I never asserted that evolution is based on a materialistic philosophy. Although that's probably a logical connection with what I said. The reason I think Darwinism is based more on a viewpoint rather than facts is because he made inferences that were actually opposite from the evidence. Which I will pick back up on in a minute after - -
LindyHopper - I understand what you're saying about the process of science being to understand and explain things by what it can see, measure, test, etc.
"You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in their equation for life because God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on empirical data." I agree. I admit that is something that I do as a Christian when assessing scientific information. For instance, looking at what's been written on the Big-Bang theory compared to the steady-state theory of the universe – I lean towards the Big-Bang theory – not only because I think the data is more consistent with the laws of physics and astronomical artifacts [like background radiation, expanding universe] but because it points to a singular-event beginning of the universe as described in Genesis 1:1.
- - now back to Garth -
The only evidence for or against evolution is the fossil record. The argument for evolution is based on what could have happened. We don't have any video footage via extreme-time-lapse-photography showing how all these things came about. As I mentioned in my post # 64 Darwin admitted there lacked supportive evidence for his theory in the fossil record. What does the fossil record suggest? Species do not arise gradually. They just appear on the scene. Most species appear to look the same from appearance to disappearance.
Ok, how's this for but one example. In the biblical account (and this addresses both the Young Earth _and_ the Old Earth varieties, as well as any other variation of the biblical account), the sun, moon, and all the stars/planets are formed *after* the 'null and void' situation in Genesis 1:2. After. Which would make the sun, moon, and the stars/planets no older than approx. 6,000 years. (Remember, we aren't utilizing the Genesis account in a figurative/hyperbolic sense, as Creationism teaches that the account is literal). Yet *tons* of information/evidence/facts reveal that the sun, moon, and the stars/planets are all far older than 6,000 years. ... That example alone causes at least a serious question of doubt to be raised about the Creationist account. At the very least! ... Consider that as but one example; I can give others, but I now refer you to what just occurred to me in what you write in your last post as something that actually undermines creationism (as it is officially defined), rather than enhances it:
The reason I believe this undermines, or at the very least puts pause to Creationism, is that Creationism requires a literal interpretation of the scripture. Ie., as it is written. Because once you put it in a figurative sense, Creationism is off the table. There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution...
I do not subscribe to the "gap theory" between Genesis 1, verse 1 and 2. As I said in post # 64 – I understand Genesis 1:1 to be a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth…" indicates a shift in the reference points of time and location…a shift from talking about the very beginning of the cosmos to a point further down the timeline and a single planet in the cosmos. Unfortunately, for all the chronology buffs no dates are mentioned in the text. I lean towards what the astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, etc. say about the age of the cosmos and the earth. [it's kinda old]. You'll have to talk to those who believe in the 6,000 year old thing and work out that dilemma with them.
I cannot speak for other Christians – or for anyone else for that matter when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I can only speak for me. I'm not perfect – I may be whacked out on some theories I hold. I expressed some of my thinking process in my previous post when it comes to relating my faith to reality – when I gave my reasons for leaning towards the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the cosmos. I analyzed all the data available to me and chose what I thought integrated best with both faith and reason.
Garth, I liked what you said about "There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution." I don't have a problem with that. I could be wrong on some of my interpretations of Scripture. I am not arguing that my way is the right way – I'm explaining my way. That's what I've been doing over this evolution thing. I don't subscribe to it because somebody in Christendom labeled it taboo. From what I understand of the Scriptures and science – I don't buy it.
And that has to do with being 'mechanistic', ..... how? And as a result, with the science-faith conflict in this topic?
:unsure:
Has lots to do with it.
EF Schumacher, the German born/Oxford educated economist-philosopher. In economics his book "Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered" remains a centerpiece of environmentalist economic theory. His amazing book of philosophy:"A Guide For The Perplexed", which is a critique of materialist scientism and an exploration of the nature and organisation of knowledge.
I'm a huge fan of "A Guide For The Perplexed", less so of "Small is Beautiful". His philosophy can be found in the exposition of "direct vs. mediated knowledge" in "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" which I remember circulating among some wayfers I knew.
