I do believe God made the Universe and everything within it. And no argument has ever gotten me to change my beliefs on the subject.

Unlike other christians, however, I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I do wonder about conciliating my understanding of Evolution and my beliefs in God; which is why I believe in Intelligent Design... ...Or at the very least, in an order of creation that seems ordained.

What is everyone's opinions on the subject?

[warspite1805]

The answer would be yes. Most Christians to my knowledge accepts some version of evolution theory. The Evolution Tyheory is even accepted by the Vatican.

[Lurch]

I have the same problem you described, as do many religous people. It's a hard thing to rectify, but most of the time I think if you look at the stories told in the old testament in the context of the times they were written, you can develop some sort of doctrine that accepts their umm...parablistic (? is that a word?) nature. That's what I do, and I'm not really sure there needs to be a contradiction between the two unless you just really want to make it an issue. That's why I don't understand all the hand wringing that goes on about evolution. One is science and one is faith. Faith doesn't require proof does it?

[Joseph Sun]

They can believe evolution was a course of God. The bible uses days to measure the amont of time the Earth was created, but it also says A day to God, can be a thousands years to man, and a thousand years to man, can be a day to him.

Im just using that as an example to say it could of been a longer process then what people think. No reason why evolution couldnt been that process.

[lonewolf23k]

They can believe evolution was a course of God. The bible uses days to measure the amont of time the Earth was created, but it also says A day to God, can be a thousands years to man, and a thousand years to man, can be a day to him.

Im just using that as an example to say it could of been a longer process then what people think. No reason why evolution couldnt been that process.

Really? What part of the bible says that part about time?

[Joseph Sun]

Really? What part of the bible says that part about time?

Im gonna look it up, but Ill get back to you.

Unless someone answers you in the mean time.

[BlairH]

I believe in evolution and I'm a deeply religious Christian.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Really? What part of the bible says that part about time?


The Bible doesn't say that, at least not within the context of Genesis. Some Bible interpreters say that, as a way to try to make what the Bible says mesh with reality. According to Morts, the original Hebrew was somewhat vague as to the units of time - it could be taken to mean literally days, or eras, or whatever. Apparently this is an ongoing point of discussion among Talmud scholars, just as it is among some Christians.

Anyhow, yes, many Christians do also believe in evolution. For what it's worth, the official Catholic position is that belief in evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith. The most hardcore Bible literalists have the hardest time with this, but then, they tend to have the hardest time fitting just about anything other than the Bible into their rather rigid view of reality. Those who view the Bible as more allegorical than literally factual tend to have much less problem meshing these two viewpoints.

[Mike Smith]

I'm a Christian scientist and do believe in evolution. I do not take the Bible literal terms.

[Valmore]

Depends on the evolution theory part in question. I don't believe man evolved from apes. However, other parts of evolution make sense in adaptation to environment terms. And that could very well fit right into God's plans.

[StoneGold]

I don't think believing in intelligent design even precludes the belief of evolution. It's the idea that, OK, evolution happened. But God did it. OK, big deal. Not a strict biblical interpretation, but intelligent design doesn't really work for that anyways.

The problem is in teaching intelligent design over straight up evolution. In that it's teaching belief over theory. There's no evidence that any omnipotent being jump started evolution. But if you believe that God created man, then hey, God created evolution. No big deal. That's the great part about God, omnipotent as God is, you don't need an entire chapter to explain that God created man. Hell, the bible does it in a line. Evolution, that takes at least a chapter.

[Matt]

Depends on the evolution theory part in question. I don't believe man evolved from apes. However, other parts of evolution make sense in adaptation to environment terms. And that could very well fit right into God's plans.

According to evolutionary theory, man did not evolve from apes. They had a common ancestor which both evolved from.

[Gilda Dent]

Mark me up as another Christain who believes in evolution. I have no problem believing that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Gilda

[Lurch]

Depends on the evolution theory part in question. I don't believe man evolved from apes.


The current scientific evidence doesn't support that either. Ape-like creatures...yes. Apes? Not at all.

[StoneGold]

According to evolutionary theory, man did not evolve from apes. They had a common ancestor which both evolved from.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Cheeta!!!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/comic_tot12.gif
http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/195/176/cheetah%20tarzan.jpg

I'm not sure which picture is dirtier.

[Noah Johnson]

I'm an atheist, but I thought I'd offer my perspective.

Evolution through natural selection is a breathtakingly simple and effective model for understanding speciation. It allows for the rise of every species on earth, from elephants to the ebola virus, all delicately interlocked and interdependent, with specific species relationships within ecosystems that are heartbreakingly beautiful in their finely-balanced nuances. All this arises, provably arises, not from a constant campaign of fiddling and fine-tuning, but from a few simple principles that make all the rest happen without even needing maintenance.

If one believes that an entity deliberately created this system, we have no choice but to credit that entity with the finest sense of design in the entire universe.

[Citizen V]

Of course,these days both aspects are belived.By the bible the world is around 5,000 to 7,000 years old.

[Papergirl]

Short answer: Yes, and the term used for it is Theistic Evolution. And, yes, I am Christian and do believe that evolution was involved. :)

~Bev

[DrewTheXenocide]

IIRC, it was Inherit the Wind that made the most logical argument, saying that yes, God made the world and man in seven days, but seven days to us may be different than seven days to God. In our time, it could've been millions of years.

[gorthon616]

Intelligent Design is different then Creationism.......

[Kid Omega]

Intelligent Design is different then Creationism.......

Very true. One is nonsensical horseshit, and the other is nonsensical horseshit wrapped in psuedoscience.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Intelligent Design is different then Creationism.......

The ID proponents want you to beleive that, but really, it isn't. It's just creationism warmed-over and hidden behind a layer of pseudoscience.

We've had this argument many times here. Those interested, do a search for the relevant threads.

[gorthon616]

right. just like evolution was really "science trying to kill religion." whatever. granted alot of ID proponents are using it to push creationism, but strictly speaking it's something entirely different.

but hey, whatever you say must be true.

[lonewolf23k]

Very true. One is nonsensical horseshit, and the other is nonsensical horseshit wrapped in psuedoscience.

I'm not saying I don't believe in Evolution.. I accept the plain evidence of fossil records and other proofs of Evolution.

...I just think that instead of Random chance causing it, it was a higher power that set the dominos in motion.

[JeffreyWKramer]

right. just like evolution was really "science trying to kill religion." whatever. granted alot of ID proponents are using it to push creationism, but strictly speaking it's something entirely different.

but hey, whatever you say must be true.

It's not just what I say. It's the facts.

The current ID movement was designed by a right-wing Christian think tank, the Discovery Institute. The stated goal of the Institute is to cast creationism as a scientific concept, with further goals of reducing the impact of science on society, and pushing in its place a particular brand of socially conservative religious fundamentalism.

ID is a huge scam. It's religion posing as science, and an overt attempt by religious fanatics to push their agenda in the guise of legitimate science.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. The facts are quite well-documented in the following links, among other places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not saying I don't believe in Evolution.. I accept the plain evidence of fossil records and other proofs of Evolution.

...I just think that instead of Random chance causing it, it was a higher power that set the dominos in motion.


What you think is up to you, of course. The fact is, though, there is zero evidence for the existence of this supposed "higher power", and thus no rational reason whatsoever to assume it exists.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Just saw a documentary about the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and I have to say, it's left me thinking..

...I'm well-educated in the concept of Evolution. I know it's real. I've seen the evidence, and I think favoring a completly supernatural creation theory in it's place is silly.

...On the other hand, I'm a christian, and I believe in God, and I do believe God made the Universe and everything within it. And no argument has ever gotten me to change my beliefs on the subject.

Unlike other christians, however, I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I do wonder about conciliating my understanding of Evolution and my beliefs in God; which is why I believe in Intelligent Design... ...Or at the very least, in an order of creation that seems ordained.

What is everyone's opinions on the subject?

Well obviously people are still Christian and also believe in evolution, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.

I mean if we are to take the Bible as the word of God and God tells the truth, then what it says in Genesis has to be right. If evolution is true on the other hand, the whole thing falls apart. I mean if He's not going to fess up on how we got here what else is He covering?

So for me, its 7 day creation pure and simple. Don't let that fool you into thinking that if you believe in creationism that you have to go and push it in public schools. Thankfully this country has a seperation of church and state and so I can have my view, Jeff can have his, and theistic evolutionists can have theirs. And for a government run school, evolution is the most unreligious (in my mind) thing you can teach and so kids learn the accepted science of today and get educated and no one gets to yell that governments are pushing a specific religion in the classroom.

But then again I'm a Biblical literalist who believes in nonsensical horseshit so what do I know.

[Mike Pothier]

Really? What part of the bible says that part about time?

Two places that I can find.

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night.

2 Peter 3:8
However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day

[MacQuarrie]

The hebrew word translated as "day" in the Bible is "yom", which is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean an era, a time period of unspecified length, or a step in a process. It means a particular period of time, but does not necessarily mean 24 hours.

In a nutshell, those who insist on reading Genesis as describing six consecutive 24-hour days end up calling God a liar. They argue that the universe was created with "apparent age", thereby explaining the scientific evidence showing the earth as over 4 billion years old. According to their claim, since Adam was created with the appearance of adulthood, therefore it's legitimate to assert that the universe and earth were made to look as if they were billions of years old.

The only problem with that theory is that it revolves around the notion that the God who defines himself as truthful has deliberately lied to his creations about the nature of their world. Since Paul says "the heavens declare the glory of God," we have to accept that what we see in the heavens is the truth, or accept that God is a liar.

