Jayhawker Soule

... as found in <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" target="_blank">The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.</a>

Brian K.

Hi guys. I have read the replies and i must give out an award.Drumroll please.......The award for the most annoying "spellchecker" is........PEZZ (Crowd cries in joy because they won't have to see anymore [sic]'s)
ANYWAYS I must say that i'm sure that evolution, along with every other word in the dictionary, has many meanings and we could sit here and argue wether it is a theory, fact or both ALLLLLL
day. I hope we can move on.

tgamble:
I'm sure there are other theories on how the universe was formed.

I am seeing alot of Atheist/Agnostic responces and it would be helpful if i had a few theist. I'm not discouraging Atheists/Agnostics to reply, but i implore Theist to responde.

Thanks for all of your replies, even if they murdered my very terribly spell post.
Brian

Synaesthesia

In the scientific sense, I am aware of no theories of how the universe was formed. Oh, certainly many religious hypotheses that don't solve the problem, but absolutely no scientific theories. All those that exist deal with the earliest evolution of the universe and the development of life.

Kevin Dorner

You may not see any theist responses; most theists who drop by this forum are creationists who want to debate or argue or witness. The billion-plus Christians and Jews worldwide who don't have a problem with evolutionary theory and consider it the method of creation (and consider Genesis allegorical) will have to be asked directly.

Perhaps you will get a theist response here, but until then, here are some external resources:

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp" target="_blank">Voices For Evolution's statements from religious organizations</a>

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4396_message_from_the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp" target="_blank">1996 message from the Pope</a>

<a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,668520,00.html" target="_blank">Creationists 'harm religion': Bishop attacks school's 'extraordinary' approach</a>

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

What other theory did you have in mind?

hyzer

Brian K. “ANYWAYS I must say that i'm sure that evolution, along with every other word in the dictionary, has many meanings and we could sit here and argue wether it is a theory, fact or both ALLLLLL day.”

Well, yes. However, if you are at a dog show and someone calls that contestant a “real bitch” it helps to know the meaning of that word as it used in that context. So, if you are going to debate the veracity of a scientific theory, it helps to use the definition of the word ‘theory’ as used by scientists. Get it? This particular point should not take ‘allllll day’ to agree upon.

“I hope we can move on.”

To where?

stonetools

You asked for a theist, so here goes...
The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It is not a theory of everything, or a perfect theory , but it is the BEST theory. By default, it should therefore be the only one taught in science classroom.
There are other accounts of how life came to be, one of which is young earth creationism. These are religious explanations, and more properly belong in a philosophy or history class.Honestly, I do not know why public schools do not have classes that teach about such explanations (probably, because the ACLU would have a fit). Until they do, unfortunately, creationists will probably continue to try to introduce their stuff into science class.I agree that it does not belong in science class, but also believe that because of the importance of the subject it belongs elsewhere on the school curriculum.
There is also something out there called intelligent design (ID). In my view, ID may one day be science, but it is not now science, and as such does not belong in the science classroom.
Good luck, Brian K. HTH.

Peez

And the award for the most annoying spelling goes to... I point out errors because I would want them pointed out to myself and because I do not wish to be blamed for any errors in quoted material. Please do not take it personally. Seeing as you seem to find it annoying, I will cease in your case. If you wish to talk about "evolution" that is taught in biology class, then you are talking about one specific definition. I remind you that it was you who brought up the issue of whether or not it is a "theory." So, just to be clear, there are many definitions of "evolution" which are not taught in any biology class. The "evolution" that is taught in biology class is both a fact (common descent) and a theory (natural selection), in the sense that "fact" and "theory" are used by scientists. I hope we can move on. I am not aware of any scientific theories on how the universe was formed, and evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. The theory of evolution is about changes in populations of organisms from generation to generation, and it is the only scientific theory that explains the facts so far observed. Perhaps your lack of knowledge about evolution is due to your teacher's same lack. I recommend reading a good introductory biology text book, or perhaps the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">talkorigins</a> website. You are welcome. I also hope that some theists respond, but I should point out that there are many theists who understand and accept the fact and theory of evolution, and teach it as well. There is no automatic conflict.

Peez

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>

mturner

I am seeing alot of Atheist/Agnostic responces and it would be helpful if i had a few theist. I'm not discouraging Atheists/Agnostics to reply, but i implore Theist to responde.

**
Hi Brian;

I don't think you will really grasp the issues until you've got some definitions straight. For instance, 'Atheist'. Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an atheist was a person who took a very strong position, asserting that God/gods and other spiritual entities did not exist, except as superstitions. Now, as was pointed out to me by Bill Snedden, an atheist is simply, "not a theist", and a theist is narrowly defined as someone who believes in a personally involved, caring God/gods or other spiritual entities. Thus the Buddhist 'religion' is atheistic. Personally I don't care much for the definition, since without a 'god', even one considered as a Divine Principle instead of as a 'person', any statement of spiritual reality, such as Buddhism, is rendered vacuous.

I, for instance, am a theist. A Panentheist to be precise. Not to be confused with a Pantheist. A Pantheist is an Atheist according to the modern definition, as is a Deist, since both believe in a 'god', but that 'god' neither cares nor involves itself in the operation of the universe; certainly not the human race.

