I'm learning about evolution at school...i don't know what to believe...i'm a Christian but the scientific facts show a lot...What do i believe?

-- Meghann Foster (bunyip_llamaface@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003

Answers

"Today, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory." Pope John Paul II, October 23, 1996

-- Chuck Darwin (cdarwin@apes.net), June 08, 2003.

Hi Meghann, qustion everything! I am not an expert and there are a many perople here better qualified to help you than me, they will correct any errors I make to be sure!

Many theologians (scholars) in the Catholic church reject the idea that everything in the Bible is never wrong. Paul a Deacon and schoilar on this forum belives the Bible in itself is not infallible. Please realise that the Catholic Church is a church of "faith" and "reason". It would not ask you to believe things that dont make rational sense, and many of the stories in the First Testament are not meant to be taken literally in my opinion. To ask someone to do so would be asking them to abandon all sense of logic and reason.

Secondly the Church has in the past lead many people away from the truth about the world around them. My personal advice is to ignore any teaching in the Bible that is not a teaching on faith and morals. Certainly the Church's track record in the area of science has been less than "enlightened" and they have made many mistakes. The church used to say that the eartyh was the centre of the universe etc but the church has always accepted that God doent guide it on scitiifc truths. However many scientists reject parts of Darwins theory as mathmatically impossible, your science teacher should be upto date with the latest research into the probability of ALL life orginating from a single organism. The chances are so remote that any rational person would reject then as absurd. The odds are far greater that God created life, so even from a purely scientific basis the idea that God created life is a much better bet.

The church accepts PARTS of the theory of evolution relating to natural selection as clealry this has happened and there is no objection to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types.

So what I am saying is that "evolution" has happened and continues to happen but this does not discredit the fact that God created the universe and created life. SOme people try to use the fact that evolution occurs in most animal and plant species to disprove the existance of God both from a scientific and a philosophical basis. Fear not, you can believe in natural selection and God, indeed it makes RATIONAL sense to do so.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

please excuse my dreadful spelling Meghann.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

Hi Meghann there has been a recent discussion on this issue at this thread

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AuJl

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

Well the so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis is that life on Earth originated only once and all existing life is descended from it. The chances of that first event happening by a chance organization of molecules is incredibly tiny. Dawkins (Blind Watchmaker) says that the reason we find it difficult to believe is because our minds have evolved to cope with a lifetime of around 100 years, in which time something like this could never happen. If we had a lifetime of say 4 billion years, we wouldn't find it so surprising.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 08, 2003.

Hi Stephen thats been the argument all along from pro Darwin lobby

"If we had a lifetime of say 4 billion years, we wouldn't find it so surprising."

I just dont buy the length of time argument, there is plenty of science based research coming out know that argues against Dawkins looking not at the macro level but micro level analysis eg chemical biology. The little I had read on it, sounded like solid stuff but then again I am just a lackey on science! Frank if youre around whats ther deal does this micro level probability challenge to evolution have any scientific clout or is it just more metaphysical christian science and not objective?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

The whole "micro-evolution"/"macro-evolution" business is a no- brainer. Any thinking person can see that ANY ongoing change, no matter how slight, will eventually accumulate until the cumulative effect is great. If one minor change is incorporated into a species every hundred years, in 5 million years the species will have undergone 50,000 changes. Who can rationally claim that two entities which differ from each other in 50,000 ways are still one and the same thing? We name things by their observable characteristics. That's how species are classified. When a living species accumulates enough changes that it is significantly different from its ancestors, we then call it by a different name, because it clearly IS a different thing, by virtue of its different characteristics. Many anti-evolutionists recognize that this logical conclusion cannot be avoided, and so they focus their attacks on scientific discovery from a different angle which is just as ludicrous - attempting to "prove" that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This however amounts to an admission on their part that evolutionary theory is sound. There would be no reason to try to prove the earth is young unless one accepts the premise that a timespan of millions of years would in fact allow for the development of species according to current scientific principles.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

Paul, that's it right there. You have perfectly stated the philosophical error that has not only permeated the mind of modern man but is the principle by which Holy Mother Church's core doctrines have come into compromise.