Our shift from direct to mediated knowledge has caused to not "know" anything like we used to. Now, if it's not documented in some way, it's not real. Yet, the most essential things that govern daily living are impossible to be scientifically structured.
I could get a detailed analysis of you in a spectrophotometer, by MRI, etc. and would still be 100% ignorant of Garth. In that way, the Bible account tells me more essentially of our current state than any set of proven or theorized mechanisms ever could. They miss the essential points and address none of our problems.
No wonder the site sounded familiar! It is the famed Genesis Park.
In the maintenace area of the site, look at the list of contributors. One of them (and he is one of the main ones) is Dr. Kent Hovind, that quack I was telling you about earlier. The same 'scientific' source who maintains that the speed of light slows down over time. The same 'scientific' source that maintains that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. The same 'scientific' source who accused people who accept evolution as 'worshiping time as God' simply because they pose the element of time over the millenia and the eons as to how evolution can work.
If him and his supporters is what you can come up with to show why the 'evidence' supports Creationism, ..... This is like using TWI as a main source for honest biblical research!
What I think is funny – the quotes from that link I gave came from some respectable people in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology. Thought I'd just mention a couple below along with their quotes.
From (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.):
"...the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species...Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives." (p. 749)
"...the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century...acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would 'pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life.'" (p. 755 quoting George Gaylord Simpson)
"...the long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists."
(p. 752)
"The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." (p. 753)
"...but stasis is data... Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: 'stasis is data; stasis is data'..." (p. 759)
Gould debunks the: "exceedingly few cases that became textbook 'classics' of coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of the horses etc." (p. 760).
"Indeed proclamations for the supposed 'truth' of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist's knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most 'textbook classics' upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the 'case study' method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record." (p. 773)
Niles Eldridge
Niles Eldredge has been a paleontologist on the curatorial staff of the American Museum of Natural History since 1969. His specialty is the evolution of trilobites—a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 535 and 245 million years ago.
Eldredge's main professional passion is evolution. Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. The theory of "punctuated equilibria," developed with Stephen Jay Gould in 1972, was an early milestone. Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems, and in his book The Pattern of Evolution (1999) he unfolds a comprehensive theory (the "sloshing bucket") that specifies in detail how environmental change governs the evolutionary process.
Concerned with the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species, Eldredge was Curator-in-Chief of the American Museum's Hall of Biodiversity (May, 1998), and has written several books on the subject—most recently (1998) Life in the Balance. He has also combated the creationist movement through lectures, articles and books—including The Triumph of Evolution...And The Failure of Creationism (2000).
An amateur jazz trumpeter and avid collector of 19th century cornets, Eldredge has turned his evolutionary approach to cornet history—and to the comparison of patterns and processes of material cultural and biological evolution. A critic of gene-centered theories of evolution, Eldredge's Why We Do It (2004) presents an alternative account to the gene-based notions of "evolutionary psychology" to explain why human beings behave as they do.
Eldredge is the Curator responsible for the content of the major exhibition Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on November 19, 2005. The exhibition travels to Boston, Toronto and Chicago before going to the Natural History Museum in London in time to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 2009. His book Darwin. Discovering the Tree of Life (2005) accompanies the exhibition.
"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55.)
"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservation.. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 48)
No doubt the sources you exhibit have seen flaws in Darwin's version of the evolutionary theory. Where you fail is in your usage of them to debunk evolution as a whole. ... Like I said, the theory of evolution has grown and matured over the past 150 years, which would include the debunking of some of Darwin's interpretation of the evolutionary process. (Thought I'd try blue this time. :) ) And all you have done by the illustrating of Gould and Eldredge is to strengthen that argument.
... Because for one thing, why is then that Gould and Eldredge are still evolutionists? Hhmmmm?
I'd like to know how a creationist can think that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the animals. Evolution involves death, yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis. :blink:
Well, then they wouldn't be creationists, not according to the biblical account in any event. But there are those who believe that God utilized the evolutionary process to 'create' the world.