And of course anyone who cares to can go read Genesis 1-3 and see for yourself; at no point does it say that Adam was created as an adult. That is an assumption people read into the text as a result of taking it as a strict chronology.

I'll repeat myself and give this illustration again...

Here's a story: Once upon a time, there was a beautiful young woman who was known far and wide for her beauty and charm. One day, she met a handsome prince from a far-off land. The prince fell in love with her and asked her to marry him. She said she would, and she moved to his castle and they lived happily ever after.

Fairy tale? No. It's a brief biography of the life of Princess Grace of Monaco.

The story of Adam and Eve is a story. Not a history. It is a simplified narrative of some key events in the lives of the first humans, but it only includes those details necessary to get the point of the story across. When you strip away the fairtytale assumptions, there is a scientifically valid, evolutionally sound history lurking underneath. If you'd like, I can tell it to you.

[Sir Tim Drake]

There is no necessary connection between evolutionism and atheism, even though Jeffrey is pretty vocal in his defense of both. Evolutionism is just good science, whereas ID is contrary to the scientific method, as it starts with a specific conclusion it wants to prove, and then looks for evidence to support that conclusion. Legitimate scientists operate by examining the evidence and only then deciding what conclusions to draw from it.

American schools' reluctance to teach evolution is one reason why America is losing its dominant position in the natural sciences. In many science Ph.D. programs in American universities, foreign students now outnumber American-born students.

[MacQuarrie]

American schools' reluctance to teach evolution is one reason why America is losing its dominant position in the natural sciences. In many science Ph.D. programs in American universities, foreign students now outnumber American-born students.
People keep saying that, but if you ask around, you'll find that evolution has absolutely no bearing on any study but evolution. It has no practical application in any of the natural sciences, since they are all looking at what's actually happening now, not at what happened over billions of years past. A molecular biologist is concerned with what's going on under his microscope.

Is America's reluctance to teach about Patrick Henry a reason why we're losing our dominance in political science? No, because while history informs, it is only seldom directly applicable.

America is losing its dominant position in every area of education, not just the sciences, and a much bigger reason than the reluctance to teach evolution is the inability or reluctance to teach math. The average American is hopelessly innumerate. (Hence the popularity of lotteries.) That negatively impacts our aptitude for science a lot more than evolution does.

[Iangould]

Actually:

petroleum geologists use evolutionary theory to identify drilling targets based on fossil evidence.

Molecular biologists study the fossil record because the relationship between the various kingdoms of life (prokaryotes etc) give them guidance as to when particular biological mechanisms evolved and therefore what they're used for.

Anthropologists and archaeologists study human evolution as reflected in mitochondrial DNA to recosntruct how different groups are related and where they may have originated. See, for example, recent attempts to extract DNA from early North American skeletons and compare them with contemporary populations to determine where the Clovis people came from and how and when they reached the Americas;

Computer scientists study evolution because it helps them design better evolutionary algorithms.

Ecologists study evolution because the impact on past populations of major events such as the Chixchulub meteor allow them to better predict the imapct of contemporary events on present day species.

Climatologists study evolution because changes in species prevalence are one of the measures used to estimate past incidents of global warming.

Astronomers study evolution because it gives them a better idea of where to look for off-Earth life.

Bacteriologists and virologists study evolution because it helps them understand the likely future devleopment of diseases such as bird flu.

[gary bolt]

The story of Adam and Eve is a story. Not a history. It is a simplified narrative of some key events in the lives of the first humans, but it only includes those details necessary to get the point of the story across. When you strip away the fairtytale assumptions, there is a scientifically valid, evolutionally sound history lurking underneath. If you'd like, I can tell it to you.

I'm an Atheist who for his whole life has heard christians telling the story about god creating Adam in his image and then using one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. That doesn't sound anything like how evolution works so, yes, please, tell me the scientifically valid, evolutionally sound history lurking underneath that tale.

[Dennis K]

Yes, it's possbile.

[atorifan]

If they have Jews for Jesus, then anybody can fit any theory or belief into their own belief system. reincarnating christians, evolutionary christians. hell they removed purgatory from the canons of catholic faith. so apparently man can decide anything about any religion he wants and have his own cult following.

there was an older version of god creating man and woman, they were both made at the same time, therefor equal. funny how man decided to write that woman was created from man. therefor she was less than a man, and how perfect was that to control women back in the old day (and today). if people decide they need to believe in god, it's funny how they can ignore every inconsistency. and be blind to the fact that everything the bible says is a way to control a society. it's bad to kill tribe brothers because the tribe could be destroyed by losing one warrior. it's bad to steal within the tribe because that will cause fights, weakening the cohesiveness of the tribe v. the world. do not cheat on wives, as the stealing. funny how these tenants crucial to what allowed a tribe to grow and prosper became 'godly' commands

[Calybos]

Evolution, like any scientific theory, says nothing about gods one way or the other. There doesn't have to be a conflict between evolution and a Christian faith, unless of course you're a fundamentalist who takes every word of the Bible literally.

But if you're a fundamentalist, you have problems with EVERY branch of science and logic, not just evolution. To be a Biblical literalist, you have to reject evolution; chemistry; physics; geology; astronomy; and much, much more.

Fortunately, sane Christians don't have that problem, and there's no difficulty reconciling belief in God and Jesus with the findings of science.

[J Dog]

I'm a christian. And I do believe that evolution happened. Okay, there are some big holes, but nobody knows how to explain that.

Kinda like the appendix.

[Kid Omega]

People keep saying that, but if you ask around, you'll find that evolution has absolutely no bearing on any study but evolution. It has no practical application in any of the natural sciences, since they are all looking at what's actually happening now, not at what happened over billions of years past. A molecular biologist is concerned with what's going on under his microscope.

Is America's reluctance to teach about Patrick Henry a reason why we're losing our dominance in political science? No, because while history informs, it is only seldom directly applicable.

America is losing its dominant position in every area of education, not just the sciences, and a much bigger reason than the reluctance to teach evolution is the inability or reluctance to teach math. The average American is hopelessly innumerate. (Hence the popularity of lotteries.) That negatively impacts our aptitude for science a lot more than evolution does.

If I may assume, I think Tim is saying that the reluctance to teach evolution is a clear symptom of a larger problem in the American School System.

Your lottery example is a good one as well. Certain basic concepts (probabilites, natural selection) are not being taught, and this is symptomatic of bigger problems.

I'm not sure what the real problem is.... in Tennessee, it was laziness and apathy. And a good ol' fashioned Baptist stubborn streak.

I hated public school.

*sigh*

[Kid Omega]

I'm a christian. And I do believe that evolution happened. Okay, there are some big holes, but nobody knows how to explain that.

Kinda like the appendix.

Could you elaborate?

[J Dog]

Could you elaborate?
I'm not good at explinations.

[cable guy]

Chalk me up for a Christian who believes in evolution.

[Kid Omega]

I'm not good at explinations.

I was just wondering about the "big holes".

[Forefinger]

Just saw a documentary about the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and I have to say, it's left me thinking..

...I'm well-educated in the concept of Evolution. I know it's real. I've seen the evidence, and I think favoring a completly supernatural creation theory in it's place is silly.

...On the other hand, I'm a christian, and I believe in God, and I do believe God made the Universe and everything within it. And no argument has ever gotten me to change my beliefs on the subject.

Unlike other christians, however, I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I do wonder about conciliating my understanding of Evolution and my beliefs in God; which is why I believe in Intelligent Design... ...Or at the very least, in an order of creation that seems ordained.

What is everyone's opinions on the subject?Yup, I do. It's easier for me to believe the scientific explanations for things than to blindly believe what they teach in Sunday School. I struggle with believing in a higher being at all at times, but there have been a few times in my life where I have felt a guiding force. I know that it sounds hokey, but hey, that's me. I choose to believe that evolution was the process that God used to create us by causing the initial spark of life that allowed the first single celled organisms to form, and also caused the Big Bang to happen before that.

I also like cheese.

[Typo Lad]

I'm an Atheist who for his whole life has heard christians telling the story about god creating Adam in his image and then using one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. That doesn't sound anything like how evolution works so, yes, please, tell me the scientifically valid, evolutionally sound history lurking underneath that tale.

Gene splicing/cloning?

I'd advise anyone interested in the "reconcilliation of both Torah and Science" read this book (http://www.zootorah.com/books/science.html). I actually have it on hold still, but his other stuff is awesome.

[J Dog]

I was just wondering about the "big holes".
Okay, I'm not good at elaberating, but I can explain this.

There are several "holes" in the evolution path. The obvious ones are how did some animals come into existance?

Then you wonder if Darwinism is effective. Finally, the biggest one is: How did it all start?

I mean, if all life came from single-celled protozoa, how did the protozoa come to in the first place? It's a mystery.

[gary bolt]

Gene splicing/cloning?

I'd advise anyone interested in the "reconcilliation of both Torah and Science" read this book (http://www.zootorah.com/books/science.html). I actually have it on hold still, but his other stuff is awesome.

I'm assuming that the gene spicing/cloning response is the explanation for the Adam's rib thing (pretty good explanation, too) but how about the part where Adam is made in the image of god? Did god start the evolutionary process billions of years ago so that man would one day come about?

[Dreadstar]

After having been brought up in a biblicist Freewill Baptist environment, it was QUITE refreshing to find that the vast majority of Christians I later met have ZERO problem reconciling the "Bible as metaphor" and evolution.

Doesn't deter their belief one iota.