It's all about forms and essences. The course you take philosophically disallows for this, and that, that is what actually will lead to greater and greater consequences down the line.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

...not unlike what happens when I forget to undo the italics. =0

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

Dear Emerald,

You have perfectly stated the philosophical error that has permeated the minds of fundamentalist Protestants - the notion that the evolution of biological species and the content of Christian doctrinal belief are somehow related. They are not. What I said above had no bearing whatsoever on Christian doctrine. It was pure biology, not theology. As such it really is not appropriate material for discussion on this site. Unfortunately, fundamentalists who have unilaterally decided that biological function contradicts the Word of the Designer and Creator of biological function will always try to drag scientific matters into the realm of spirituality. And sadly, Catholics who have been exposed to and infected by the same unsupportable, shallow-minded philosophy are often confused by such pseudoChristian propaganda. There is one thing Christians must believe about biological evolution - namely, that it is biological. That is to say, spiritual realities cannot be produced by biological means. Therefore, human beings, whose very nature is partially non- biological (spiritual) could not have been created through biological evolution alone. Beyond that, nothing related to biological evolution has any bearing whatsoever on matters of theology or Christian faith.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

In other words, Catholics are free to believe that life can evolve and that the human body evolved, but must also believe that God directly created the human soul. Have I got it right? We're supposed to believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents, too, aren't we, and that they commited a real sin against God, which resulted in our imperfect nature/original sin.

Personally, I don't trust the theory of evolution; I don't think there's enough evidence to prove or disprove it. Maybe some of you would be able to explain this:

Orientals have been breeding 'fancy' goldfish since before Christ. They now have hundreds of varieties, carefully selected for finnage, colour, eye development and body shape. They've evolved, right? I'm not so sure. About ten years ago, my grandparents put three of these fancy fish (these were fancy, too; I'm pretty sure they were veiltails) in their duck pond. In this ideal (??) environment, they quickly multiplied and in a few years, we could see the whole pond turn orange in the evening. (Cool special effects, too: If you walked too close to the edge, the fish would dive and the pond would be black again in seconds.) A few years after that, though, we noticed that more and more of these chunky fish were an olive-green colour, with short fins. Now, the pond is stocked almost entirely with the drab goldfish 'originals,' the only orange ones being the big guys (8"+) from the first few generations. I think it's called "reversion to type."

Anyway, that's my own personal experience with evolution.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2003.

Hi Catherine,

"In other words, Catholics are free to believe that life can evolve and that the human body evolved, but must also believe that God directly created the human soul. Have I got it right? We're supposed to believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents, too, aren't we, and that they commited a real sin against God, which resulted in our imperfect nature/original sin. "

A: Yes! On every point.

The type of artificial breeding you described is actually the antithesis of natural evolution. It forces rare and recessive traits to be expressed, which would seldom if ever be expressed in nature, and which would likely be lethal if expressed in nature. (Imagine a bright golden individual of a normally brown fish which survives by hiding among brown vegetation. How long would the golden individual manage to elude predators?) Since the traits in question are forced or "engineered" by human intervention, and essentially unnatural, the population simply stops expressing such unnatural recessive traits, and reverts back to its natural state, once the human intervention is removed.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

What I mean to get at Paul is it is eccentric to allow the distinction between the body and the soul of a thing to become something more than the distinction itself; in other words, for the distinction between the two to become something more than what they are... like separate realities that follow their own unique principle and path; the body or biological life one way, one set of principles, and the soul its own life and rules.

Reality is a seamless garment. This is what I was trying to get at about Platonic thought in the first thousand years of the Church and how it best served as handmaiden to the Faith. Sure, there's a point at which it falls down, because it represents only a collection of what man has to contribute to the understanding of Divine Revelation. Aristotle as a handmaiden posed a couple serious problems, but nothing of the complete failure of modern philosophy, if it can still be called that, to offer anything of value whatsoever. The thing you are talking about, and the thing that is lost, is the reality of forms and universals.

Just for fun sometime, pick up Plato's dialogue with the Cave Analogy where he talks about forms; essences and universals. It doesn't account for everything, but we can't account for everthing on this earth anyways... but his were closest to truth imho and therefore suitable in the understand of the Divine.

Laboritories will pose more questions than they answer because that's how big reality is, but the right take on matter, form and causality can go a long way in explaining the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

Hi Paul,

It forces rare and recessive traits to be expressed, which would seldom if ever be expressed in nature, and which would likely be lethal if expressed in nature. Since the traits in question are forced or "engineered" by human intervention, and essentially unnatural, the population simply stops expressing such unnatural recessive traits, and reverts back to its natural state, once the human intervention is removed.