I'd like to know how a creationist can think that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the animals. Evolution involves death, yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis. :blink:
No doubt the sources you exhibit have seen flaws in Darwin's version of the evolutionary theory. Where you fail is in your usage of them to debunk evolution as a whole. ... Like I said, the theory of evolution has grown and matured over the past 150 years, which would include the debunking of some of Darwin's interpretation of the evolutionary process. (Thought I'd try blue this time. :) ) And all you have done by the illustrating of Gould and Eldredge is to strengthen that argument.
... Because for one thing, why is then that Gould and Eldredge are still evolutionists? Hhmmmm?
You're slipping up.
Got it! So it's sort of been an evolution of the evolution theory…My intent wasn't to debunk anything – like I said earlier – I'm explaining why I don't buy it …You're darn right I'm slipping up… My two greatest fears in regards to this subject are that my belief system will slowly evolve into something Darwinesque or I'll be re-incarnated in the next life as an evolutionary biologist.
yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis.
I guess the line of thinking came from PFAL and rested on some verse (which I can't find at the moment) that said "before death came". Meaning there was no death on the planet until Adam sinned. I suppose it could only have been man that was immortal before the fall, seeing as he was created separately.
I'd like to know how a creationist can think that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the animals. Evolution involves death, yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis. :blink:
Jerry
Which begs the question: what would carnivorous creatures - if created and designed by the Demiurge as such - have eaten, if death was not in some way essential to their survival to begin with?
Which also brings to recollection a teaching by a woman minister at one Rock of Ages (early 80s, I'm guessing), choking back her tears over the thought that Jehovah had to personally slaughter some little squirrels or chipmunks to allow for Adam and Eve to cover themselves.
…Thinking out loud here…The first mention of death is in Genesis 2:17 – the penalty for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some people [myself included] interpret that to mean a spiritual death [a separation from God]. We read in Genesis 3:22-24 God drives Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden and posts cherubim and a flaming sword to block access to the tree of life, verse 22, “…lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…”
…So I wonder – maybe it wasn’t that they were built not to die – but that they had the potential to live forever if sustained by the tree of life. I think the death in Genesis 2:17 refers to a spiritual death [separation from God] and Genesis 3:22-24 refers to a physical death [separation of life-force from the body]…I dunno – just speculation…
The threat of dying if they ate of the tree wouldn't mean much to Adam and Eve if they had never seen anything die.
I remember a picture drawn by Jehovah Witnesses in a Watchtower magazine of Paradise when death is done away with. No killing going on at all then. Everyone will be a vegan, and like it. Might end up with a bit of a population problem though.
The curse that fell on the earth as a result of sin would have had to alter nature greatly. Even if it was just in the introduction of thorns and thistles. And holding to the idea that it all changed some 6,000 years ago or so, gives rise to some pretty far out explanations of factual evidence in all the sciences.
Perhaps the hard facts of science are inadequate to describe the spiritual realities of our origins, so God used a fictional rendering to better address our situation. Nothing dishonest in that approach.
I was thinking physical death was a normal occurrence back then – and perhaps Adam and Eve witnessed it happening in the animal kingdom all the time. Perhaps the tree of life was only for humans…There's a lot of things to consider with the curse, the earth, changes in nature. Besides the first humans being pristine models right out of the factory so to speak – I imagine there diet was more conducive to good health…and even imperceptible changes – like in the atmosphere. Some people suggest a water canopy surrounded the earth…a big greenhouse effect – which later collapsed around Noah's time. If that was indeed the case – without that protective filter…perhaps allowed a greater concentration of harmful UV rays – another one of the many factors contributing to a shorter lifespan.
…It is a lot of fun to talk about this stuff. I learn quite a bit from threads like this. Something that has really struck me on this one with talking about the Bible and Science – is the value of other viewpoints and the power of critical thinking…Last night I read from the beginning of this thread and took up Garth's suggestion to Google that Kent Hovind guy – holy cow! He ain't helping the creationist's cause any! Man if that guy doesn't sound like he came out of the same type of TWI-whacko-mold as UNdoctor VPW – then I'll eat my Grease Spot T-Shirt!
