February 11, 2005

ACTUALLY, IT'S DARWINISTS STILL FIGHTING CREATION:

Creationists still fighting evolution (ANDREW GREELEY, February 11, 2005, Chicago Sun-Times)

Slightly more than half of the American people reject evolution. During the last decade, the General Social Survey conducted by National Opinion Research Center (and directed by my colleague Dr. Tom M. Smith) has asked whether a respondent thinks that humans are descended from animals. Fifty-two percent said that either this was definitely not true or probably not true.

Ever since they won the battle but lost the war in the Scopes trial of 1925, conservative Christians have waged an intensive war against evolution.


As he just acknowledged in his first paragraph, Christians won the war. Indeed, they won more decisively than his numbers indicate: only 12-13% of Americans avow a belief in natural evolution.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 11, 2005 11:07 AM
Comments

It all depends how you ask the question.

If it were, 'Which is a more accurate rendering of the history of mankind, one of the two creation stories in Genesis or that which naturally follows from the Theory of Evolution?', I think there would be a different polling result.

Posted by: Bart at February 11, 2005 11:39 AM

Bart:

Yes, but that's not a significant question.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 12:31 PM

Ask the question Bart's way and I shouldn't doubt it:

Question Content

It naturally follows that Bart might want to look at the section "Is Question Biased or Loaded?"

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 11, 2005 1:33 PM

"Ever since they won the battle but lost the war in the Scopes trial of 1925, conservative Christians have waged an intensive war against evolution."

So, ever since they lost the war, they've waged a war. Clever. Sounds like they may not have actually lost the war then, eh?

Posted by: Timothy at February 11, 2005 1:46 PM

Timothy:

Particularly since so few believe in Darwinism in America.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 1:48 PM

I'd say the war isn't quite over yet. Nor is the battle. Darwinism vs. Creationism is just a battle in a wider cultural conflict. I think it may turn out to be a mistake for the religious groups to hang so much on this particular battle since it can only be lost (for example, if examples of macro-evolution are discovered in the fossil records) and never completely won (you can't prove a negative). There's no reason that religious belief and morality is not completely compatible with Darwinism, so why choose this battle?

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 1:58 PM

Bret:

It'll be won demographically, institutionally and culturally, not scientifically. Believers in Darwinism are dying off and the zeitgeist is changing. Science is always a lagging indicator and follows the culture.

It matters because there are evil moral consequences to Darwinism.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 2:04 PM

"It matters because there are evil moral consequences to Darwinism."

Only because you choose to allow it to be evil. If you embraced it, you could mitigate the evil.

"Believers in Darwinism are dying off."

They're not going to die off quite quickly enough for your purposes.

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 2:13 PM

Bret:

No, you can't. It's inherently evil.

Look at how fast Europe and the Blue States are declining--who will follow their philosophy of self-loathing?

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 2:23 PM

oj:

So, they are declining strictly because of their belief in Darwinism? There's no other factors, say, for example, their lack of religion, overcrowding, government bureaucracy, etc.?

What I'm saying is that if the religions embraced Darwinism, then the Darwinists could embrace religion, and the decline would be mitigated.

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 2:38 PM

Bret:

Darwinism is their religion.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 4:57 PM

oj:

Darwinism is a religion for a handful of scientists and advocates around the world. For everyone else, Darwinism is such a minuscule part of their worldview, if it's present at all, that it has no significance. I often travel on business to that most liberal of liberal European states, the Netherlands, and even the people there hardly ever contemplate Darwinism and evolution. They simply don't have the interest and they don't have the time.

On the other hand, if I had to identify the "religion" of many in the Netherlands, I would call it Materialism. If the religions had embraced Darwinism, they could have pulled the rug out from under Materialism. But they didn't. They still can, but they won't. Too bad.

