It is precisely because man cannot make a worm, coupled with a belief that worms were designed rather than popped into existence from nothing, that god remains popular.
This is an interesting issue. Here is what Stephen Hawking says about “abiogenesis” -- the causes of the first self-replicating terrestrial forms: “Life seems to have originated in the primordial oceans that covered the Earth four billion years ago. How this happened we don’t know. It may be that random collisions between atoms built up macromolecules that could reproduce themselves and assemble themselves into more complicated structures. What we do know is that by three and a half billion years ago, the highly complicated DNA molecule had emerged” (The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 161). Ernst Mayr, professor at Harvard, addresses the issue of abiogenesis in his book What Evolution Is. It is a book that I highly recommend. It is comprehensive, fascinating and fairly clear. According to Mayr, “Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. The earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living. “What else can we say about the beginnings of life? After 1859 some of Darwin’s critics said: 'This Darwin may well have explained the evolution of organisms on earth, but he has not yet explained how life itself may have originated. How can inanimate matter suddenly become life?' This was a formidable challenge to the Darwinians. Indeed, for the next 60 years, this seemed an unanswerable question even though Darwin himself had already perceptively speculated on this issue: 'all the conditions for the first production of a living organism…[could be met]…in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present.' Well, it did not turn out to be as easy as Darwin thought. “…The first serious theories on the origin of life were proposed in the 1920s (Oparin, Haldane). In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century. One is justified to claim that there are now a number of feasible scenarios of how life could have originated from inanimate matter. To understand these various theories requires a good deal of technical knowledge of biochemistry. To avoid burdening this volume with such detail, I refer the read to the special literature dealing with the origin of life (Schopf 1999; Brack 1999; Oparin 1938; Zubbay 2000). “The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis. “In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic [the deficiency or absence of oxygen] atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have not fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria. We have no idea (and in the absence of fossils quite likely never will have) what their ancestors in the preceding 300 million years looked like” (What Evolution Is, p. 40 - 43). ------------------- Here is a link to an article on Stanley Miller’s experiments: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01m.html In 1953, Miller, a grad student at the University of Chicago, combined water vapor, hydrogen sulfides, methane gas and ammonia with lightning discharges. One of the products of the reaction was amino acids, which are an important part of RNA. However, subsequent research suggests that the atmosphere of early-earth may have been importantly different than the atmosphere in Miller’s experiments. Apparently early-Earth had a lot of oxygen. Great, right? Well, apparently not for the success of pre-biotic systems. However, his research is still important. For one thing, it got people thinking about the circumstances that might have given rise to the first self-replicators. In subsequent experiments, non-self-replicating molecules have been transformed into self-replicating molecules. This shows that this kind of event can happen. Here is a link to an article on an experiment done in Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm Here is a link to similar experiment done at MIT: http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html Here is a link to research being done in Cambridge on the “RNA-world hypothesis”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030827071101.htm On a more general note, it is clear that there is life on earth. The question is: what event(s) caused the first life to be here? Some people believe that inert matter instantaneously transformed into, for instance, the first two elephants, one male and one female. Others believe that the first organism that we would recognize as an elephant was born from other organisms -- the same way that I was born; and that we can trace evolution back to jellyfish, algea, bacteria and eventually inert matter. The latter hypothesis is much more plausible than the former. For one, cell-division has been occurring on planet earth every second of every day for about 3.8 billion years. Cells tend to divide many times per year, and the daughter-cell sometimes has a different genome (sometimes with more nucleotides) than that of its parent-cell. Moreover, including plants, sexual reproduction has occurred many times every day on planet earth for perhaps about 1.5 billion years. On average, organisms sexually reproduce many times per year. Sexual reproduction always results in an offspring that has a genome that is different than that of either of its parents. It sometimes results in offspring that have more nucleotides in their DNA than do their parents. In contrast, no reliable group of people has ever seen anything remotely similar to inert matter instantaneously transforming into an elephant, and humans have been looking for that kind of thing for about 150,000 years. Also, there was water on early earth, and water is vital for life. Also, earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the oldest known bacteria is about 3.5 billion years old. One billion years is a long time. Also, even if the probability of the first self-replicating forms coming into being was low, we know of numerous examples of events that had a low probability of occurring that did, in fact, occur. For example, it was unlikely that person X would win the lottery. And he won!
That may rank up there with some of the longest posts on BigSoccer that will never be read completely. Too long.