Now what am I saying about viewpoints and critical thinking? That it's important to know that my viewpoint acts as a filter when taking in data – the Bible or science stuff. Critical thinking – ideally should help keep me aware of that filter – maybe at times changing it or removing it. Maybe it helps in understanding someone else's viewpoint too.
…What have I gotten out of this thread so far – a number of things. I no longer have such a harsh view of evolutionists. Thinking about Garth's post # 72,
"The reason I believe this undermines, or at the very least puts pause to Creationism, is that Creationism requires a literal interpretation of the scripture. Ie., as it is written. Because once you put it in a figurative sense, Creationism is off the table. There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution."
Viewpoint is a big deal – it has a significant role in how we process incoming info – whether it's how we interpret a passage of Scripture or scientific evidence. What Garth said got me to stop and think about a lot of things. I was royally pi$ $ ed off when he would rant about idiots like Hovind – I felt like he was lumping all creationists in the same pile. But I realized I was doing that with my view of evolutionists.
Edited by T-Bone
Over Thanksgiving I watched a debate and Q&A of two authors on CSpan. One was a Intel. Design advocate and the other was an evolutionist. They were going back and forth about why the other should not be taught in public schools. The ID guy was pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution (not always correctly) and the other was pointing out the unscientific nature of ID and it's approach to being included in text books. Then the floor was open to questions.
The evolutionist scientist made a point that explains how I feel pretty well. It was that was that with evolution there is a body of evidence, a huge one actually, and then there are the fringe elements that pick at the edges of it, but vast majority of evidence points in one direction...toward evolution, and that is why he suscribed to it as do I.
It is a theory, no doubt about it. I have questions and concerns about it, but there is a lot there that makes a ton of sense and is backed up with data and evidence.
Science used to be part of philosophy, and a component of a liberal arts education. Used to be.
Not so, Evan. You can still get a liberal arts degree in mathematics at a handful of schools. And of course, you know this but math is still a big part of philosophy. It is about logic when you get down to it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
26
15
8
Popular Days
Nov 19
20
Nov 17
19
Nov 26
19
Nov 20
14
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 6 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
T-Bone 15 posts
potato 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 19 2006
20 posts
Nov 17 2006
19 posts
Nov 26 2006
19 posts
Nov 20 2006
14 posts
TheEvan
No, mechanistic. I meant mechanistic.
Try some EF Schumacher on for size. I think you'd like it, politically as well as philosophically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"EF Schumacher"
And that has to do with being 'mechanistic', ..... how? And as a result, with the science-faith conflict in this topic?
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I never asserted that evolution is based on a materialistic philosophy. Although that's probably a logical connection with what I said. The reason I think Darwinism is based more on a viewpoint rather than facts is because he made inferences that were actually opposite from the evidence. Which I will pick back up on in a minute after - -
LindyHopper - I understand what you're saying about the process of science being to understand and explain things by what it can see, measure, test, etc.
"You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in their equation for life because God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on empirical data." I agree. I admit that is something that I do as a Christian when assessing scientific information. For instance, looking at what's been written on the Big-Bang theory compared to the steady-state theory of the universe – I lean towards the Big-Bang theory – not only because I think the data is more consistent with the laws of physics and astronomical artifacts [like background radiation, expanding universe] but because it points to a singular-event beginning of the universe as described in Genesis 1:1.
- - now back to Garth -
The only evidence for or against evolution is the fossil record. The argument for evolution is based on what could have happened. We don't have any video footage via extreme-time-lapse-photography showing how all these things came about. As I mentioned in my post # 64 Darwin admitted there lacked supportive evidence for his theory in the fossil record. What does the fossil record suggest? Species do not arise gradually. They just appear on the scene. Most species appear to look the same from appearance to disappearance.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/after/after.htm
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I do not subscribe to the "gap theory" between Genesis 1, verse 1 and 2. As I said in post # 64 – I understand Genesis 1:1 to be a summary statement for the beginning of all matter, energy, space, and time. Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth…" indicates a shift in the reference points of time and location…a shift from talking about the very beginning of the cosmos to a point further down the timeline and a single planet in the cosmos. Unfortunately, for all the chronology buffs no dates are mentioned in the text. I lean towards what the astrophysicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, etc. say about the age of the cosmos and the earth. [it's kinda old]. You'll have to talk to those who believe in the 6,000 year old thing and work out that dilemma with them.