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 5:18 PM

Bret:

Yes, but they require a Creation myth and something to free them from the demands of Judeo-Chrisatian morality--something to justify their grotesque materialim. Darwinism provides that.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 5:28 PM

oj:

The religions allowed Darwinism to be used as a Creation myth for Materialism. Darwinism isn't inherently a creation myth. Darwinism has never tried to address how the physical universe was created prior to the existence of life, leaving plenty of room for standard religions to interface with their Creation myths. Had they done so, Materialism would have been thwarted.

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 5:44 PM

Bret:

No one cares how the Universe got here--we care how we got here. Darwin tells them they got here by coincidence through rather unpleasant means. It liberates them from morality. If it hadn't been Darwin someone else would have cooked up something similar enough to justify Materialism. Science follows the zeitgeist.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 6:02 PM

"No one cares how the Universe got here--we care how we got here."

The creation of the universe is a rather important step in the process of how we got here. No?

"[Darwinism] liberates them from morality."

No! It doesn't! In fact, I believe it leads to the exact opposite conclusion - that since the morality of our ancestors is part of the genetic/memetic package that led to our survival as a species/culture, we should be very careful to avoid deviating from that culture (and morality).

"If it hadn't been Darwin someone else would have cooked up something"

That may well be true, but that's not a fair reason to blame Darwin for immorality, decline, Materialism, etc. The churches would still have been better off to embrace Darwinism.

By the way, I'm enjoying this debate immensely and I appreciate the time you're putting into it. Thanks.

Posted by: Bret at February 11, 2005 9:03 PM

Bret:

No, we're too self-centered to care about anything but us.

All the other species do fine without morality and we did fine before it was revealed to us.

Yes, Darwinism is an artifact of Materialism, not its cause.

My pleasure.

Posted by: oj at February 11, 2005 9:48 PM

oj,

"No one cares how the Universe got here ..."

Wrong. Some of us do.

"... we're too self-centered to care about anything but us."

Look, I'm sure you're a better person in reality than you make yourself sound in this passage. But, here, you're making your worldview sound like the ideology of Paris Hilton -- "it's all about MEEEEEEEEEE!"

You can do better. Please try.

Posted by: Erich Schwarz at February 12, 2005 2:44 AM

Bret:

No! It doesn't! In fact, I believe it leads to the exact opposite conclusion - that since the morality of our ancestors is part of the genetic/memetic package that led to our survival as a species/culture, we should be very careful to avoid deviating from that culture (and morality).

Well said--you highlighted the irony of this whole brouhaha. The notion of morality is every bit as firmly placed--but for different reasons--for those who believe the Theory of Evolution correctly explains our origins as it is for religionists.

The blanket hanging of all manner of evil on Darwin is tantamount to wishing away all the evil preceding him.

You might also have noted, in pointing out that scarcely anyone gives any thought to Darwin or Creationism, that most major religious denominations have done precisely as you suggested. Catholicism, for one, no longer has a problem with the Theory of Evolution.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 12, 2005 6:08 AM

Orrin,

If it were, 'Which is a more accurate rendering of the history of mankind, one of the two creation stories in Genesis or that which naturally follows from the Theory of Evolution?', I think there would be a different polling result.

Yes, but that's not a significant question.

What makes it less significant than the question asked in the poll you cited?

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 8:30 AM

creeper:

the question isn't either/or, but whether people accept Darwinism because they think it an instrument of God, which means they don't accept the basic tenets of Darwinism.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 8:38 AM

Erich:

It is all about me for me, all about you for you. Even Darwinism recognizes that selfishness shapes all.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 8:39 AM

Jeff:

So you're arguing that since we survived thanks to belief in Judeo-Christianity we shouldn't change that?

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 8:42 AM

"Particularly since so few believe in Darwinism in America."

According to the link you provided, it's 51%. 13% believe in evolution without God, 38% believe in evolution with God's guiding hand.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 8:51 AM

Evolution guided by God is Creationism, not Darwinism. If God selects then Nature doesn't.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 8:55 AM

Orrin,

"Evolution guided by God is Creationism"

I know you're fond of making up your own definitions for words to support your world view, so could you please provide a current commonly accepted definition of evolution that corresponds to this?

