I know, I used very similar debate points with my visitors.
My example was:
As a father, you would not let a child play with a gun. You would intervene, because the consequences of not doing so means the end of the child’s life.
But God did not intervene in respect to New Orleans/Katrina. Several hundred folks died (one way to look at that as if it were our own fault is that we decided to build a city in a low lying coastal area frequented by hurricanes), including (I assume) innocent folks.
I forget the reply. (I would have remembered it, I think, if it made sense.)
I don’t blame god for man’s own stupidity. But I don’t understand God’s plan (as they state, everything is as god wills it) when the innocent suffer. Why do babies drown in floods? What purpose did that serve?
At best, it seems God is a stand-offish guy, letting the natural course of events in the universe happen “naturally”, even if that means allwoing some of us ants get squished by a big space rock.
In that case, wsbenge, the Catholic Church and myself don’t understand Evolution. What he typed is pretty much the RCC’s position on the issue and it’s one I fully agree with.
Look at it like this: if God invented the game, then he invented every single rule of it. Including, yes, evolution.
Do you also think it’s impossible to be a Christian and believe in Quantum Physics? I know a lot of people who have problems understanding QPh but understand enough to accept that they work…
Rand Rover, I think you (and plenty of other people on both sides of the issue) are confused about the way in which the theory of evolution excludes God.
The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, has to explain what it does without recourse to any agent outside nature (i.e. God or gods). To be science, it has to provide a purely naturalistic explanation for how and why things happen. In this sense, it excludes God.
But it does so in an agnostic sense, not in an atheistic sense. That is, it can only talk about what happens within the system (of nature), not about the existence or nonexistence of anything or Anyone outside the system that might have set up the system in the first place.
“In that case, why should anyone believe in God?” Well, if the only reason you have for believing in God is to explain things that supposedly otherwise couldn’t be explained via science, then I guess you shouldn’t.
Just to quibble, I’ve read that dog breeders deliberately limit changes to avoid speciation. If you let dogs run wild, I’d expect you’d get speciation in short order, since not many Pekes are going to be mating with Great Danes. You’d also get it as subsets of dogs get geographically isolated from others.
But pekes will mate with poodles, and poodles will mate with terriers, and terriers will mate with labs, and labs will mate with Great Danes, so that in just a few generations I’d expect a free-mating gene pool of dogs to blend and not speciate.
Given enough time, though, they likely would. If you freed all dogs tomorrow and just let them do as they please, given enough time populations would isolate, and you’re get speciation along various lines. Perhaps dogs in cold climates would become larger and fattier, or start to develop hibernation behaviours. After many generations had passed you’d likely see new species emerge.
I suppose. It depends on what “short order” means. Have wolves separated into different species? They’ve been around, and running wild, a lot longer than dogs.
At any rate, species" is a human concept. One definition states that when one population separates into two, they are different species when the two can no longer produce fertile offspring. Since dogs can do so with wolves, it could be argued that they are still one species.
As for breeders deliberately limiting speciation, I would assume that that is just a by-product of adhering to a breed standard. Dogs that don’t breed true are removed from the gene pool.
Environment is more than just the land around them, you know. “The Environment” encompasses the entire set of conditions that the dog lives in. Humans are part of their environment.
What does that have to do with anything? The lack of speciation doesn’t mean that random mutations and selection haven’t taken place.
You don’t see the direct conflict between evolution and the book of Genesis? You know, the part where it talks about Adam and Eve being made one day from dirt and a rib? I don’t think the Bible says “Adam and Eve slowly evolved for millions of years when one day a talking snake shows up…”
And I also wonder why so many Christians start finagling the very clear “days” used in Genesis to try and interpret it as millennia or whatever fits what science *currently *says. It all seems very after-the-fact; trying to superimpose our current understanding on fables.
To have a logically consistent belief in both religion and evolution is akin to being shown how to bend a spoon and then still believing that Uri Geller bends them with his mind. It’s perfectly possible but it requires a much larger degree of faith than most people here are willing to give credit for.
Most Christians who understand evolution have a flawed view of either evolution or Christianity or both. Evolution doesn’t merely provide the mechanism for how humans came to be, it also provides the reason. Natural selection shows how complex forms can come about from random processes and removes the need for a directed process.
Sure you can be both. Hard core fundamentalists view reality in black and white/all or nothing terms, so therefore, creation took literally 7 days as though someone was standing there with a clock timing the whole process. There are many christians who view things more on a symbolic basis and will interpret 7 days as being a figure of speech and evolution could easily be God’s way of getting things rolling. We just interpreted it in a primitive way when man was young.
In the world of quantum mechanics there are two basic philosophies on the purpose or meaning of life. There is the deterministic faction that believes in “the Butterfly” effect, which is basically random molecules colliding and coalescing together that led to existence and somewhere along the line, symbolically, a lightning bolt struck a puddle of primordial ooze and, voila!..It’s Alive!!! There is no meaning other than that.
On the other hand, there is the ontological (relating to or based upon being or existence) branch that takes the stance that there is some kind of meaning and purpose. They believe that eventually we will the resolve the issue of how existence/reality/universe(s) work, et cetera.
But the question will always remain…how did that happen? A fair number of people in this branch are religious/spiritual by nature and do not exclude religions just because…
In what sense? Explain how evolution provides the reason (in a sense where “reason” means something other than “mechanism”).
I maintain that any such “reason” why humans came to be is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. It is part of the philosophy that sometimes accompanies it but is not necessary to it.
And you’d no doubt get something like ring species (though not a ring.) Eventually the breeds on either side of the size spectrum might become mutually infertile. Speciation is sometimes driven by diversion of mating habits over time. Though, as Contrapuntal, species is a human concept.