Worms (and all other creatures for that matter) were "pooped into existence from nothing"? Why is it that those who know the least about science are exactly those who attempt to criticize it most loudly? Oh, and if you want to point at the god who dethroned Yahweh, look to economics, not Darwin. Most people couldn't care less about evolution because they're too busy worshipping every day at the altars of the Almighty Dollar.
Going slightly OT here... Why is it in all of the arguments that I have seen about evolution, intelligent design, "Did God create the universe and pillbugs" etc. that few people have ever tried to reconcile both ideas? Why have few people attempted to propagate a belief that a supernatural being was responsible for creating the universe, but that that God's method for creation was perhaps a purposely-caused Big Bang and possibly God "made man" through the processes of evolution? It just seems to me there have been only two arguments... The Bible and that's it, and Science as far we have been able to to determine... and that's it. Nothing in the middle?
??? Most people (Westerners, anyway) do believe in both evolution and a god. They're two entirely different disciplines. Only illogical extremists would find anything irreconcilable about the two.
Well yeah, I think so too. But why haven't hypotheses about "theistic evolution" received as much publicity as either creation/intelligent design or solely evolution/the Big Bang?
1. I'm not part of group one because I accept that natural selection in some ways describes the development of life, and while I doubt an elephant came from Ed Crocker's billion-year old bacteria and I double doubt that man came from self-same bacteria, neither belief is foundational to my acceptance of the Bible. 2. This group started it in this thread, which I do not intend to hijack any further since we did about 16 pages on evolution and men's souls about 3 months ago. 3. I do not want to meet the archeologist that scans the Internet for naked Neanderthals.
Probably because developing a hypothesis on "theistic evolution" is about as useful as developing one on "biological baseball."
Because it's not science's job to speculate about God. Creationists have their own bizarro agenda, but most religious people understand that it's not difficult to reconcile science and faith. Creationists will never accept that, because they've chosen to cling to Biblical literalism. They try to attack evolutionary theory using "science," but science cannot shoot back by giving any opinion on God. Scientists can only defend their theories using their methods on their terms. People can then choose to believe what they want. Most people's faith is strong enough to withstand observed reality.
I care. I think it is incredibly interesting. In fact, I submit that the question of why we are here is fascinating and very important. Of course, we don't have all the answers. Not even close. But I just want to understand as much as I can. Mike, that is false. I know a lot of people that are not in any of those three groups and that are very interested in evolution. I am one. Most people I know well are also. I've been interested in evolution ever since I can remember.
Monop_poly, not to put you on the spot, but what event(s) do you believe are likely to have caused the existence of the first elephant and human? What evidence, if any, supports that hypothesis? DD, a number of people have worked on this issue. One book that has a good reputation is Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. He is a Catholic and professor of biology at Brown.
my 2 cents: Originally posted by El CHarro_NEgro.... 26 Jul 2003 Yes, I also think that evolution is a fact. But, is the only mechanism that generated all the diversity we have today? I don't think so, and I hope that I can demonstrate it one day. Originally posted by El CHarro_NEgro.... 26 Jul 2003 I think that essence of god can be founded at the Chaos, rather than in the order, where many classic scientist tried to find it. Does all our behavior is already determined by the finite number of factors that build the universe? Our "destiny" was sealed at the time the universe was generated? Or we can have a decisions and fate that none can predict, even for an infinite being that can measure with infinite precision? Mathematics can't generate a random number, we can suppose that exist and work with it, but never generate it. So, what can give us the skill to be responsible beings? A soul perhaps? https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62446&perpage=15&pagenumber=6
I'm interested in the "physical factors." Also, I believe that understanding evolution has given me a better understanding of deeper philosophical issues. And there is nothing psychopathic about it. It's interesting to me. To a lot of other people it is, too. A lot of books are written on the subject. Come on. First, I'm sure you're wrong. That 99.9% is a ridiculous number. I'm not just talking about a small circle of friends; I'm also talking about most, if not all, of the people I knew in college. I took classes on evolution, and they were big. And every student in there was fascinated in the information. Also, where I went to college there was a lecture on evolution by Stephen J. Gould, and the lecture was packed and there was a buzz in the auditorium. Also, there are so many books written on evolution. It is one of the most discussed topics in the world right now. I read a statistic that said there are more books being written on evolution than on any other subject. Maybe I can find the stat. In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of people on this board interested in the events that lead to the diversity of life on earth. Come to think of it, nearly everybody I know is interested in evolution and why we are here. If you are not interested in evolution, then you are one of the few people I know who isn't. And, you know what, I think you are at least somewhat interested in it. Why else would you be getting involved in this discussion? Besides, there is nothing wrong with being interested in ideas and science. They're cool. I highly doubt that the search for a better understanding of the past is a significant cause of the problems in the world. In fact, I bet it's the opposite. In the words of Santayana, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
"Liberal" here means conservative politically - the "Liberal Party" who are currently in power are the equivalent of the Rebublicans. George W and our Prime Minister John Howard are great mates. Also, any politician who professed to having strong religious beliefs (as distinct from popping into church now and again) here has no chance of getting elected.