Creationism generally does not include evolution. Intelligent Design does.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 9:39 AM

creeper:

If God creates the species, as you're suggesting, that's Creationism by definition.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 9:44 AM

By which definition?

The extent of God's guidance in this scenario has not been specified, even by yourself despite the occasional invitation. If God just gives it a little nudge here and there, that is not the same as creating something.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 11:02 AM

Orrin,

"the question isn't either/or, but whether people accept Darwinism because they think it an instrument of God, which means they don't accept the basic tenets of Darwinism."

That, however, is not the question in the poll.

51% of the people in the poll accept evolution in combination with other beliefs.

If you think the question is or should be something else, then cite a different poll. Don't pretend that this one asks what you would like it to ask, even when it plainly doesn't, or string on elaborate unwarranted definitions that were clearly not part of the package at the time these people were polled.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 11:13 AM

creeper:

Okay, if we're just down to semantics, I'll accept your definition of a Universe that God Created and where He intervenes to Create species until He arrives at Man.

I'd call it Creationism but if you've a name you'd prefer I'll happily use it.


N.B.: The poll asks about evolution guided by God, which isn't Evolution but whatever name you come up with for Creationism.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 11:14 AM

Orrin,

I don't define the universe that way, but I don't begrudge people who choose that definition their right to their own beliefs.

"I'd call it Creationism but if you've a name you'd prefer I'll happily use it."

I know you're fond of home-baked definitions, and that may work well for you around the dinner table at home, but it does not apply to a 1000 or so random people being polled.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 11:30 AM

creeper:

Fine. Offer a definition and we can use it from hence forth. What would you call someone who believes that God Creates the species but uses some form of Evolution to do so?

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 11:39 AM

Orrin,

I would place them under Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design does not stand in contradiction to evolution; it is a religious complement to it.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 11:44 AM

Fine. Offer a definition and we can use it from hence forth.

I have an idea. Go to a Creationist web site and use theirs. It sure as heck isn't OJs, and it sure as heck isn't ID. Both Creationism and ID assert certain changes are impossible without God's intervention.

OJ seems to think they are all possible, but some got God-help to urge them along.

Or something like that--it is awfully tough to tell from post to post.

So you're arguing that since we survived thanks to belief in Judeo-Christianity we shouldn't change that?

Think about that question for a second--the antecedent is nonsense: we survived for far longer without Judeo-Christianity than with it.

Which makes the question impossible to answer--surely you noticed that.


Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 12, 2005 11:50 AM

"Go to a Creationist web site and use theirs. It sure as heck isn't OJs, and it sure as heck isn't ID."

... and the same from any dictionary.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I think I've posted a bunch of these definitions before, but Orrin unfortunately has taken some kind of inane pride in his ability to ignore information input.

That may work well for Orrin, but to then claim that a number of people polled at random happen to somehow be perfectly in tune with his home-made dinner table definitions must be embarrassing even to him.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 11:55 AM

Jeff:


You agreed with the proposition that :

since the morality of our ancestors is part of the genetic/memetic package that led to our survival as a species/culture, we should be very careful to avoid deviating from that culture (and morality).

Am I to undertstand you changed your mind...again...

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 11:59 AM

creeper:

Okay so 13% believe in Evolution and the rest believe in I.D., Creationism, or other. That's a perfectly reasonable assessment.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 12:01 PM

Orrin,

So is that 51% believe in evolution (which includes I.D.), and the rest believe in Creationism or don't know or have no opinion.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 12:07 PM

I.D. is evolution?

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 12:10 PM

Orrin,

"I.D. is evolution?"

I.D. includes evolution. I.D. says evolution happened, and God helped out. Not sure if it specifies how and where God did these things.

God created life, then let it run its own course. Helped out once in a while.

Not a million miles from your belief, as I understand it, that God created us and now we have free will.

Creationism opposes evolution. I.D. can hold hands with evolution.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 12:27 PM

Well, if you can't distinguish Evolution from Intelligent Design either we could have saved ourselves a lot of typing.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 1:49 PM

I never said I couldn't distinguish them, but this is hardly the first time I've pointed out that they're not incompatible.