Hmm. I know what you're talking about, but I've never been really sure where recessive traits end and new genetic material begins. This might get kind of complicated.

I would question what "natural" and "unnatural" mean, from a goldfish's perspective: when they are in a man-made environment, then their predators are men- and since men tend to keep the bright orange individuals, the duller ones are weeded out. Isn't evolution generally explained as "survival of the fittest"? In which case, it's irrelevant whether humans or herons are the predators. Do you mean that if the goldfish became completely dependant on human care (like certain breeds of cattle), it would no longer revert to the olive-coloured fish, because its "natural" state demands that it be attractive to humans?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2003.

Dear Catherine,

I don't really want to get into an in-depth discussion of genetics here, as that is not the purpose of this website. But, by "natural" I meant "as it would occur in nature, without human intervention".

You do raise an interesting point in that the selective breeding of orange individuals could be viewed as a sort of "reverse predation", where the bright color, rather than exposing those individuals to lethal predation, actually affords them the "protection" of their human captors.

You asked: "Do you mean that if the goldfish became completely dependant on human care (like certain breeds of cattle), it would no longer revert to the olive-coloured fish, because its "natural" state demands that it be attractive to humans?

A: On the contrary, its only "natural" state is the protective, drab coloration seen in wild fish - and that remains true even if that condition is bred out of existence. The reason it might cease to revert to that natural state after many generations of selective breeding in captivity is "unnatural selection" by human beings - not because its "natural state" demands that it be attractive to humans, but because humans demand that it be attractive to humans, and therefore artificially select those "unnatural" genetic traits which the human breeders desire, in direct opposition to what nature would have provided.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 08, 2003.

Hi Paul, thanks for your thoughts. The focus of intelligent design is trying to prove certainly not... "attempting to "prove" that the earth is only a few thousand years old." No one is trying to say this least of all me, how you managed to fathom this bizarre link is beyond me. Care to explain ?

"Any thinking person can see that ANY ongoing change, no matter how slight, will eventually accumulate until the cumulative effect is great. If one minor change is incorporated into a species every hundred years, in 5 million years the species will have undergone 50,000 changes."

It’s not as straightforward, crude or simple as your level of analysis implies it may be a "no brainer" to you but that may be because you have "no brains" on this issue yourself ;-). Given your above words I suspect this is the case...although you may like Michael Behe also be a university professor of chemical biology however I would be VERY much surprised. Here is Prof Michael Behes responses to critics of his work.

http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm

Now I’m not saying hes right I haven’t a clue myself but nothing you’ve said thus far stacks up against his arguments, indeed most of your thoughts are totally irrelevant! I know the guy has copped alot of flak, some beacuse he is a Catholic some becuase of his dodgy mousetrap example but scientists generally are not comfortable with God playing any part in creation. Suit your self of course, but to lump ID and creation science in the same basket is a bit premature IMO. To embrace the THEORY of evolutionism to the degree you do is not rational or logical IMHO nor do I believe is it consistent with the magisterium.

This is one area in which I can safely say your opinion is anything but infallible! And that makes a change!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

I have to admit I have not read everything all of you wrote in this thread.

However, Evolution theory, for me, is a non-brainer.

darwin was considered a biologic suitor of Comte. Nothing father from the truth. Positivism admits no "chance". Everything must be explained in tems of cause-and-effect, no "chance" is allowed.

Darwin, on the other hand, said that evolution happened by "chance". Althought his theory as a whole is today considered defective, he could not be more right in this. What he calls "chance", we call "Divine Providence". Where strict causation is dismissed, God's Will easyly substitutes it. What Darwin calls "chance" is exactly where I see God's intervention.

Evolution would be absurd if we considered probabilistic "chance". The world is far too young for "blind chance" to have built such an admirable nature. So, when evolutionists speak of "chance" it is quite easy for us catholics to see it not as a random process.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), June 09, 2003.

Hi Atila, I think most Darwinists believe life was assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics but yeah I agree completely with you. Nice to see you back.

"nothing related to biological evolution has any bearing whatsoever on matters of theology or Christian faith"

I agree from a scientific viewpoint but ideas are not createrd ina vaccum or void and its important to examine the consequences of such a choice. I dont think we can view any scientific theory without exaiming the philosophy behind it. But then again perhaps I should leave the pointy headed discussions of "the cat sat on the mat" type deal alone. They just hurt my brain.