[Typo Lad]

I'm assuming that the gene spicing/cloning response is the explanation for the Adam's rib thing (pretty good explanation, too) but how about the part where Adam is made in the image of god? Did god start the evolutionary process billions of years ago so that man would one day come about?

No, man wasn't made in G-d's image. Man was made in man's image. IE: Man was not meant to be a reflection of G-d or an extension of, but to be his own being with Free Will.

King James is an aweful translation.

[Dreadstar]

King James is an aweful translation.

Imagine my surprise when I found out (somewhere in high school, I think) that the King James was a "version."

[tricksterpup]

I believe in Evolution..
http://www.eyetide.com/content/repository/images/ec/01/54/53/1545323.jpg

But was always a bigger fan of the 4 Horseman.
http://www.highspots.com/images/images_125/item_posters_4horsemen_1.jpg

[Michael P]

Okay, I'm not good at elaberating, but I can explain this.

There are several "holes" in the evolution path. The obvious ones are how did some animals come into existance?

Then you wonder if Darwinism is effective. Finally, the biggest one is: How did it all start?

I mean, if all life came from single-celled protozoa, how did the protozoa come to in the first place? It's a mystery.
So there's stuff we don't know yet. That doesn't invalidate the stuff we do know, nor does it mean they're unknowable. We just have to keep working at it. (Incidentally, for all science has done for us, I feel we're still like a child praising himself for learning to tie his own shoes.)

[tricksterpup]

(Incidentally, for all science has done for us, I feel we're still like a child praising himself for learning to tie his own shoes.)
I can only do velcro and slip ons.

[Sam]

People keep saying that, but if you ask around, you'll find that evolution has absolutely no bearing on any study but evolution. It has no practical application in any of the natural sciences, since they are all looking at what's actually happening now, not at what happened over billions of years past. A molecular biologist is concerned with what's going on under his microscope.

This is one of the most patently absurd statements I've seen in a while. Evolutionary theory is a huge part of the bedrock foundation of all modern biology -- it informs virtually every aspect of our modern understanding of how every living thing is related and situated on the tree of life, for starters.

(It helps, of course, that as we sequence DNA we keep finding out that the genetic evidence lines up pretty much perfectly with what evolution would lead us to expect.)

Evolutionary theory is as important to biology as gravitational theory is to aeronautics.

[Rabid Trekkie]

If they have Jews for Jesus, then anybody can fit any theory or belief into their own belief system. reincarnating christians, evolutionary christians. hell they removed purgatory from the canons of catholic faith. so apparently man can decide anything about any religion he wants and have his own cult following.

there was an older version of god creating man and woman, they were both made at the same time, therefor equal. funny how man decided to write that woman was created from man. therefor she was less than a man, and how perfect was that to control women back in the old day (and today). if people decide they need to believe in god, it's funny how they can ignore every inconsistency. and be blind to the fact that everything the bible says is a way to control a society. it's bad to kill tribe brothers because the tribe could be destroyed by losing one warrior. it's bad to steal within the tribe because that will cause fights, weakening the cohesiveness of the tribe v. the world. do not cheat on wives, as the stealing. funny how these tenants crucial to what allowed a tribe to grow and prosper became 'godly' commands

So Jews can't become Christians? I'm sorry, I just don't see what that has to do with anything. And the Catholic church was the one that came up with the idea of purgatory (no evidence in the Bible for it) so if they remove it's more like an author editing his own story rather than someone else doing it for him.

I've heard about the whole two stories of creation thing, even had a discussion about it on here once. Only thing I could ever really find about the history of it was that it came from an old moral tale about Lilith. Sort of like Biblical fanfiction.

Talk to most pastors (at least in my church) and they'll tell you the reason Adam was left alone in the beginning was to understand how much he needed someone else with him. Having a woman come from a man makes them both the same, and having it be from a rib is a symbol of their equality. If it was from the head then women would be over men, and if it was from the foot then men would be over women.

And coming from the religious side of things, the reason everyone follows those rules is because they come from God and not the other way around.

[Forefinger]

I believe in Evolution..
http://www.eyetide.com/content/repository/images/ec/01/54/53/1545323.jpg

But was always a bigger fan of the 4 Horseman.
http://www.highspots.com/images/images_125/item_posters_4horsemen_1.jpg
HAW HAW HAW


It's almost impossible for me to say this (since Benoit was a horseman at one time), but the original 4 were the best.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/4Horsemen.jpg
Ric Flair, WOOOOOO!

[Forefinger]

I can only do velcro and slip ons.
'tard.



SPOON!!!

[Alex Scott]

hell they removed purgatory from the canons of catholic faith.
Wait, since when? Last I checked, Purgatory was still part of the Catholic afterlife. Otherwise, they'd have to completely rewrite canon law in order to eliminate things like venial sins. Are you sure you don't have it confused with Limbo?

[MacQuarrie]

I'm an Atheist who for his whole life has heard christians telling the story about god creating Adam in his image and then using one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. That doesn't sound anything like how evolution works so, yes, please, tell me the scientifically valid, evolutionally sound history lurking underneath that tale.
Happily.

I'm going to skip ahead past the "six days of creation" (see Dr. Hugh Ross' "The Genesis Question" and "The Fingerprint of God" for explanation of the six phases of the billions of years involved) and get right to "Adam and Eve"...

After billions of years of emerging species, the earliest examples of homo sapiens, appear, some
200,000 years ago (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm), give or take.

One individual specimen finally appears that is exactly the genetic mix, probably in Africa. This individual is the ancestor of modern man. God put this individual into a coma, removed a sample of tissue (not necessarily a rib) from his side, and genetically engineered it into a female clone of the first. He then separates these two specimens from the rest of their kind (places them in "the garden") in order to prevent them from cross-breeding with the others of their kind, which would interfere with the propagation of the genetic traits desired.

This probably occurred about 37,000 years ago, as there is evidence of two significant genetic mutations (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/527858.html), one that occurred at about that time, and another that occurred about 5,800 years ago, that appear to correspond to two biblical events...

The first mutation is linked to mankind's development of religion. In other words, at that time, something changed in man that caused him to become aware of his need to worship. I believe this is what the Bible calls "the fall of man."

The second mutation is linked to agriculture, urban settlements, and the first record of written language, and seems to corresond to the relatively sudden migratory urge, when mankind began actively speading out into new lands. A mutation that causes people to migrate and is linked to the development of language would seem to me to be a scientific description of the events of the Tower of Babel, which should have occurred around roughly that time.

To sum up, if we look at Adam as the first self-aware hominid, the original carrier of the mutation described above, then he is functionally for our purposes "the first man" if not the first homo sapiens.

[Sam]

To sum up, if we look at Adam as the first self-aware hominid, the original carrier of the mutation described above, then he is functionally for our purposes "the first man" if not the first homo sapiens.

The idea of Adam as the first self-aware hominid takes sort of a knock from the fact that there's evidence of large-scale, organized tool-creation in the Great Rift Valley dating back far, far longer than the existence of homo sapiens. We're talking upward of a million years on that one.

EDIT -- To add more detail, the ground in the Great Rift Valley, for miles, is *thick* with stone tools. Just absolutely massive numbers of choppers, spearheads, arrowheads, and so forth. Some of them date back as far as 1.8 million years.

It's believed they're the work of homo habilis. The sheer number of tools in question indicates a huge, concerted effort over a very, very long period of time.

[DocZulu]

Just saw a documentary about the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and I have to say, it's left me thinking..

...I'm well-educated in the concept of Evolution. I know it's real. I've seen the evidence, and I think favoring a completly supernatural creation theory in it's place is silly.

...On the other hand, I'm a christian, and I believe in God, and I do believe God made the Universe and everything within it. And no argument has ever gotten me to change my beliefs on the subject.

Unlike other christians, however, I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I do wonder about conciliating my understanding of Evolution and my beliefs in God; which is why I believe in Intelligent Design... ...Or at the very least, in an order of creation that seems ordained.

What is everyone's opinions on the subject?

I grew up Catholic and this was never a problem for us. Unfortunately, it seems that we Americans are very dogmatic and myopic by nature.

[MacQuarrie]

The idea of Adam as the first self-aware hominid takes sort of a knock from the fact that there's evidence of large-scale, organized tool-creation in the Great Rift Valley dating back far, far longer than the existence of homo sapiens. We're talking upward of a million years on that one.

EDIT -- To add more detail, the ground in the Great Rift Valley, for miles, is *thick* with stone tools. Just absolutely massive numbers of choppers, spearheads, arrowheads, and so forth. Some of them date back as far as 1.8 million years.

It's believed they're the work of homo habilis. The sheer number of tools in question indicates a huge, concerted effort over a very, very long period of time.
Chimps also use tools. That's not the criteria. The criteria for the biblical definition of man as applied to Adam would be the ability to recognize the need for and attempt to establish a relationship with a higher being ("God"), something that first appears in the human race 37,000 years ago at the time of the spontaneous mutation described in Science Magazine.

[Paul McEnery]

Chimps also use tools. .
That's not "also".

All chimps use tools. Including us.

[Grazzt]

I'm assuming that the gene spicing/cloning response is the explanation for the Adam's rib thing (pretty good explanation, too) but how about the part where Adam is made in the image of god? Did god start the evolutionary process billions of years ago so that man would one day come about?

My take on the "Man being made in the image of God." (From before I found out it was a mistranslation): God wants us to create things, like he did.

[Cosmic Average]

Okay, I'm not good at elaberating, but I can explain this.