No different then what's happening here. Even the most devout PM's tend to be contradicting their religous beliefs (Catholics are the largest group in Canada). The churches here have been going through a great deal of turmoil due to events in the past.
Edcrocker - you are right, most people are interested in evolution to some degree but, other than in the fevered imaginations of some religious nutcases, it has no relevance to religion whatsoever for the reason already given. i.e. that god, if he existed, could equally well have designed an evolutionary process as the method in the bible. I must say I've always found peoples attempts to explain the connection between science and belief absolutely laughable. I remember reading DesCartes Discourse on Methods as a teenager in which he tries, (among other things), to prove that god exists. It's been more than thirty years since I read it but, if memory serves, the gist of it is that god must exist because I can conceive of something more perfect than I am. Apart from the fact that, logically, you could equally well argue that I am god because I am the one doing the 'conceiving of', the argument is entirely circular. Indeed, all religious belief is entirely circular - that's why you 'have to have faith' - because, by definition, there can be no logical reason to believe in a god. I don't believe in hob-goblins, pixies, elves, leprechauns or fairies. I don't blame any other being for my failings or achievements and I don't see the need to invent something, or believe in something somebody else has invented, to explain the world or any part of it I don't presently understand. So in answer to those among us who ask me to explain how life was created I simply say I don't know - then again... I suppose it could be the pixies..
Usually because understanding how something works gives you at least some control over it. Our current use (and abuse) of genetics, for example, would not be possible without the concept of evolution. Second, the processes of biological self-organization can apply to other self-organizing systems. This is one of the reasons why computer programmers, for example, are also interested in the application of complexity theory to evolution. They want to understand how something that starts so simple and seemingly randomly can organize itself into something wonderfully useful and complex entities so that they can build more efficient, self-programming systems. I feel sorry for them then, because soft tissues generally don't fossilize. --------------------- If you don't believe that evolution also applies to man as well as other animals, you're in the "fundie" group because one of the chief criteria of "fundamentalist" is the ability to ignore relevant observations when they disagree with the fundamentalist's pre-concluded beliefs. At the very least, by your refusal to admit the possibility of human evolution under any circumstances you have removed yourself from any scientific discussion on the topic. As GringoTex said, you can believe in both God and evolution if you want and not be the worse off for it. ----------------------------- "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away." -Philip K Dick I guess theoretically I can "choose" to believe that my great telekinetic powers will stop that huge truck that is speeding in my direction but as a practical matter, I'd better get the hell out of the way or get my ass run over. "Faith" should not necessarily mean "willfull ignorance" or "pathological denial of the patently obvious". ---------------------- Making a big Pharisitical show of "having religion" is mandatory if you want to get elected U.S. President. Professing strong "Christian" belief is also required if you want to get elected to any position from dogcatcher to the U.S. Congress in some areas of the country. Of course, to get elected and then actually run anything you have to throw anything even remotely resembling religious ethics right out the window as far as actions (not your religious words) are concerned. In short, over here you have to talk like Billy Graham but act like Macchiavelli.
You can include those of us concerned that our tomatoes now have mouse genes in them or whatever our mad scientists are cooking up in the genetically modified food labs these days. I always pictured mono_poly as more the Austrolopithicus type... But, no, I don't spend all day every day thinking about evolution any more than most self-styled Christians spend all day thinking about God. Most of us spend most of our time thinking about what will get us a bigger paycheck, help us do less work or (for those who aren't an old married man like me) how to get into the pants of that hot redhead over in Marketing. If humans were designed, the designer wasn't very intelligent as we're loaded with design flaws. And the designer had no aesthetic sense either, to judge by the majority of the population. Not that I'm exactly anyone's idea of a fashion model or anything, of course. I'm just sayin'...