Whats Paul trying to say here? How does this relate to ID? To words to those also wondering: IT DOESNT.

As i said in my first post to Meg who is probably thinking were all a bit starnge was this:

The church accepts PARTS of the theory of evolution relating to natural selection as clealry this has happened and there is no objection to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types.

ID doesnt deny evolution is just says it cant have happened the way Paul belives it did.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

Dear Kiwi,

"certainly not... "attempting to "prove" that the earth is only a few thousand years old." No one is trying to say this least of all me, how you managed to fathom this bizarre link is beyond me. Care to explain ? "

A: I didn't suggest that you personally were making any such claim; however, the statement that "no-one is trying to say this" is incorrect. Presenting biblical "evidence" that the earth is only 6,000 years old is a standard fundamentalist tack, with only one underlying purpose - to demonstrate that there has been insufficient time for the slow process of evolution to result in the large number of existing species.

"It's not as straightforward, crude or simple as your level of analysis implies"

A: I am thoroughly versed in the complexities of evolutionary biology. The simplistic theoretical example I provided was not intended to be anything more than that. It's purpose was merely to make a simple point in layman's terms, not to provide an in-depth "analysis" of an extremely convoluted natural phenomenon.

"although you may like Michael Behe also be a university professor of chemical biology however I would be VERY much surprised".

A: No, I am not a university professor of chemical biology. I am a university lecturer in pathobiology with a subspecialty in immunology, and a medical researcher in the same field.

"scientists generally are not comfortable with God playing any part in creation".

A: That is simply not true. Such statements are typical of fundamentalists who view science as a tool of the antichrist. But the fact is, scientists, just like teachers and electricians and salesmen and professional athletes, span a complete spectrum of religious beliefs, from atheists and agnostics to pagans, to Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and also orthodox Catholics like myself. I find that those who are closest to genuine truth in their religious/spiritual lives have the least difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence. Real truth cannot be in conflict with real truth. One who finds conflict between his religious beliefs and well documented findings of science typically lacks either a sufficient understanding of the science involved, or sufficiently authoritative and orthodox religious beliefs. This is understandable in the case a fundamentalist Protestant, but there is certainly no reason why a Catholic, who has access to the fullness of divine revelation, needs to be suspicious or fearful of any truth revealed by scientific investigation.

"To embrace the THEORY of evolutionism to the degree you do is not rational or logical IMHO nor do I believe is it consistent with the magisterium".

A: Embracing evolutionary theory to ANY degree short of overt atheism is completely consistent with the teaching of the Magisterium. Indeed, other than its proper insistence on a direct divine source of the soul, the Magisterium doesn't say anything at all about evolution, or about mitosis or photosynthesis or symbiosis, or any other natural phenomenon. Why would it?? As for the rationality of evolutionary development of species, I have seen no evidence to support any alternative theory, and therefore accept the best supported theory until a viable alternative is proposed.

"This is one area in which I can safely say your opinion is anything but infallible"!

A: I assure you, that is true in EVERY area.

"I think most Darwinists believe life was assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics"

A: Well of course they do! Darwin was an atheist! Most Marxists and Nietzscheists also believe the world operates atheistically. But "Darwinist" is not synonymous with "evolutionary biologist" any more than "Nietzscheist" is synonymous with "philosopher". Some of what Darwin discovered - scientifically - is accurate. Nothing he said theologically is worth the paper it was written on. Much of what he said - scientifically - has been revised, expanded, supplemented, and/or discarded. This is a process called "science". Mendel's primitive genetics, Galen's anatomy, Lister's immunology, and Kircher's germ theory have likewise been thoroughly reworked. This doesn't negate the contributions of the early investigators, on whose work all subsequent researchers built. Note: This has nothing to do with the orthodoxy of any particular researcher's religious beliefs.