I cannot speak for other Christians – or for anyone else for that matter when it comes to interpreting Scripture. I can only speak for me. I'm not perfect – I may be whacked out on some theories I hold. I expressed some of my thinking process in my previous post when it comes to relating my faith to reality – when I gave my reasons for leaning towards the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the cosmos. I analyzed all the data available to me and chose what I thought integrated best with both faith and reason.
Garth, I liked what you said about "There are a good many Intelligent Design advocates who do this, as well as Christians who accept evolution as the physical means of creation. Ie., God did it, but He didn't do it according to the literal Genesis account or He did it via evolution." I don't have a problem with that. I could be wrong on some of my interpretations of Scripture. I am not arguing that my way is the right way – I'm explaining my way. That's what I've been doing over this evolution thing. I don't subscribe to it because somebody in Christendom labeled it taboo. From what I understand of the Scriptures and science – I don't buy it.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Has lots to do with it.
EF Schumacher, the German born/Oxford educated economist-philosopher. In economics his book "Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered" remains a centerpiece of environmentalist economic theory. His amazing book of philosophy:"A Guide For The Perplexed", which is a critique of materialist scientism and an exploration of the nature and organisation of knowledge.
I'm a huge fan of "A Guide For The Perplexed", less so of "Small is Beautiful". His philosophy can be found in the exposition of "direct vs. mediated knowledge" in "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" which I remember circulating among some wayfers I knew.
Our shift from direct to mediated knowledge has caused to not "know" anything like we used to. Now, if it's not documented in some way, it's not real. Yet, the most essential things that govern daily living are impossible to be scientifically structured.
I could get a detailed analysis of you in a spectrophotometer, by MRI, etc. and would still be 100% ignorant of Garth. In that way, the Bible account tells me more essentially of our current state than any set of proven or theorized mechanisms ever could. They miss the essential points and address none of our problems.
(Only a tad off topic)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/after/after.htm" ??
No wonder the site sounded familiar! It is the famed Genesis Park.
In the maintenace area of the site, look at the list of contributors. One of them (and he is one of the main ones) is Dr. Kent Hovind, that quack I was telling you about earlier. The same 'scientific' source who maintains that the speed of light slows down over time. The same 'scientific' source that maintains that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. The same 'scientific' source who accused people who accept evolution as 'worshiping time as God' simply because they pose the element of time over the millenia and the eons as to how evolution can work.
If him and his supporters is what you can come up with to show why the 'evidence' supports Creationism, .....
This is like using TWI as a main source for honest biblical research!
Well done! Thank you for my Laugh of the Day.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What I think is funny – the quotes from that link I gave came from some respectable people in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology. Thought I'd just mention a couple below along with their quotes.
Wikipedia gives this of Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, and professor. He was an influential and widely read writer of popular science of his generation; commentators called him "America's unofficial evolutionist laureate." Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
And more info on him at:
http://www.annonline.com/interviews/961009/biography.html
From (Gould, Stephen Jay, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002.):
"...the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well [the] geologically abrupt origin and subsequent extended stasis of most species...Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species look pretty much like the first representatives." (p. 749)
"...the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century...acknowledged the literal appearance of stasis and geologically abrupt origin as the outstanding general fact of the fossil record and as a pattern which would 'pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life.'" (p. 755 quoting George Gaylord Simpson)
"...the long term stasis following geologically abrupt origin of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists."
(p. 752)
"The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants." (p. 753)
"...but stasis is data... Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: 'stasis is data; stasis is data'..." (p. 759)
Gould debunks the: "exceedingly few cases that became textbook 'classics' of coiling of Gryphaea and the increasing body size of the horses etc." (p. 760).
