God vs. Darwin (another reply)

Joe Ebola said...
What I can never wrap my head around is the total lack of any scientific evidence for creation. The fundamentalist Christians call it "intelligent design" and try to have it taught alongside evolution in schools because they believe there are gaps in the scientific evidence of evolution. But they offer absolutely no evidence for ID. All they have is their faith. I can respect that, I don't bedgrudge them their faith, but it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. I understand the need to that mankind is special, but all the evidence points to us being talking apes.

-----------------------

This is my frustration with the anti-Darwin side. Because their view is wholly based on faith, they immediately assume every counterveiling is the same. They don't take time to understand the science.

It’s a clever device, in that when one can’t argue the scientific point, all that’s left is to insist it’s all a theological discussion, which requires equal time for all sides.

Your point about "talking apes" is what fuels a lot of this. If there is no guiding force, then we really might not be a divine creation's best work. And, it their view, it justifies people acting like "animals." They don't like where they think the theory takes them, so they reject the theory itself. Despite all the evidence in favor of it.

God vs. Darwin (reply)

Herminio Hernandez, Jr. said...
ok, evolution is not random, but is developed by the natural world. so are you saying that nature has a will, that it guides and control the course of the universe? is nature personal? what is nature? is it soly material? there are a whole range questions that you just glossed over. to just write off the christian understanding of evolution like that i find quite surprising.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The question is whether or not nature requires an external motive force to kick it into gear. Could be, but that’s impossible to prove empirically. Faith says it does. Science says maybe, maybe not, we can’t say. All we can do is observe. That’s why the results of our observation is given to teachers to describe, the why of that why is given to theologians to ponder and discuss.

Evolution, from my good understanding of the science and all, is simply an explanation of the observable process of how life develops. Change the landscape, and you change life, because life has an inherent insistence on adapting and diversifying as way to maintain itself. Even death has a vital role here. Genetic changes are incorporated into new life as the "older" models die off. In a prior post I noted that I don't see evolution and divine creation as inherently incompatible, as many theologians seem to.

Some folks, including physicists who understand the minute dynamics of physical reality better than we do, posit the idea of the Watchmaker, where the creative force sets the universe into motion under clear and observable physical rules. Another friend calls it the NFL Commissioner approach to managing reality. “Here’s the playing field, the universe, these are the rules it runs by.” Evolution, in this view, is simply the system in operation.

What is the “Christian view of evolution” to you? Does it incorporate the theory in any way?

Darwin vs. the Pope

July 9, 2005

Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution
by CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

----------------------------------------------------------

One of the things which drives me nuts about the constant war conservative Christian belief has with Darwin is that the conservative Christians don't bother to take the time to actually -study- what Darwin actually began.

Evolution is not "random." It simply holds that life develops and is shaped by the natural world around it. Mammals rose in good part because a comet cleared out the dinosaurs. (And the dinosaurs, apparently, benefitted from earlier mass extinctions which cleared the road for them.) If not, who knows, intelligent reptilian religious thinkers today might be sneering at the idea that we all came from dinosaurs instead of apes. Yet, Darwin critics can't grasp this.

Part of the problem is that organized religions have a poor sense of time regarding the physical universe. This isn't surprising if all you rely on is the Book of Genesis. Man jumps into the universe soon after its built. The implication being that the universe was created primarily to house humanity. So, the rest of natural universe's life, say, four billion years or so, is dispensed with. It's hard to grasp the thousands and millions of years life has developed over the Earth while adapting to changing circumstances if you're looking at the world's life through the lens of a couple of thousand years after the Explusion as your general yardstick.

What's long bugged organized religion about evolution is that it implies that we're all "animals", not God's prime creation. But even a cursory look reveals that we're beasts of the field. We're built the same way as the critters, breath the same air and reproduce like they do. What's specifically different is our apparent sense of and level of individual consciousness. So why couldn't a Spirit fit in there too? A container doesn't have to specifically define what it contains, does it? Just because our physical selves eat salmon like a forest bear means our mind and soul has to be "bearish" too.