"The church accepts PARTS of the theory of evolution relating to natural selection as clealry this has happened and there is no objection to assuming the descent of all plant and animal species from a few types. ID doesnt deny evolution is just says it cant have happened the way Paul belives it did. "

A: "In fact, the Church does not formally "accept" or "reject" ANY part of the theory of evolution. It simply states rightly that it is a matter of science which anyone is free to personally accept or reject. It is however sad when individuals feel pressured to reject science on religious grounds, as though ignorance of the natural world were somehow a prerequisite to relationship with the Designer and Creator of that world. The Church does of course rightly reject the premise that the spiritual identity of man could have resulted from biological evolution. But atheists don't claim that anyway - they simply reject the entire concept of man's spiritual nature. All atheists do - not just atheistic scientists. As for how Paul believes it happened, Paul has not offered any description of that, so I can't see that you are in a position to pass judgment. Or are you simply assuming, in classic fundamentalist style, that Paul must believe it happened the same way Darwin believed it happened??

Dear Atila:

The fact of a random process does not negate the fact of divine design. Cannot God create a random process if He wishes to do so? The movement of water molecules is entirely random, yet the very forces which bind them together and dictate their random motion were designed by and set into motion by God. Evolution of biological species is not nearly as random as molecular motion, since DNA synthesis is one of the most precisely controlled processes in all of nature. Nevertheless, mutational changes in the genetic code are indeed largely random - yet that fact does not negate the action of the God who designed and generated both the substance and the controlling forces of the whole scheme - both its precisely mediated aspects and its random aspects.

You state: "The world is far too young for "blind chance" to have built such an admirable nature. So, when evolutionists speak of "chance" it is quite easy for us catholics to see it not as a random process".

A: So true! But of course those who know God, scientists and others alike, recognize that random processes in nature are anything but "blind", operating in response to physical forces provided by the Creator. The only reason it is "easy for Catholics to see that it is not a random process" is that a majority of Catholics, having been exposed to fundamentalist propaganda, do not recognize the clear distinction between mere physical randomness and atheistic randomness. The atheist claims that the randomness of given processes in nature demonstrates that no God is in control. The believer recognizes that a process in nature cannot proceed randomly unless its Creator specifically designed it to operate in that manner. Science does not conflict with Divine Revelation, though personal beliefs of individual scientists may very well do so.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, "Chuck Darwin."
You stated that, in October of 1996, the pope stated the following:
"Today, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

It is not tough to realize that you want to leave the impression that the pope has given his seal of approval to Darwinism -- that he is teaching that Catholics should or must believe in evolution.

However, the pope did not approve of any hypothesis or theory. Nor did he teach Catholics that they should or must believe in evolution. As people did in 1996, you have used an unofficial (and partially inaccurate) translation, taken out of context, and with a sentence removed from the middle. I think that it would be better to present the official translation of that paragraph (which I will put in italics) within its context ...

"[from Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II, October 22, 1996]
"4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical 'Humani generis' [of Pope Pius XII] considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical ['Humani generis'], new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

"What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

"Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the 'theory' of evolution, we should speak of several 'theories' of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. ..." ----- [Full text at http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html]

God bless you.
John
PS: I choose not to express a public opinion, for or against any of the theories of evolution that have been offered.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

We believe, that once we die, our body dies (decays...) yet our spirit lives. More or less as genesis says that God breathed into the muddy fashioned object, and it became a living human being. Kind of interesting. to breath, wind, and spirit are similar words in hebrew and aramaic.

I grew up on a farm by a pond. I would see tadpoles all the time. Later. I have seen pictures of humans, cows, chickens, fish, whales, elephants, rabbits,... at a certain fetal stage in their development. We are very similar to those tadpoles who thrive in the muddy water.

I belive God wanted to create us as a species adaptable to Planet Earth. Even if it took many years, God was able to accomplish it.

I haven't seen any humans reverting back into tadpoles yet.

This, to me, means has finally found like Genesis says, that we were created in God's image. We are able to reason and think just like God.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 09, 2003.

If the Bible was infallible, then why do we have the story of Creation in the first chapter if Genesis, followed by the "Second Story of Creation in the second chapter of Genesis. If the Bible was infallible, wouldn't there only be one account of Creation needed?

Catholicism and Evolution walk hand in hand. The whole point of the Creation story is that God created everything from nothing and his Creation was Good.

Evolution is nothing more than the study of God's creation.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), June 09, 2003.

Dear Professor Paul

Talk about a david and goliath type debate. Discretion is the better part of vlaour but I must say a few things.