There are several "holes" in the evolution path. The obvious ones are how did some animals come into existance?

I'm sorry, but can you elaborate on this?

Then you wonder if Darwinism is effective. Finally, the biggest one is: How did it all start?

Evolution theory doesn't deal with the origin of life. Evolution only discusses the changes of a population over time.

I mean, if all life came from single-celled protozoa, how did the protozoa come to in the first place? It's a mystery.

Here you go. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3922_52_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp)

[Matt]

The criteria for the biblical definition of man as applied to Adam would be the ability to recognize the need for and attempt to establish a relationship with a higher being ("God"),

So, if that definition is used, those of us who don't believe in the existence of any higher power at all ... aren't technically men by biblical standards?

[Kid Omega]

Okay, I'm not good at elaberating, but I can explain this.

There are several "holes" in the evolution path. The obvious ones are how did some animals come into existance?

Then you wonder if Darwinism is effective. Finally, the biggest one is: How did it all start?

I mean, if all life came from single-celled protozoa, how did the protozoa come to in the first place? It's a mystery.

Go to the library.

Find any book by Stephen Jay Gould.

You will find that these holes are pretty well filled in.

As for Darwinism being effective.... What does that mean? Are you saying that natural selection is ineffective? Ineffective at what? It's a process that happens... not a system. Effectiveness dunt enter int'it.

[Black Atom]

Go to the library.

Find any book by Stephen Jay Gould.

You will find that these holes are pretty well filled in.

As for Darwinism being effective.... What does that mean? Are you saying that natural selection is ineffective? Ineffective at what? It's a process that happens... not a system. Effectiveness dunt enter int'it.

You could possibly judge natural selection's effectiveness by its selection of a race that cannot live harmoniously with its ecosystem as the organisms most suited to survive.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I was too tired to reply to this before, sorry. I agree with what Ian said about the relevance of evolutionary biology.

Is America's reluctance to teach about Patrick Henry a reason why we're losing our dominance in political science? No, because while history informs, it is only seldom directly applicable.

History is extremely relevant to political science and to lots of other fields. For example, if you don't understand the historical context of the current situation in the Middle East, then you won't understand what Middle Eastern terrorists are so angry about. In general, in deciding how to resolve other contemporary problems, it is often helpful to know how those problems came into being.

Or to take a field I'm more familiar with, history is quite pertinent to literary studies. People used to think that a work of literature ought to be read in a vacuum, without considering the author, the historical context, or the intended readership. That idea is now outdated. According to current theory, in order to make sense of a text, you have to be familiar with the historical circumstances that surrounded its creation.

America is losing its dominant position in every area of education, not just the sciences, and a much bigger reason than the reluctance to teach evolution is the inability or reluctance to teach math. The average American is hopelessly innumerate. (Hence the popularity of lotteries.) That negatively impacts our aptitude for science a lot more than evolution does.

I agree that America is losing ground in a lot of disciplines, and I think that the poor teaching of evolution is one of many factors contributing to this.

I loved the story about Princess Grace, by the way.

[Noah Johnson]

You could possibly judge natural selection's effectiveness by its selection of a race that cannot live harmoniously with its ecosystem as the organisms most suited to survive.
Um, one does not criticize blind, impersonal natural forces for their choices, because they don't make any. That's like getting pissed at gravity or math.

[OzBat!]

Math is a right proper bastard... had it in for me, right through high school!

Posting from work, so necessarily hit'n'run: I'm not a Bible literalist. I do however take the bible seriously. Some parts are allegory, some parts are history, some parts are poetry, some parts are prophecy. And it's pretty clear identifying which bits are which.

[Alex L]

...
and be blind to the fact that everything the bible says is a way to control a society. it's bad to kill tribe brothers because the tribe could be destroyed by losing one warrior. it's bad to steal within the tribe because that will cause fights, weakening the cohesiveness of the tribe v. the world. do not cheat on wives, as the stealing. funny how these tenants crucial to what allowed a tribe to grow and prosper became 'godly' commands
Don't walk around randomly killing your peers and don't steal from your peers seems to be fairly consistent in much of the world, not exclusive to any one religion.

But was always a bigger fan of the 4 Horseman.
http://www.highspots.com/images/images_125/item_posters_4horsemen_1.jpg
Mongo McMichael = http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/1925/thumbsdown3bw.gif

I wasn't watching when the group was made up of Flair, Arn, Benoit, and Brian Pillman, but that sounds like a pretty awesome combination.

[Night]

Just saw a documentary about the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and I have to say, it's left me thinking..

...I'm well-educated in the concept of Evolution. I know it's real. I've seen the evidence, and I think favoring a completly supernatural creation theory in it's place is silly.

...On the other hand, I'm a christian, and I believe in God, and I do believe God made the Universe and everything within it. And no argument has ever gotten me to change my beliefs on the subject.

Unlike other christians, however, I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone. But I do wonder about conciliating my understanding of Evolution and my beliefs in God; which is why I believe in Intelligent Design... ...Or at the very least, in an order of creation that seems ordained.

What is everyone's opinions on the subject? Note that most if not all the Christians on the thread are open minded to the thought and the atheists seem to think not. That’s because the idea of a Christian who is not a drooling mass of ignorance is heresy to their religious beliefs. Oh and mentioning that their beliefs are religious is heresy too, so expect a backlash from the previous statement equal to the backlash to your query.

Personally, I think that defining a “day” in Genesis by one spin of our planet doesn’t make sense because said planet wasn’t made until the third “day”. This means that either God’s measure of time is different than ours, our understanding of the scripture is not complete, and/or that God can be completely outside our time. The last of these would also explain prophesy, predestination, and eternity.

In computer programming there is run-time, compile-time, build-time, and development time. Often only the last is real time, and often the other times don’t even happen in the same order that they were developed. Unless the program was another compiler, the program would not even have a concept of the other times. What if those “days” were in development time and we are in a run time totally different than that. Evolutionary theory is as important to biology as gravitational theory is to aeronautics. Oh astronautics and gravity…. I’ll let others speak for me, you might recognise a couple of them.

Isaac Newton
God made & governs the world invisibly & hath commanded us to love & worship him & no other God & to honour our parents & masters & love our neighbours as our selves, & to be temperate just & peaceable, & to be mercifull even to bruit beasts. And by the same power by which {God} gave life at first to every species of Animals he is able to revive the dead & hath revived Iesus Christ our redeemer who is gone into the heavens to receive a kingdom & prepare a place for us, & is next in dignity to God & may be worshipped as the Lamb of God & hath sent the Holy Ghost to comfort us in his absence, & will at length return & reign over us invisibly to mortals till he hath raised up & judged all the dead & then he will give up this kingdom to the father & carry the blessed to the place which he is now preparing for them & send the rest to other places suitable to their merits.. For in Gods house (which is the Vnivers) are many mansions. We are also to enter into societies by Baptism & laying on of hands & to commemorate the death of Christ in our assemblies. by breaking of bread.

Albert Einstein
God does not play dice

Niels Bohr
Einstein, stop telling God what to do

Blaise Pascal
There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy.

Leonardo da Vinci
I have offended God and mankind because my work didn't reach the quality it should have.

Wernher von Braun
It is so obvious that we live in a world in which a fantastic amount of logic, of rational lawfulness, is at work. We are aware of a large number of laws of physics and chemistry and biology which, by their mutual interdependence, make nature work as if it were following a grandiose plan from its earliest beginnings to the farthest reaches of its future destiny. To me, it would be incomprehensible that there should be such a gigantic master plan without a master planner behind it. This master planner is He whom we call the Creator of the Universe . . . One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a Divine intent behind it all."

Johannes Kepler
"I wanted to become a theologian, For a long time I was restless. Now, however, behold how through my effort God is being celebrated in astronomy."

[gary bolt]

Happily.

I'm going to skip ahead past the "six days of creation" (see Dr. Hugh Ross' "The Genesis Question" and "The Fingerprint of God" for explanation of the six phases of the billions of years involved) and get right to "Adam and Eve"...

After billions of years of emerging species, the earliest examples of homo sapiens, appear, some
200,000 years ago (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm), give or take.

One individual specimen finally appears that is exactly the genetic mix, probably in Africa. This individual is the ancestor of modern man. God put this individual into a coma, removed a sample of tissue (not necessarily a rib) from his side, and genetically engineered it into a female clone of the first. He then separates these two specimens from the rest of their kind (places them in "the garden") in order to prevent them from cross-breeding with the others of their kind, which would interfere with the propagation of the genetic traits desired.

This probably occurred about 37,000 years ago, as there is evidence of two significant genetic mutations (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/527858.html), one that occurred at about that time, and another that occurred about 5,800 years ago, that appear to correspond to two biblical events...

The first mutation is linked to mankind's development of religion. In other words, at that time, something changed in man that caused him to become aware of his need to worship. I believe this is what the Bible calls "the fall of man."

The second mutation is linked to agriculture, urban settlements, and the first record of written language, and seems to corresond to the relatively sudden migratory urge, when mankind began actively speading out into new lands. A mutation that causes people to migrate and is linked to the development of language would seem to me to be a scientific description of the events of the Tower of Babel, which should have occurred around roughly that time.

To sum up, if we look at Adam as the first self-aware hominid, the original carrier of the mutation described above, then he is functionally for our purposes "the first man" if not the first homo sapiens.