Understanding our animal nature helps explains us to ourselves, too. A lot of the (generally) ridiculous works on parenting emphasizes how damaging it is for children to want to sleep with their parents. But it's quite natural for children to want this. As vulnerable young, they have a "natural" inclination to be in a safe place when they sleep, and the young of almost every critter knows that place is with momma or the nest.

Heck, when babes are born they've proven to have an instinctive recognition of the human face. Makes sense. New born ducklings head toward the first big moving thing they see, usually Momma Duck. Any new born has to make immediate connection with its caregiver or it's not surviving. Needless to say, over the millennia, the ones who make this connection survive, and pass it on to their kids. Evolution in action every day a baby is born.

The most frustrating thing about the Catholic Church getting involved in this is all the time and energy it'll waste fussing over nothing. With war, famine and environmental destruction hanging over the Third World, where most of its new converts are, you'd think they'd focus on something more relevant to its members. But I guess that's why you bring in a German to run things. If you want to establish order and re-fight the mythical past, you bring in the experts.

Your Thought for the Day - updated

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."

- Editorial Page, Sunday Portland Oregonian

--------------------------------------------

This is where the new Christian social conservative types turn traditional Republican doctrine on its butt. They say they want limited government, but what they leave standing after they destroy everything else is completed directed toward telling how people should be running their lives. It's really a theocratic form of social engineering. Whereas conservatives used to pound on liberals for trying to use public policy to recast personal behavior, the right wing Christian types are up to the same trick, using the power of the state to push everyone into a pew.

This is why they hate the Islamist jihadists so much. They know exactly what the jihadists have in mind, because they see it in the mirror every day.

(Non) Idiot Dad

From June 22,2005

Idiot Dad
So the poor kid who was lost in Utah has his dad to blame him for being lost for so long. Idiot dad. Dad told son not to talk to strangers, because they'd carry him off.

--------------------------------

Fortunutely, I didn't teach my son such foolishness.

The family spent about two weeks earlier this summer travelling around the West, through Nevada and Idaho to Glacier National Park, then down through Yellowstone to my brother's weekend getaway on Bear Lake on the Utah/Idaho border, then back through the Bonneville Salt Flats back home. It was great fun. Folk can read all about it here:

http://mercerpreston.blogspot.com

We had the rented van 'til a few days after the trip, in part due to midcourse correction on the trip which shorted it a day, and because we wanted to use it to carry bookshelves and other stuff back from the Ikea furniture store near Berkeley. So we decided to spend a day and a half at Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, then back up to Ikea on the way home. It was triple digits here in Sacramento, so the cooling shoreside relief was mighty welcome.

Santa Cruz beach is big. And fun. So much fun that Leroy got separated from us while we romped around like maniacs. After a brief search, we contacted the nearest lifeguard tower and told him our son was missing. "You must be Leroy's parents", the guard said nonchalantly. "He's at Tower 3. We'll drive him back."

Turned out that once Leroy realized he'd gotten separated, he looked around briefly, then went up to the lifeguard tower and turned himself in. He gave some pretty detailed descriptions too. The lifeguard laughed as he drove up, telling Alice, "So you're a teacher, huh?" When asked to describe us, Leroy replied, "They wear glasses!"

Moral to the story: is that if I were one of those weirdos who told my son never to talk to anyone he doesn't know, he wouldn't known to go to the lifeguard tower, which returned him to us will little muss or fuss, just a bit of worry. We train our six-year-old with happy feet where to go for help if he needs it. As a result, he's less likely to be carried off by weirdos and Gypsies. And we won't run from people looking for him on the trail.

This is probably the biggest thing we gain from relying on fair and balanced NPR instead of Fox40 for our news. We can see the world as it truly is. Full of more people who want to help than hurt, and to help our son use this fact when he needs to. I'm a good daddy.