"Indeed proclamations for the supposed 'truth' of gradualism - asserted against every working paleontologist's knowledge of its rarity - emerged largely from such a restriction of attention to exceedingly rare cases under the false belief that they alone provided a record of evolution at all! The falsification of most 'textbook classics' upon restudy only accentuates the fallacy of the 'case study' method and its root in prior expectation rather than objective reading of the fossil record." (p. 773)
Niles Eldridge
Niles Eldredge has been a paleontologist on the curatorial staff of the American Museum of Natural History since 1969. His specialty is the evolution of trilobites—a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 535 and 245 million years ago.
Eldredge's main professional passion is evolution. Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. The theory of "punctuated equilibria," developed with Stephen Jay Gould in 1972, was an early milestone. Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems, and in his book The Pattern of Evolution (1999) he unfolds a comprehensive theory (the "sloshing bucket") that specifies in detail how environmental change governs the evolutionary process.
Concerned with the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species, Eldredge was Curator-in-Chief of the American Museum's Hall of Biodiversity (May, 1998), and has written several books on the subject—most recently (1998) Life in the Balance. He has also combated the creationist movement through lectures, articles and books—including The Triumph of Evolution...And The Failure of Creationism (2000).
An amateur jazz trumpeter and avid collector of 19th century cornets, Eldredge has turned his evolutionary approach to cornet history—and to the comparison of patterns and processes of material cultural and biological evolution. A critic of gene-centered theories of evolution, Eldredge's Why We Do It (2004) presents an alternative account to the gene-based notions of "evolutionary psychology" to explain why human beings behave as they do.
Eldredge is the Curator responsible for the content of the major exhibition Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on November 19, 2005. The exhibition travels to Boston, Toronto and Chicago before going to the Natural History Museum in London in time to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth in 2009. His book Darwin. Discovering the Tree of Life (2005) accompanies the exhibition.
http://www.nileseldredge.com/biography.htm
"Paleontologists ever since Darwin have been searching (largely in vain) for the sequences of insensibly graded series of fossils that would stand as examples of the sort of wholesale transformation of species that Darwin envisioned as the natural product of the evolutionary process. Few saw any reason to demur - though it is a startling fact that ...most species remain recognizably themselves, virtually unchanged throughout their occurrence in geological sediments of various ages." (Eldredge, Niles, "Progress in Evolution?" New Scientist, vol. 110, 1986, p. 55.)
"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservation.. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 48)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
No doubt the sources you exhibit have seen flaws in Darwin's version of the evolutionary theory. Where you fail is in your usage of them to debunk evolution as a whole. ... Like I said, the theory of evolution has grown and matured over the past 150 years, which would include the debunking of some of Darwin's interpretation of the evolutionary process. (Thought I'd try blue this time. :) ) And all you have done by the illustrating of Gould and Eldredge is to strengthen that argument.
... Because for one thing, why is then that Gould and Eldredge are still evolutionists? Hhmmmm?
You're slipping up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I'd like to know how a creationist can think that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the animals. Evolution involves death, yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis. :blink:
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, then they wouldn't be creationists, not according to the biblical account in any event. But there are those who believe that God utilized the evolutionary process to 'create' the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What makes you think that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Got it! So it's sort of been an evolution of the evolution theory…My intent wasn't to debunk anything – like I said earlier – I'm explaining why I don't buy it …You're darn right I'm slipping up… My two greatest fears in regards to this subject are that my belief system will slowly evolve into something Darwinesque or I'll be re-incarnated in the next life as an evolutionary biologist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
refering to:
yet the animals were created before death came into the world according to Genesis.
I guess the line of thinking came from PFAL and rested on some verse (which I can't find at the moment) that said "before death came". Meaning there was no death on the planet until Adam sinned. I suppose it could only have been man that was immortal before the fall, seeing as he was created separately.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Which begs the question: what would carnivorous creatures - if created and designed by the Demiurge as such - have eaten, if death was not in some way essential to their survival to begin with?
Which also brings to recollection a teaching by a woman minister at one Rock of Ages (early 80s, I'm guessing), choking back her tears over the thought that Jehovah had to personally slaughter some little squirrels or chipmunks to allow for Adam and Eve to cover themselves.