Your Adam and Eve response (and Typo Lad's as well) surprises me. I wasn't expecting anything quite so science-like. I sure don't know scripture inside out like some people (I'm not very interested and don't give it much credence, after all) but you are treating Adam and Eve like they never really existed as real individuals and yet Christians usually pass Adam off as the son of god and him and Eve as the parents of Cain and Able and the progenitors of our whole species - the ones who literally provided the original seed for all of humanity. I'm surprised to think that modern Christians (and Jews) think god was dabbling in gene splicing and genetics when he used part of Adam to create Eve. Biblical tales and traditional belief make it sound more like a truly miraculous occurrence.

In my Atheistic trust in evolution I also find your description of the "first mutation" rather surprising. From my perspective humanity would have emerged from more primitive times and species reeling with superstitions. These superstitions would have served to provide order and purpose in an otherwise vast and intimidating universe. The sun and moon rising and setting in the sky, the turning of the seasons, death, pregnancy, disease, all these enormous topics - all can be explained and given purpose if a guiding force (or a whole host of forces (gods))is responsible for them. Over time primitive, tribal superstitions simply became more structured and institutionalized as they were passed down through the great oral traditions of story telling. In fact my current wine-induced ramblings bring me to why I think religion exists. That is to explain why we are here and to provide a moral and ethical framework in which cultures and societies can exist. Yes, I’m saying that people created god(s), culture, societies, morals and ethics.

Your second mutation isn't a mutation at all. Evolution gave us an upright, bipedal structure combined with excellent binocular vision, opposable thumbs and a brain large enough for forming strategies in order for us to be excellent hunting animals (those are all products of mutation) - animals capable of working in groups, forming strategies and able to create tools. Language would have evolved out of hunters needing to convey information within the group. Eventually our big brains came upon the idea of planting seeds and performing rudimentary agriculture. The rest writes itself from that point to now. This is all simplification, I realize, but humanity for the longest time simply made one small discovery and improvement after another for centuries and millennia until we finally lucked into the big ones which include fire, language, tool production, and agriculture. Once we stumbled upon agriculture we lucked into leisure time, division of labour and all kind of other behaviours and benefits that led to “civilization”. Our big brains probably didn’t evolve for what we are doing with them now but they sure are handy for all kinds of stuff.

[gary bolt]

Hey, Blaise Pascal, judgmental much?

[Paul McEnery]

Hey, Blaise Pascal, judgmental much?
Yeah, I know.

I love Pascal, but that one's sucky.

[Paul McEnery]

In computer programming there is run-time, compile-time, build-time, and development time. Often only the last is real time, and often the other times don’t even happen in the same order that they were developed.
Ah yes, but in computer programming, there's nicking from other people's work, there's the horror of meeting deadline, there's that tweaker down the hall who screwed up his code, and then there's the key email that got sent but never got read...

That's the way the world works.

Theft, necessity, dumbassery, and mistakes.

It's foolish to build a theology on perfection when there's not only no such thing, and everything creative comes from a combination of the above, but perfection, well, it doesn't actually mean anything in the abstract anyway.

[Sam]

Oh astronautics and gravity…. I’ll let others speak for me, you might recognise a couple of them.

Gosh. Scientists in the past believed in God!

Although it's worth noting that Newton belonged to a heretical sect of alchemists, so his conception of God was probably rather different from yours. And Albert Einstein was always very clear that he didn't actually believe in God, if people asked him about it -- the "God does not play dice" thing was a useful way to describe his problems with quantum randomness, since he believed the universe functioned according to set, deterministic laws.

Not that any of that is terribly relevant to the question of how important evolutionary theory is to biology. (Ie, very.)

[the film freak]

As far as I know evolution doesn't exactly confirm or deny the existence of God it also doesn't confirm or deny whether or not Jesus Christ is the messiah. So I say yes it's possible.

[Michael P]

I'm surprised to think that modern Christians (and Jews) think god was dabbling in gene splicing and genetics when he used part of Adam to create Eve. Biblical tales and traditional belief make it sound more like a truly miraculous occurrence.

You don't find the idea of a tweak in the DNA giving birth to sentience miraculous?

[Typo Lad]

You don't find the idea of a tweak in the DNA giving birth to sentience miraculous?

Part of the "offense" of people like Rabbi Slifkin who get into the Science of the Torah is actually that people feel they are making the reverse argument. As in 'if you quantify a miracle, then you are denying G-d did it."

Hnh? We're just pointing out how He did it...

[Andy S.]

..Albert Einstein was always very clear that he didn't actually believe in God, if people asked him about it -- the "God does not play dice" thing was a useful way to describe his problems with quantum randomness, since he believed the universe functioned according to set, deterministic laws.


From God and Science.Org (a Christian site)-

Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Which backs up your statement, however...

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Which suggests that he did, ultimately, believe in a God, just not the personal one.

[Michael P]

Part of the "offense" of people like Rabbi Slifkin who get into the Science of the Torah is actually that people feel they are making the reverse argument. As in 'if you quantify a miracle, then you are denying G-d did it."

Hnh? We're just pointing out how He did it...
These people need to read more Terry Pratchett.

Just because you know how it's done doesn't make it any more wondrous.

[Sam]

That's not "also".

All chimps use tools. Including us.

It's also worth noting that Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees in the wild displaying ritualized, suspiciously religious behavior. Members of the tribe she was observing would go well out of their way to detour to a fairly spectacular local waterfal and engage in ritual dances in front of it. Sometimes the whole tribe would go, form a semicircle, and perform an elaborate dancing ritual.

[K'Nort]

I've never taken the Bible literally. It was done by people. With political agendas. Plus there are inevitable errors. Some argue that God ensures that everything stays accurate, but I don't consider him very hands-on.

In terms of evolution, and in the most simplistic terms, I look at it as God set off the Big Bang and it all unfolded scientifically from there.

[Dreadstar]

In terms of evolution, and in the most simplistic terms, I look at it as God set off the Big Bang and it all unfolded scientifically from there.

The Deist view.

[Daniel Lewis]

I'm Christian, and I don't believe in evolution. To paraphrase Rabbi Gamaliel in Acts: "If something is of God, it will continue on. If it isn't of God, it is of man, and will eventually fall on it's face. There's no use fighting it."

Evolution will eventually be filed away with all the other flawed theories, and science will pick up a new one that better fits the facts and run with it.
----------------------------
Incidentally, this whole evolution debate was how I learned as a little boy that Christopher Reeve was not really Superman. In school I watched some film on the dinosaurs, narrated by Chris Reeve. In it, he said that life on Earth had evolved over billions of years. When I learned that that is not what the Bible teaches, my mental process went something like this:

FACT:Superman does not lie.
FACT:God does not lie.
FACT:Christopher Reeve is Superman.
DILEMMA:Chris Reeve lied to me.
CONCLUSION: Chris Reeve is not Superman. :D

[Typo Lad]

Cristians quoting Rabbanim scare me.

And that quote makes little sense to me. Source?

[Sir Tim Drake]

It's also worth noting that Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees in the wild displaying ritualized, suspiciously religious behavior. Members of the tribe she was observing would go well out of their way to detour to a fairly spectacular local waterfal and engage in ritual dances in front of it. Sometimes the whole tribe would go, form a semicircle, and perform an elaborate dancing ritual.

"Give us this day our daily bananas..."

(I know I've used that joke before, but it seems appropriate to recycle it.)

[Daniel Lewis]

Cristians quoting Rabbanim scare me.

And that quote makes little sense to me. Source?

The Christian Book of Acts, Chapter 5. Jesus' apostles are preaching that he has risen from the dead, and the Sanhedrin is debating over what to do with them. It quotes Gamaliel. Link. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:%2027-40&version=49)

And why does it scare you? While wrong about Jesus( ;) ), Rabbinical Judaism has lots of good stuff.

[Sam]

I'm Christian, and I don't believe in evolution. To paraphrase Rabbi Gamaliel in Acts: "If something is of God, it will continue on. If it isn't of God, it is of man, and will eventually fall on it's face. There's no use fighting it."

So, wait. How do you explain species extinction? Man didn't create the Dodo or the Passenger Pigeon or the Triceratops. They didn't continue on.

[Typo Lad]

The Christian Book of Acts, Chapter 5. Jesus' apostles are preaching that he has risen from the dead, and the Sanhedrin is debating over what to do with them. It quotes Gamaliel. Link. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:%2027-40&version=49)

And why does it scare you? While wrong about Jesus( ;) ), Rabbinical Judaism has lots of good stuff.

It scares me because usually it's out of context.

But since it's the NT, then I can (no offense meant) feel free to ignore it as a work of drama with some decent ideas sprinkled here and there.

[Daniel Lewis]

So, wait. How do you explain species extinction? Man didn't create the Dodo or the Passenger Pigeon or the Triceratops. They didn't continue on.

I'm talking the realm of ideas. I didn't mean it in the sense that you took it, or else one would argue that God is responsible for Chevy discontinuing the Camaro.*


*- God doesn't sin. :p

[Daniel Lewis]

It scares me because usually it's out of context.

But since it's the NT, then I can (no offense meant) feel free to ignore it as a work of drama with some decent ideas sprinkled here and there.

Luke is considered the most reliable of NT writers(among skeptics). And its really good advice, any way you look at it.

[Michael P]

I'd like to see The Gospel of Thomas.

"And lo, it came to pass, at least this is what I heard, I can't be a hundred percent certain..."

[Daniel Lewis]

I'd like to see The Gospel of Thomas.

"And lo, it came to pass, at least this is what I heard, I can't be a hundred percent certain..."

Hehe. Though, I really would like to read that, having read the extant parts of the Gospel of Judas.