In contradiction of the plain meaning of a number of words, you choose to believe that everyone who believes in God is a creationist.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 2:41 PM

creeper:

Anyone who believes that there is a God and He creates the species would be a Creationist by plain English, but I'm willing to accept the notion that the 83% are Intelligent Designers.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 3:07 PM

"Well, if you can't distinguish Evolution from Intelligent Design either we could have saved ourselves a lot of typing."

Wait a minute, I just spotted this little word...

Not only do you think I can't distinguish them, but you freely profess that you can't distinguish them either?

The thing is, I can distinguish them. I think they are not as incompatible as you believe, but you seem, on the one hand, to not be able to distinguish Evolutionists from I.D.ers, but on the other hand to be quite happy to lump all I.D.ers in with Creationists.

And that is not supported by anything but your own definitions, which, unless you can show otherwise, you appear to merely make up on the spot to bolster your own arguments.

Undeservedly so, of course.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 3:15 PM

"Anyone who believes that there is a God and He creates the species would be a Creationist by plain English,..."

Please point us to the 'plain English' definition (any major dictionary will do) that supports that interpretation.

Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 3:18 PM

Thank you for illustrating this point:

In contradiction of the plain meaning of a number of words, you choose to believe that everyone who believes in God is a creationist.
Posted by: creeper at February 12, 2005 3:26 PM

Evewryone who believes that God created the species is a creationist, though we've agreed to call them Intelligent Designers.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 5:45 PM

Here's Creationism defined. It includes I.D.:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2005 5:47 PM

Am I to undertstand you changed your mind...again...

No, you are to understand your question is nonsense.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 12, 2005 7:17 PM

Am I to undertstand you changed your mind...again...

No, you are to understand your question is nonsense.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 12, 2005 7:25 PM

oj,

At this point I don't know whether you're playing the fool deliberately, or not. I'd prefer to think the former.

Darwinism certainly does not teach that "it's all about me". It teaches that the Universe relentlessly weeds out those forms of life that can't cope with their environment and their own individual mortality by passing on the torch of life. That is anything but a world-view "all about me".

For those organisms complex enough to have minds and purposes, even that becomes an inadequate description. Both you and I are capable of making decisions not on the basis of our genetics but on the basis of our understanding. If that were not so, Darwinism itself couldn't have arisen, since science requires the existence of conscious minds capable of reasoning.

Thomas Huxley grieved over the death of his young son. As an agnostic, one of his religious friends gently asked him if religion might not be a consolation to him. Huxley answered that even if atheism were true, and meant the death of all his heart's hopes, that "truth is better than much profit".

Such a devotion to truth is the fundamental requirement of all honest science. It is something possible only for a conscious, rational mind capable of valuing truth above "me". I leave it to you to decide whether it is something possible for a twenty-first-century Christian as well as for a nineteenth-century agnostic.

Posted by: Erich Schwarz at February 13, 2005 5:20 AM

Orrin,

We seem to have a few conflicting definitions here, with the plain English of our commonly used dictionaries making Creationists out to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, while the link you posted gives them all kinds of other variations.

It's an interesting link, by the way. Unfortunately, the survey you cited is too vague for us to be able to determine whether the 38% that believe in a combination of evolution and God's guiding hand fall into the category of Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution, or Methodological Materialistic Evolution.

It remains true, as I pointed out before, that 51% of those polled believe in evolution, and 45% don't.

"I'm willing to accept the notion that the 83% are Intelligent Designers"

How so? 45% of those are clearly out and out Creationists, not specifically I.D.ers.

Posted by: creeper at February 13, 2005 8:23 AM

creeper:

Yes, the obvious dividing line is between those who believe God Created life and those who believe the process Godless. But that leaves you with just 13% who believe in Evolution, so you guys refuse to use such a common sense definition.