Looking back on that now, how surreal.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
…Thinking out loud here…The first mention of death is in Genesis 2:17 – the penalty for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some people [myself included] interpret that to mean a spiritual death [a separation from God]. We read in Genesis 3:22-24 God drives Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden and posts cherubim and a flaming sword to block access to the tree of life, verse 22, “…lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…”
…So I wonder – maybe it wasn’t that they were built not to die – but that they had the potential to live forever if sustained by the tree of life. I think the death in Genesis 2:17 refers to a spiritual death [separation from God] and Genesis 3:22-24 refers to a physical death [separation of life-force from the body]…I dunno – just speculation…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
The threat of dying if they ate of the tree wouldn't mean much to Adam and Eve if they had never seen anything die.
I remember a picture drawn by Jehovah Witnesses in a Watchtower magazine of Paradise when death is done away with. No killing going on at all then. Everyone will be a vegan, and like it. Might end up with a bit of a population problem though.
The curse that fell on the earth as a result of sin would have had to alter nature greatly. Even if it was just in the introduction of thorns and thistles. And holding to the idea that it all changed some 6,000 years ago or so, gives rise to some pretty far out explanations of factual evidence in all the sciences.
Perhaps the hard facts of science are inadequate to describe the spiritual realities of our origins, so God used a fictional rendering to better address our situation. Nothing dishonest in that approach.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I was thinking physical death was a normal occurrence back then – and perhaps Adam and Eve witnessed it happening in the animal kingdom all the time. Perhaps the tree of life was only for humans…There's a lot of things to consider with the curse, the earth, changes in nature. Besides the first humans being pristine models right out of the factory so to speak – I imagine there diet was more conducive to good health…and even imperceptible changes – like in the atmosphere. Some people suggest a water canopy surrounded the earth…a big greenhouse effect – which later collapsed around Noah's time. If that was indeed the case – without that protective filter…perhaps allowed a greater concentration of harmful UV rays – another one of the many factors contributing to a shorter lifespan.
…It is a lot of fun to talk about this stuff. I learn quite a bit from threads like this. Something that has really struck me on this one with talking about the Bible and Science – is the value of other viewpoints and the power of critical thinking…Last night I read from the beginning of this thread and took up Garth's suggestion to Google that Kent Hovind guy – holy cow! He ain't helping the creationist's cause any! Man if that guy doesn't sound like he came out of the same type of TWI-whacko-mold as UNdoctor VPW – then I'll eat my Grease Spot T-Shirt!
Now what am I saying about viewpoints and critical thinking? That it's important to know that my viewpoint acts as a filter when taking in data – the Bible or science stuff. Critical thinking – ideally should help keep me aware of that filter – maybe at times changing it or removing it. Maybe it helps in understanding someone else's viewpoint too.
…What have I gotten out of this thread so far – a number of things. I no longer have such a harsh view of evolutionists. Thinking about Garth's post # 72,
Viewpoint is a big deal – it has a significant role in how we process incoming info – whether it's how we interpret a passage of Scripture or scientific evidence. What Garth said got me to stop and think about a lot of things. I was royally pi$ $ ed off when he would rant about idiots like Hovind – I felt like he was lumping all creationists in the same pile. But I realized I was doing that with my view of evolutionists. Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Over Thanksgiving I watched a debate and Q&A of two authors on CSpan. One was a Intel. Design advocate and the other was an evolutionist. They were going back and forth about why the other should not be taught in public schools. The ID guy was pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution (not always correctly) and the other was pointing out the unscientific nature of ID and it's approach to being included in text books. Then the floor was open to questions.
The evolutionist scientist made a point that explains how I feel pretty well. It was that was that with evolution there is a body of evidence, a huge one actually, and then there are the fringe elements that pick at the edges of it, but vast majority of evidence points in one direction...toward evolution, and that is why he suscribed to it as do I.
It is a theory, no doubt about it. I have questions and concerns about it, but there is a lot there that makes a ton of sense and is backed up with data and evidence.
Gotta go....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Not so, Evan. You can still get a liberal arts degree in mathematics at a handful of schools. And of course, you know this but math is still a big part of philosophy. It is about logic when you get down to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.