(first mental note, no sarcasm just cause Paul has more letters after his name than I have brain cells does not allow me to resort to my only retort)

If you’d read my first post you would see all of your ranting was unnecessary. I guess someone might have got something out of it. Your attempt to imply all opposition to your infallible view of evolution as anti christ fundamentalism is absurd and you continual denial “I didnt mean you Kiwi” followed by nothing but countless “sad fundamentalist” comparisons is just plain dishonest of you, a man of the Church. Some fundamentalists may indeed use elements of ID to support their cause but nothing I have read has had a fundamentalist argument attached so your waffle was as worthless as it was dishonest.

The fact is men and women far more intelligent, and knowledgeable that you on this issue disagree. Believe what you like but youre no shoving your self confessed NON EXPERT opinion down my throat . Maybe I misinterpreted your position so I would like you to answer this question for me to make sure

How do you believe life first originated on earth?

This will clear up any problems we may have. My smart alex gibes about your brain clearly got you going, but compared to some experts Ive read your qualifications don’t stack up, and BTW they’re not fundies. I can accept they may be wrong, after all in 100 years time many scientific principles YOU hold so close to your massive rational brain as the truth could well be proven wrong. I couldn’t care less either way about science, that’s why I didn’t pass school C general science when I was 15. Ha who cares I have an immature problem with authority, Id question my own existence.. Anyway a few thoughts

A: No, I am not a university professor of chemical biology.

> I thought as much.

"This is one area in which I can safely say your opinion is anything but infallible"! A: I assure you, that is true in EVERY area.

>You missed the exclamation make and smiley face off the end of this rip snorter. I assume and pray for your sanity that youre joking!

Me "scientists generally are not comfortable with God playing any part in creation".

A: That is simply not true.

About the only worthwhile contribution you make here. Yeah that was badly worded I meant the compartmentalising and complete separation of science and faith often creates conflicts but I know you disagree so I wont ask for a lecture.

Me “I think most Darwinists believe life was assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics" A: Well of course they do! Darwin was an atheist!

You missed my point to Atila, we all know Darwin was an atheist. Ill let you read Atilas post and work out my point yourself as Ive gotta go.

(Makes final mental note to himself, never try it on with Professor/Deacon Paul)

Your humble servant Kiwi

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2003.

In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

…The scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.

To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer...They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we us it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements.

What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? …Although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything.

It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

By: Dr. Wernher von Braun

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 10, 2003.

It is hard sometimes, John P. to visualize a scientist like Von Braun trying to make a case for God.

He helped the United Staes to send a rocket to the moon in 1969. There are some whio still think that mission was a hoax. Von Braun is not remembered for what he did for Germany in the 1940s. The V1 and V2 were designed by him to strike British cities during the War.

15 years later ( or even before)he was already working for Nasa. He was never tried for crimes against humanity.

Did he feel guilty after all these years and wanted to believe in a universe created by a designer: God?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

Thanks John P your quote was what I was trying to say but without the arrogant ungrateful rudeness I directed at Paul. Paul sorry I was out of line, I do appreciate your help and your vast knoweldge on this issue I was just frustrated with your all knowing approach . Onto the heisenberg certainty principle for me and Ill work my forward from there. Thankyou for your patience.

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2003.

Not a problem Kiwi. We all lose it once in a while. I do tend to come on strong, but quite frankly, I don't debate an issue at all unless I believe I know the facts, and when I believe I know the facts, I state what I believe as facts. That's the way I address issues, and I am not likely to change in that regard. I am well aware that I am fallible, and as a scientist I am always completely open to new evidence. But on any given issue, until that new evidence becomes available, I will hold as the truth the most reasonable explanation afforded by the available evidence. All of the relevant available evidence points to the fact of biological evolution, even though there is much controversy among experts concerning the exact mechanisms involved. No other explanation has been proffered that can account for the observed facts. That causes me to accept that the fact is true - and that tells me that it therefore cannot conflict with the Word of God, which is also true. So, there I stand until I am hit with evidence convincing enough to move me. Such evidence would be tremendously exciting! But so far, it's nowhere in sight.

Peace!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2003.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it at all possible to believe in creation and God? My point being if God is omnipetent could he not set in action a single event knowing full well that a billion years later there would be humans? Evolution could very well be God's tool for things to progress.

-- jesus (jesus@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.

yes, that belief is completely possible, and if youve read the above posts you know that more than one person here considers that opinion to be right.

as a matter of courtesy, though, please change your nick from jesus to something more appropriate, granted your locale.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 16, 2003.