[Black Atom]

Um, one does not criticize blind, impersonal natural forces for their choices, because they don't make any. That's like getting pissed at gravity or math.

But you have to admit, evolution fucked up pretty bad leaving us in charge.

Plus, I know lots of people who hate math.

[Sam]

I'm talking the realm of ideas. I didn't mean it in the sense that you took it, or else one would argue that God is responsible for Chevy discontinuing the Camaro.*


*- God doesn't sin. :p

Ah, ok. I mistook you due to the fact that old-time creationists actually used to argue, in all seriousness, that God would never allow a species he'd created to vanish from the Earth. Related arguments were used against the fossil record itself, early on -- the idea of some species vanishing and new ones appearing didn't mesh well with the old single-creation idea.

Without evolution, the idea of a single-creation event does take some real explaining, since you need to work out why Triceratops stopped appearing so long ago, and why parakeets only showed up so recently in the fossil record.

[Sam]

I'd like to see The Gospel of Thomas.

"And lo, it came to pass, at least this is what I heard, I can't be a hundred percent certain..."

I always liked Thomas. He's the only one of the bunch who responded to hearing about the ressurection the way you'd expect a sane person to.

[Kid Omega]

Evolution will eventually be filed away with all the other flawed theories, and science will pick up a new one that better fits the facts and run with it.


can you show us some flaws?

[MacQuarrie]

So, if that definition is used, those of us who don't believe in the existence of any higher power at all ... aren't technically men by biblical standards?
No, not at all. You may not believe in a higher power, but you have the capacity to make that decision for yourself. The non-human hominids do not.

As somebody else pointed out, chimps engage in what appears to be religious behavior. The difference between them and us is this: we have the ability to believe in and acknowledge God and yet rebel against him.

Animals are slave to their instincts. They do what they are wired to do. Chimps engage in ritualized behavior because their brains are made that way. They do not make a conscious choice to believe or disbelieve in whatever it is their rituals are meant to honor. They "worship" because whatever it is they're "worshiping" is real to them. They eat when they're hungry, sleep when they're tired, and respond to whatever the stimuli is that motivates them.

We've made progress from that point. We've learned to disobey and defy. We have the capacity to do crazy irrational things that go against all our instincts BECAUSE they go against all our instincts.

Have you ever seen the moment when a toddler finally grasps the idea that he can say "no" just his parents do? Instantly, he learns to lie, to rebel, and he delights in it. The sudden realization that you don't have to do what you're told, that you don't have to do what you want to do, that you don't have to be honest, is very powerful. Kids will say no to things they want, just because they enjoy the power of rebellion. They will lie just to see if they can.

Suppose for a moment that God is real. Suppose the prehistoric hominids were acutely aware of his existence, and, like the chimps, instinctively performed their rituals toward him. But if he wants to produce a species that CHOOSES to honor him, he needs to find that one with the mutation that allows him to rebel. One that can say "yes, God is there, but I don't have to listen to him." Then he can attempt to earn that creature's love.

Adam was the ape who said no.

[Iangould]

Animals are slave to their instincts. They do what they are wired to do. Chimps engage in ritualized behavior because their brains are made that way. They do not make a conscious choice to believe or disbelieve in whatever it is their rituals are meant to honor. They "worship" because whatever it is they're "worshiping" is real to them. They eat when they're hungry, sleep when they're tired, and respond to whatever the stimuli is that motivates them.

Not according to primatologists.

[MacQuarrie]

Your Adam and Eve response (and Typo Lad's as well) surprises me. I wasn't expecting anything quite so science-like. I sure don't know scripture inside out like some people (I'm not very interested and don't give it much credence, after all) but you are treating Adam and Eve like they never really existed as real individuals and yet Christians usually pass Adam off as the son of god and him and Eve as the parents of Cain and Able and the progenitors of our whole species - the ones who literally provided the original seed for all of humanity. I'm surprised to think that modern Christians (and Jews) think god was dabbling in gene splicing and genetics when he used part of Adam to create Eve. Biblical tales and traditional belief make it sound more like a truly miraculous occurrence.
Oh, no, on the contrary. I absolutely believe Adam and Eve were real individuals. I just happen to think they were four feet tall and very hairy, with a low forehead and pronounced lower jaw. They were the specimens who introduced that mutation I cited, and they've been fictionalized and allegorized in Genesis in order to explain them to primitive peoples. How would you explain genetic mutation to a five-year-old?

In my Atheistic trust in evolution I also find your description of the "first mutation" rather surprising. From my perspective humanity would have emerged from more primitive times and species reeling with superstitions. These superstitions would have served to provide order and purpose in an otherwise vast and intimidating universe. The sun and moon rising and setting in the sky, the turning of the seasons, death, pregnancy, disease, all these enormous topics - all can be explained and given purpose if a guiding force (or a whole host of forces (gods))is responsible for them. Over time primitive, tribal superstitions simply became more structured and institutionalized as they were passed down through the great oral traditions of story telling. In fact my current wine-induced ramblings bring me to why I think religion exists. That is to explain why we are here and to provide a moral and ethical framework in which cultures and societies can exist. Yes, I’m saying that people created god(s), culture, societies, morals and ethics.
I disagree, but without having been there to observe it, it's all speculation and "faith" on both our parts.

Your second mutation isn't a mutation at all. Evolution gave us an upright, bipedal structure combined with excellent binocular vision, opposable thumbs and a brain large enough for forming strategies in order for us to be excellent hunting animals (those are all products of mutation) - animals capable of working in groups, forming strategies and able to create tools. Language would have evolved out of hunters needing to convey information within the group. Eventually our big brains came upon the idea of planting seeds and performing rudimentary agriculture. The rest writes itself from that point to now. This is all simplification, I realize, but humanity for the longest time simply made one small discovery and improvement after another for centuries and millennia until we finally lucked into the big ones which include fire, language, tool production, and agriculture. Once we stumbled upon agriculture we lucked into leisure time, division of labour and all kind of other behaviours and benefits that led to “civilization”. Our big brains probably didn’t evolve for what we are doing with them now but they sure are handy for all kinds of stuff.
It's not "my" mutation; it's from that article I linked to. Approximately 5800 years ago, something changed in the physiology of the human brain, or at least in some human brains, and it's a mutation found in a significant portion of the population today. It appears to be linked specifically to the impulse to migrate and establish new settlements and to the use of language, particularly written language. Both of those impulses are attributed in the Bible to God's actions regarding the Tower of Babel. I find that interesting. Those with a naturalistic worldview will of course hold a different opinion, but I see it as a scientific explanation for an occurence that the Bible specifically describes, a relatively sudden and recent change in human behavior.

[MacQuarrie]

Not according to primatologists.
Do chimps evangelize each other? Do they each choose individually to take part or sit out these rituals that they conduct? Is there any evidence that they make a conscious decision to be part of the church of the Great Ape or reject it?

We don't know, but it doesn't seem to be that way. They do these rituals because they do them.

[Matt]

Animals are slave to their instincts. They do what they are wired to do...

Ah, you're referring to the concept of 'self awareness' which, last I checked, has nothing at all to do with any higher power and humans are the only known living thing on Earth to possess.

[MacQuarrie]

I always liked Thomas. He's the only one of the bunch who responded to hearing about the ressurection the way you'd expect a sane person to.
More importantly, he's the only one who responded the way Jesus told them to. He specifically said that if anybody claimed he had returned, to not take their word for it.

Matthew 24:23-28
At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.

"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
"Doubting" Thomas is actually the only one who was paying attention.

[Iangould]

Do chimps evangelize each other? Do they each choose individually to take part or sit out these rituals that they conduct? Is there any evidence that they make a conscious decision to be part of the church of the Great Ape or reject it?

We don't know, but it doesn't seem to be that way. They do these rituals because they do them.

But some groups do them and soem groups don't.

We also know from studies of chimps in captivity that they DO have an understanding of what we would call morality.

For example, chimps are much less likely to cheat other chimps in games if a human or other primate is watching them do it.

Sounds a lot like a sense of "shame" to me.

Captibve chimps also, for example, express regret for actiosn ushc as biting or otherwise huritng attendants; indicate that they remember their pre-captivity families and would likw to go back to them and express fear and concern about future events.

Chimps have a "theory of mind" (an awareness of the fact that other beings are conscious and similar to themselves in reasoning capability) comparable to those of human children of around age five.

If chimps are mindless soulless automata, so are toddlers.

[MacQuarrie]

Ah, you're referring to the concept of 'self awareness' which, last I checked, has nothing at all to do with any higher power and humans are the only known living thing on Earth to possess.
Well, yes, of course I am, but there's no proof one way or the other whether it has anything to do with any higher power. Your statement is as much a statement of belief as mine.

But as I asserted earlier, it's been cited that chimps engage in behavior that appears to be religious, but self-aware mankind is the only creature known to exist that has the capacity to simultaneously believe in and defy God. Self-awareness is what makes that possible. Certainly self-awareness is what drives the urge to worship. People worship other people, ideas, political ideals, objects, just about anything that will hold still long enough. We seem to have this deep-seated need to honor and elevate anything we think is greater than ourselves. We also have the ability to insult, dismiss and tear down anything that is demonstrably greater than ourselves, and this is also a direct result of our self-awareness.

I think it has everything to do with a higher power.

[MacQuarrie]

But some groups do them and soem groups don't.

We also know from studies of chimps in captivity that they DO have an understanding of what we would call morality.

For example, chimps are much less likely to cheat other chimps in games if a human or other primate is watching them do it.

Sounds a lot like a sense of "shame" to me.