A Panentheist believes that the universe, the human race, all of creation, absolutely everything and everybody is contained within G*D, whose Divine Nature is called the Logos. But G*D extends, spiritually speaking, far beyond that which we call Creation. The Universe is just a little bit within G*D, a piece of G*D, if you will. Since the LOGOS (similar to the Hindu ATMAN and the Chinese TAO) is by definition intelligent, conscious, and self-aware, it is conscious of its creation, including the human race. If you assume that it holds a positive, that is, loving, attitude towards itself, then that attitude extends to the human race, etc. The same goes for 'freedom', in terms of creativity and will. Which means that where the nature and will of G*D are not contradicted, creation, (i.e. 'reality'), 'can' be adjusted by the power of Faith. That makes Panentheism true Theism, even by the narrow definition. But not Christian in the regular sense, although Panentheism easily accepts some of what is considered Christian. Including the most important part; Agape, Caritas, the concept of "Brotherly Love".

The next confusion lies in the word 'evolution' and in the expression, 'the theory of evolution'.
These can mean either of two very different things; the concept of evolution itself, as change in biological characteristics over time and descent; or, the Darwinian explanation for evolution in terms of a supposed mechanism Darwin called "Natural Selection". No matter how often people confuse these two, both unconsciously and deliberately, they are not the same thing.

Most Theists can easily accept the fact of evolution. The only ones who do not are Fundamentalist Creationists, such as US Evangelical Protestants of Calvinist descent. They also exist among Muslims, Jews, and other faiths, including Atheism. They are bibliolators, bible-worshippers, dogmatists, who insist that their 'holy books', (idols), are literally true. They are very much a minority among educated people, and very much a majority among terrorists.

The problem for the majority of Theists is the Darwinian mechanism, which is today the 'neo-Darwinian' mechanism of random genetic mutation plus natural selection. Since this mechanism insists that evolution is a random, directionless, accidental process, it denies any involvement by any spiritual entity, any non-material entity, including Mind, Intelligence, etc. By so doing it renders the Darwinian mechanism, "Atheistic". In fact, since many scientists insist that no spiritual, that is, 'supernatural', agency can be permitted in science, they hold that all of science must be Atheistic. So many theists put on an Atheist hat when they go to work, and take it off when they get home. Businessmen do that every day. Pretty much everyone does, more's the pity. I do it too.


But supernatural and spiritual are more words in need of defining. Supernatural is merely something for which a 'natural' explanation has not yet been found. Spiritual simply means 'non-material'. Physicalists, who believe that mass/energy is all that exists, cannot accept any spiritual, i.e., non-material phenomena. They either dismiss evidence of it as superstion, or attempt to co-opt it into their philosophy as just an off-shoot, an 'epiphenomenon', of mass/energy. Thus mind, and all of its attributes, such as 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' and 'will' and so on, are merely a bunch of chemicals at work; just doing their electro-chemical thing, for no particular reason.

But other, non-materialist/physicalist/metaphysical naturalist/ etc. etc., philosophies, contend that this just isn't good enough. It leaves far too many observations unexplained, at least in any meaningful sense. (The biggest problem with Darwinism is that it can explain anything, without adding an ounce of meaning to our understanding. In the end it is not a theory, nor even a scientific hypothesis, but merely a metaphor that blankets everything like a fog.) The other mechanism suggested in contrast to the Darwinian "random genertion plus chaotic environmental culling events" that is, the RM&NS mechanism, are those that include Intelligence in biological processes. There are three quite different approaches to Intelligence in evolution, and they all are lumped together under the rubric, 'Intelligent Design'. ID theory, for short.

The educational quarrel over what to teach in science class is really between atheists and creationists. From both sides comes a basic religious fundamentalism that has little to do with science. Certainly no harm should come to any student examining both the Standard Evolutionary Model (neo-darwinism and other elements), along with the (three) basic ID hypotheses. My own hypothesis is called "Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis", and you can learn about it on the ARN discussion board at:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi</a>

pax,

mturner

Peez

Just to avoid any possible confusion, The theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection proposes a decidedly non-random process, certainly not "random" or "accidental." Mutations are random with respect to fitness in a particular environment, but natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. That being said, there are many religious people who accept not only the fact that evolution has occurred, but also the theory of evolution as the explanation for how it occurred. I would disagree, though it is really just semantics. According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: So, I would say that "supernatural" means something for which a ‘natural' explanation is not possible (though the second definition given by Webster's is near to yours). This is just plain wrong. For example, it could not explain the presence of a fossil of a modern horse in Precambrian rock. The theory of evolution has contributed greatly to our understanding of life, and generates testable hypotheses constantly. It is perhaps the most important theory in biology. Straw man. Biologists do not define natural selection as anything like "chaotic environmental culling effects." On the contrary, natural selection is by definition non- random. The educational quarrel over what to teach in science class is between creationism and science. Who are advocating creationism? Religious and political organizations. Who are advocating evolution? Biologists. It is really that simple. Creationists do nothing but try to bash evolution, often by appealing to emotion. They do no science and cannot even tell us what their theory is. Biologists are continuing to perform science based on evolutionary theory. To call creationism "science" is disingenuous.

I should point out that mturner has tried to push the idea that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000931" target="_blank">adaptive mutations</a>.

Peez