Urban Renewal - 2005

Stuart Sibley wrote:
We agree, Terry. I think it is a good idea to move the poor out and give their land to rich corporations for the benefit of shareholders. This ia a very Republican idea, if you believe Kerry. Who needs urban blight?

-----------------------

Or suburban sprawl. That's just one of the benefits of this ruling.

The law has always stated that anyone who loses their property through eminent domain receive market compensation for the loss. So while one may lose land, one isn't losing one's wealth.

As for the benefits, the poor overall will be better off. The whole point of the case in question was whether the city could use redevelopment and eminent domain in this way to help grow the city's tax base. A sound capitalist approach is to encourage private capital to invest, wouldn't you say? A new mall brings in higher property, sales and other taxes, making it easier to pay for public services for all.

See? Welfare mommas still make out under this ruling. The rich get richer and poor get more welfare. Everyone's happy. How can any thinking American be against this?

"This land is your land, this land is my land ...!"

stuart sibley said...
Would you care to comment on the liberal Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain? While you were busy accusing the Rep party of being in the pocket of big business, your lib buddies just sold your property to Pfizer.

--------------------------------

I think it's a fantastic decision.

First, as George Will wrote, the decision kinda shows conservatives that a little judicial activism is a good thing. For years, the right wing has been hollering that courts need to step back and let legislatures define all legal meaning, with courts properly deferring to whatever interpretation they come up with. If people don't like their definitions, toss 'em out and vote new legislators in.

Well, the court in this case agreed. It allowed legislatures to define "public purpose" themselves and act accordingly, through the power of eminent domain. Sometimes, Stuart, you gotta be careful what you ask for.

It's a fine ruling in practical terms too.

Our glorious nation suffers sprawl in part because of all the work it takes to rebuild our core cities and older suburbs. Having spent time in local politics in Oakland, California before moving to Sacramento, I know how hard it is to redevelop an urban core. You can't rebuild without moving something out, and that's hard. It's expensive, complex and a disincentive for businesses to work through. That process has potentially gotten a lot easier with this ruling.

Development and redevelopment has always been an intense political issue. The court noted that this ruling could give the richer and more powerful more say in getting private land repurposed for them.

But business has generally seen it the other way around. The planning process as it stands is intensely procedural. Any developer or business owner has a couple of horror stories to tell.

Here in Sacramento we just hosted the 2005 Triple A All-Star Game at beautiful Raley Field. But it was a nightmare to get the park built. Lawsuits and reviews and reviews of the reviews came up and came up again. There are whole tribes of lawyers who live just to work in this field of policy. Some decisions, like a recent rejection of a Walmart store by referendum in a depressed Southern California city, show that the people can speak when the policymakers can't or won't.

The court majority in this case trusts democracy to work. Too bad many conservatives can't.

Flag Burning - Symbolic Speech

DHGulley said...
Define "Symbolic Speech" for me, Terry

-----------------------------------------

Oh, leafleting, picketing, demonstrating, things like that. There are a lot of ways to make one's opinions known besides letters to the editor.

Sometimes you need a visual device to get your point across. Burning a flag as part of a demonstration is one way to do it, and as long as it's not violating local fire ordinances, it oughta be protected. The anti-reproductive choice crowd likes to use pictures of fetuses. That's symbolic speech too. If Congress can regulate flags, what stops them from regulating pictures some might object too, hmm? The socialist conservatives need to think about that.

I use the term "socialist" conservative here because I've realized that's pretty much what the social conservatives are, folks who want everyone around them to walk in the same lockstep, much like the Commies did. I'm using it from now on, and I'm applying for a copyright.

That's what "freedom" is son, the duty to protect others when they do things you think are silly, as long as they're not hurting anyone doing it. Like flag burning.

It's great to live in a free country. I hope Mr. Bush remembers this when he makes his Supreme Court pick. The Dems certainly will, which is why they're my boys and girls.