Captibve chimps also, for example, express regret for actiosn ushc as biting or otherwise huritng attendants; indicate that they remember their pre-captivity families and would likw to go back to them and express fear and concern about future events.

Chimps have a "theory of mind" (an awareness of the fact that other beings are conscious and similar to themselves in reasoning capability) comparable to those of human children of around age five.

If chimps are mindless soulless automata, so are toddlers.
I'm not saying they are mindless soulless automata.

But within a given group, do you see some chimps refusing to join in the rituals? Do you see some chimps initially joining and later rebelling? Is there anythign to indicate that the chimps volitionally choose whether or not to worship? Not as far as I know.

Is anybody teaching chimps sign language a la Koko? There are some interesting questions to ask...

[Paul McEnery]

Well, yes, of course I am, but there's no proof one way or the other whether it has anything to do with any higher power. Your statement is as much a statement of belief as mine.

But as I asserted earlier, it's been cited that chimps engage in behavior that appears to be religious, but self-aware mankind is the only creature known to exist that has the capacity to simultaneously believe in and defy God. Self-awareness is what makes that possible. Certainly self-awareness is what drives the urge to worship. People worship other people, ideas, political ideals, objects, just about anything that will hold still long enough. We seem to have this deep-seated need to honor and elevate anything we think is greater than ourselves. We also have the ability to insult, dismiss and tear down anything that is demonstrably greater than ourselves, and this is also a direct result of our self-awareness.

I think it has everything to do with a higher power.
And you're completely wrong.

Chimps have everything we have, but to a lesser extent.

It's entirely a matter of degree.

We are chimps.

[MacQuarrie]

And you're completely wrong.

Chimps have everything we have, but to a lesser extent.

It's entirely a matter of degree.

We are chimps.
Why is it that you get to make dogmatic statements of fact regarding things that are unproven, but if a religious person does it it's bigotry and ignorance?

You are as dogmatic as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

[Kid Omega]

Why is it that you get to make dogmatic statements of fact regarding things that are unproven, but if a religious person does it it's bigotry and ignorance?

You are as dogmatic as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

He's not saying that anyone is damned to eternal fiery torment for not thinking that we're essentially monkeys.

That might be the difference.

We're primtes. Our genetic code is damn near identical to our chimp cousins. We share behavioural patterns. Paul is making a very innoffensive point. It was a point made repeatedly by Douglas Adams, and all we did was laugh. Why get so upset about it?

-a

[Winslow]

Most Christians, even adamant fundamentalist "creationist" ones that believe in a "young earth" agree that evolution is a credible theory at some level.

Survival of the fittest, and adaptation through genetic mutation within a specie are pretty much accepted and indisputable. This is poften termed micro-evolution.

I think where many Christians struggle with the theory of evolution is specie to specie adaption, or that all of life has a common ancestor, or what is often coined "macro-evolution."

My biology education was poor. So concepts of macro-evolution confuse me (to be honest). I've tried to read up on it at talkorigins.com, but it still confuses me (can't teach an old dog . . .heh . . .) :D

I'm a Christian - believe some sort of evolution took place (although I'm still reconciling it with my theology), and believe in an old earth (4.5 billion years old).

[Winslow]

Chimps have a "theory of mind" (an awareness of the fact that other beings are conscious and similar to themselves in reasoning capability) comparable to those of human children of around age five.

If chimps are mindless soulless automata, so are toddlers.

So the sentience of a chimp is comparable to a five year old?

Call me a skeptic.

Especially when it comes to language.

[Wesley Dodds]

My biology education was poor. So concepts of macro-evolution confuse me (to be honest). I've tried to read up on it at talkorigins.com, but it still confuses me (can't teach an old dog . . .heh . . .)

Ah, you poor bastard. Biology is one of the most incredible subjects you'll ever study -- it teaches you what we are, where we came from, our place in the universe, the history of our planet, the nature of life and the world.

You can't love God unless you learn about his Great Work!

Why is it that you get to make dogmatic statements of fact regarding things that are unproven, but if a religious person does it it's bigotry and ignorance?

You are as dogmatic as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

The difference is that the religious person bases their "statement of fact" on revelation while Paul bases his on learning, observation, logic, the scientific method, and thinking.

Imagine someone saying "That Newton is as dogmatic as Jerry Falwell, he claims it's gravity, but what proof does he really have? I say it's God's love, because revelation and tradition tell me."

Besides, Paul's using a metaphor:

Chimps have everything we have, but to a lesser extent.

It's entirely a matter of degree.

He's not saying "we are chimps" in the sense that "humans are chimpanzees", (a false claim, they're difference species). He's saying that the division of the animal kingdom into humans and others is completely arbitrary. It's wrong to torture a child. It's also wrong to torture a chimp.

[Winslow]

You can't love God unless you learn about his Great Work!

Very true!

It's called God's general revelation

"Psalm 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God. . . ."

;) :D

[Sam]

Ah, you're referring to the concept of 'self awareness' which, last I checked, has nothing at all to do with any higher power and humans are the only known living thing on Earth to possess.

Actually, there's strong evidence of self-awareness in at least three other animals -- chimps, dolphins, and the African Gray parrot. Chimps and African Grays display intelligence somewhere in line with a 3 to 5 year old human child. Dolphin intelligence is much harder to gague; we know they're smart, but their methods of communication and behavior are so alien from ours that it's hard to nail down in any substantive way.

(Of course, given that chimpanzees are far more genetically similar to humans than they are to gorillas or orangutangs, they should be reclassified as a second species of human anyway.)

[Dreadstar]

Dolphin intelligence is much harder to gague; we know they're smart, but their methods of communication and behavior are so alien from ours that it's hard to nail down in any substantive way.

They figured out what dolphins are saying. It boils down to various nuances of "Hey you hairy creature with the unsightly appendages, give me a fish."

[JeffreyWKramer]

Do chimps evangelize each other? Do they each choose individually to take part or sit out these rituals that they conduct? Is there any evidence that they make a conscious decision to be part of the church of the Great Ape or reject it?

We don't know, but it doesn't seem to be that way. They do these rituals because they do them.


Interestingly, chimps have some sense of culture without religion being involved. In that particular way, they may be more advanced than us. They have ritual, but there's no evidence this is any sort of "worship" at all. There are lots of rituals which serve purposes other than worship.

[Sam]

He's not saying "we are chimps" in the sense that "humans are chimpanzees", (a false claim, they're difference species). He's saying that the division of the animal kingdom into humans and others is completely arbitrary. It's wrong to torture a child. It's also wrong to torture a chimp.

It's particularly arbitrary in this case, though. Chimpanzees are classified as great apes, while we are classified as hominids. However, the degree of genetic divergence between our species and chimpanzees is much, much smaller than the degree of divergence between chimpanzees and any other species in the great ape family.

If the rules of our own classification system were applied faithfully in this case, we would have to either reclassify chimpanzees as hominids, or ourselves as great apes.

[Sam]

They figured out what dolphins are saying. It boils down to various nuances of "Hey you hairy creature with the unsightly appendages, give me a fish."

A few dolphins have actually learned a handful of English words.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
-- Carl Sagan

Dolphins are also the only species other than ourselves which consistantly displays acts of altruism toward different species without deriving any apparent reward whatsoever. That stuff about dolphins saving drowning humans isn't apocryphal, there are several verified instances. (Less well verified instances date back pretty much as far back as we've been going out into the ocean on boats.) There's even a single recorded instance where a pod of dolphins helped a beached whale back out to open water, seemingly for no other reason than to be nice.

Dolphins are smart. There are scientists who seriously argue that they may actually possess human-level intelligence -- albeit so different that it's difficult to relate to. (Dolphin brains work very, very different from our own. For instance, the two hemispheres of their brains sleep in shifts, since a dolphin will drown if it loses consciousness.)

[MacQuarrie]

He's not saying that anyone is damned to eternal fiery torment for not thinking that we're essentially monkeys.

That might be the difference.

We're primtes. Our genetic code is damn near identical to our chimp cousins. We share behavioural patterns. Paul is making a very innoffensive point. It was a point made repeatedly by Douglas Adams, and all we did was laugh. Why get so upset about it?

-a
I haven't heard anyone here say that, and I certainly haven't said it.

His statement, like almost everything he says, is couched in terms of absolute certainty, even (and especially) when discussing things that aren't proven. I have carefully said that the things I said were what I believe, what I suspect, and used terms like "could be", "possibly," "I suspect," "the evidence suggest" and other such terms to clearly differentiate between the observable facts and my speculation. The atheist contingent here feels no such compunctions. They get to state their beliefs as absolute incontrovertable fact even (and especially) when it isn't.

I have not disputed one assertion about chimpanzee physiology, psychology or genetics. My statemetns regarded the meaning of such things, and the possible significance of the differences between man and ape, particularly those areas that can't be quantified yet.

How about if you guys stop arguing with the fictional creationist that isn't posting here, and start discussing what's actually beign said? Or do you prefer your dogma and bigotry?

[Sam]

So the sentience of a chimp is comparable to a five year old?

Call me a skeptic.

Especially when it comes to language.

If language is your criteria, read up on African Gray parrots sometime. One particular one, Alex, consistently tests as intellectually equivalent to a 4 or 5 year old. It has been conclusively proven that he and other members of his species aren't just mimicking English they've heard -- they are conversing in it, and rearranging the words in their vocabulary in contextually correct ways to put together new sentences and express ideas.

My favorite example involves a young parrot who was learning some idea Alex had grasped already. Alex turned to the younger bird and chirped, "Learn faster stupid!"

Alex is even learning to read English at a very basic level.

[Kid Omega]

I haven't heard anyone here say that, and I certainly haven't said it.

His statement, like almost everything he says, is couched in terms of absolute certainty, even (and especially) when discussing things that aren't proven. I have carefully said that the things I said were what I believe, what I suspect, and used terms like "could be", "possibly," "I suspect," "the evidence suggest" and other such terms to clearly differentiate between the observable facts and my speculation. The atheist contingent here feels no such compunctions. They get to state their beliefs as absolute incontrovertable fact even (and especially) when it isn't.

I have not disputed one assertion about chimpanzee physiology, psychology or genetics. My statemetns regarded the meaning of such things, and the possible significance of the differences between man and ape, particularly those areas that can't be quantified yet.

How about if you guys stop arguing with the fictional creationist that isn't posting here, and start discussing what's actually beign said? Or do you prefer your dogma and bigotry?

SOMEONE NEEDS A HUG!

[Dreadstar]

A few dolphins have actually learned a handful of English words.

Aw, man... you just walked all over my perfectly good cribbing of a Douglas Adams joke.

[MacQuarrie]

He's not saying "we are chimps" in the sense that "humans are chimpanzees", (a false claim, they're difference species). He's saying that the division of the animal kingdom into humans and others is completely arbitrary. It's wrong to torture a child. It's also wrong to torture a chimp.
No, that is EXACTLY what he's saying, and he's saying it repeatedly, and he's saying it dogmatically, and he's saying it in terms dripping with superiority and condescension.

And you're completely wrong.

Chimps have everything we have, but to a lesser extent.

It's entirely a matter of degree.

We are chimps.

That's not "also".

All chimps use tools. Including us.
He said it twice, he meant it. He made a dogmatic statement of fact that was incontrovertably wrong, he repeated it, and he was downright pissy about it. If I made a statement in such rigid terms you'd tear me apart.

But then I'm not validating your biases.

[MacQuarrie]

SOMEONE NEEDS A HUG!
No, someone needs the people who keep claiming to believe in "reason and logic" to apply the same standards across the board instead of letting "their" side cheat.

[Kid Omega]

No, someone needs the people who keep claiming to believe in "reason and logic" to apply the same standards across the board instead of letting "their" side cheat.

At what point did you get so pissed about this?

Can you link us to the breaking point? It seems like everything went from civil to AAARGH AARGH ANGRY TYPING with no warning.

[Sam]

No, someone needs the people who keep claiming to believe in "reason and logic" to apply the same standards across the board instead of letting "their" side cheat.

Dude, Paul was going on about the Atman religious experience and God's moral character not too long ago. I'm not sure which side he's on, but I'm not sure it's with we secular hordes, either.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No, someone needs the people who keep claiming to believe in "reason and logic" to apply the same standards across the board instead of letting "their" side cheat.


Given that Paul and I sharply disagree about many points re: religion, I don't see him as being "my side". At best, he and I have different sides which overlap in some areas. Paul's a mystic at heart. I'm a rationalist, and I find his mysticism no more rational than I find religion.

[Matt Algren]

No, that is EXACTLY what he's saying, and he's saying it repeatedly, and he's saying it dogmatically, and he's saying it in terms dripping with superiority and condescension.Careful, he gets worse when you call him on it.

Kid O, I think the breaking point is when the condescension starts. At least for me, that is. That, and the fact that there are five or six threads on this same basic subject going right now.

[I feel a POO CAR post coming on...]

[Paul McEnery]

No, that is EXACTLY what he's saying, and he's saying it repeatedly, and he's saying it dogmatically, and he's saying it in terms dripping with superiority and condescension.




He said it twice, he meant it. He made a dogmatic statement of fact that was incontrovertably wrong, he repeated it, and he was downright pissy about it. If I made a statement in such rigid terms you'd tear me apart.

But then I'm not validating your biases.
No, it's not incontrovertibly wrong. It's totally right.

I refer you to Desmond Morris and Jared Diamond, particularly The Third Chimpanzee, which strenuously makes the case that we are chimps with language, and that it's only species egotism that makes us think otherwise.

Our fundamental socialization and behaviour all come from our chimp origins, which are pretty damn demonstrable using genetic testing. In fact, we can point very closely to the point of divergence from our chimp cousins.

Fiction, though very scientifically accurate fiction, that makes the same point excellently is Stephen Baxter's Manifold Origin and Evolution.

[Iangould]

So the sentience of a chimp is comparable to a five year old?

Call me a skeptic.

Especially when it comes to language.

That's not what I said.

"Theory of mind" is the awareness as I said in my previous post that therr are other sentient beings and anticipatign their actions and intentions.

I can't remember all the stages but there are a bunch of quite specific stages in human development in terms of theory of the mind as children become aware, for example, that people might lie to them or trick them.

On that scale, chimps are comparable to a 5 year old.

[Paul McEnery]

That's not what I said.

"Theory of mind" is the awareness as I said in my previous post that therr are other sentient beings and anticipatign their actions and intentions.

I can't remember all the stages but there are a bunch of quite specific stages in human development in terms of theory of the mind as children become aware, for example, that people might lie to them or trick them.

On that scale, chimps are comparable to a 5 year old.
At the level of potential linguistic development, it's 2 year old. Otherwise correct.

[Matt]

They figured out what dolphins are saying. It boils down to various nuances of "Hey you hairy creature with the unsightly appendages, give me a fish."

I could have sworn they were saying "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish."
Sneaky bastards.

[gary bolt]

How about if you guys stop arguing with the fictional creationist that isn't posting here, and start discussing what's actually beign said? Or do you prefer your dogma and bigotry?

As far as I know there is no Atheist dogma. We're all just people who have weighed what we know of religion and find it wanting or unnecessary. We lack the faith that you christians have (and other religions, for that matter). Paul doesn't speak for Atheists any more than Kramer and his hammer or me.

Most Atheists I have talked to find that the theory of evolution rings true and many of us have had to defend ourselves to religious folk for that reason from time to time over the years. You are the first christian in my experience to suggest that some of the mutations that have got us to where we are came about through the intervention of god. It is my understanding that mutations are random and that environmental pressures influence which ones ultimately make a difference in the grand scale of time. When you suggest that god has been guiding these mutations it doesn't ring true at all for me.

[Lightbend]

I learned this in a linguistics class for my Masters.


A particular gene called the FOXBE-2(sp) gene is believed to be what is responsible for language. A study was done in England, where a family, through random mutation, lacked this gene. As a result, they could not create language. They could understand, yes, through hearing reading and sign, but they could not through vocal or written form recreate what they had heard.

It is believed what seperates us from primates, as we and those primate split off from the protoprimate several million years ago, is the FOXBE-2 gene, as communication is what allows us to thrive and form culture.

Evolution, or the natural selection theory, states that adaptation occurs due to the environment. For example, bears in the arctic adapt by growing a white coat of fur so they can hunt, while in the forests and stream areas, Brown bears occur. Darwin's theory is based on his observations of the Galapagos Islands, where he observed how animals differed on an isolated island to their mainland counterparts. The variety of finches, for example, each adapted to a specific niche depending on their diet.

Look, for example, how our forms have evolved. Our appendix is vestigal, our pinky fingers serve little use, and with the exception of Robbin Williams we lack a coat of fur. Despite soft bodies, fragile bones, insignificant upper body strength and a landspeed tapping out at around 20mph if we are in exceptional shape, we are the dominant species because our brain adapts and our thumbs allow us to create a) fire, and b) tools.

Some would say it is God, and I won't outright disagree. I do not, however, believe that if a God created us, He/She did so by creating us out of dust. The universe is far too complex and far too wondrous for such a simple action to have resulted in this.

[Wyclefdoug]

To answer the original question.......Yes.

Don't they call it Divine Evolution or something like that?

[Night]

A few dolphins have actually learned a handful of English words.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
-- Carl Sagan

Dolphins are also the only species other than ourselves which consistantly displays acts of altruism toward different species without deriving any apparent reward whatsoever. That stuff about dolphins saving drowning humans isn't apocryphal, there are several verified instances. (Less well verified instances date back pretty much as far back as we've been going out into the ocean on boats.) There's even a single recorded instance where a pod of dolphins helped a beached whale back out to open water, seemingly for no other reason than to be nice.

Dolphins are smart. There are scientists who seriously argue that they may actually possess human-level intelligence -- albeit so different that it's difficult to relate to. (Dolphin brains work very, very different from our own. For instance, the two hemispheres of their brains sleep in shifts, since a dolphin will drown if it loses consciousness.) One my favorite Far Side's is two scientists recording dolphin sounds. One says to the other "There's that 'say abla espanol' sound again."

[Night]

As far as I know there is no Atheist dogma. We're all just people who have weighed what we know of religion and find it wanting or unnecessary. We lack the faith that you christians have (and other religions, for that matter). Paul doesn't speak for Atheists any more than Kramer and his hammer or me. Then stop sounding all the same (with the exception of Paul, he’s not an Atheist anyway). It’s the same rhetoric over and over again with the same style. Using the same metaphors in reaction to the same arguments, even when they have nothing to do with each other.
Most Atheists I have talked to find that the theory of evolution rings true and many of us have had to defend ourselves to religious folk for that reason from time to time over the years. You are the first christian in my experience to suggest that some of the mutations that have got us to where we are came about through the intervention of god. It is my understanding that mutations are random and that environmental pressures influence which ones ultimately make a difference in the grand scale of time. When you suggest that god has been guiding thes