I'm perfectly happy though to use your formulation that there's no difference between Evolution and God using evolutio--that gets us to 96% who believe the process either is God or allows for God.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 8:36 AM

Erich:

In your 8th grade science class there was a poster on the wall that showed a series of hominids strolling along and ending with Man. Darwinism is the faith that all of Nature conspired to place you at its pinnacle. No one would believe it otherwise.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 8:41 AM

"Yes, the obvious dividing line is between those who believe God Created life and those who believe the process Godless."

I thought we were talking about evolution here, not the origin of life.

"But that leaves you with just 13% who believe in Evolution, so you guys refuse to use such a common sense definition."

According to the poll, it is 51% who believe in evolution, with varying degrees of divine involvement, from zero to some (unfortunately) undefined level.

"I'm perfectly happy though to use your formulation that there's no difference between Evolution and God using evolutio--"

That is not my formulation, but yours. Surely you can tell the difference. Neither I nor the poll used the wording "God using evolution".

"that gets us to 96% who believe the process either is God or allows for God."

Exactly how do you figure that the 13% who believe God had no hand in the process think the process allows for God?

It remains true that 51% of those polled believe in evolution, and 45% don't.

Posted by: creeper at February 13, 2005 11:45 AM

creeper:

You're saying that the belief that God selects is indistinguishable from the belief that Nature does. Creationists believe that God selected too. Everyone believes in evolution, the only dispute is the mechanism.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 2:10 PM

"You're saying that the belief that God selects is indistinguishable from the belief that Nature does."

Only because of the vagueness of the poll results. If we could ask each of these people in detail what their beliefs would be, we could have a better idea, instead of trying to impose definitions and interpretations after the fact.

The polling question does not specify whether God or Nature does the selecting, and so we are left with little clue as to what those people meant (or how they interpreted the question).

"Man evolved, with God guiding" can mean anything from God being completely hands-on, supervising each and every generation's minute changes, to letting evolution run its course and only intervening once in a while, as problems arose.

I would put the former stance under Creationism, the latter mostly under Darwinism.

Unfortunately, we have no idea of the breakdown here. We just know that that segment believes in evolution, and that God had a hand in it somehow, somewhere.

Posted by: creeper at February 13, 2005 3:38 PM

creeper:

Exactly. Since Darwinism is indistinguishable from Creationism, with the only question being hoiw much of the selection is done by God, then everyone but the 4% allows for God, with 83% directly stating it's God driven.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 3:45 PM

Again, how do you figure that the 13% who believe God had no hand in the process think the process allows for God? Isn't it a more reasonable interpretation to say that those 13% think the process does not involve God?

"Darwinism is indistinguishable from Creationism"

Tell that to the Creationists who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Or the Darwinists who don't believe in God. Sure, there is some overlap between a belief in evolution and a belief in God, but Darwinism and Creationism are hardly indistinguishable.

"83% directly stating it's God driven"

Again, "with God guiding" can mean anything from God being completely hands-on, supervising each and every generation's minute changes, to letting evolution run its course and only intervening once in a while, as problems arose.

Posted by: creeper at February 13, 2005 4:43 PM

creeper:

Because you said that those who believe God intervenes are to be grouped with Darwinists.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 4:48 PM

"83% directly stating it's [it being evolution? Darwinism?] God driven"

Uh, no. 45% say no evolution. "God created man in present form."

Posted by: creeper at February 13, 2005 4:49 PM

That is evolution. He made us out of the earth and Eve out of Adam. No one disputes evolution.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 4:55 PM

oj,

"In your 8th grade science class there was a poster on the wall..."

I skipped from the end of 6th grade to the beginning of 9th grade. You know nothing about me, and it shows.

Instead of hallucinating my life history, wouldn't it be more honest to admit that you actually are simply wrong about this? There are, in fact, people in the world who at least intermittently do care about knowing the truth about the outside world. Not everything in human thought is motivated by narcissism, and claiming that it is is more an excuse for one's own mental sloth than anything else.

Posted by: Erich Schwarz at February 13, 2005 6:53 PM

Erich:

In your 9th grade science class there was a poster on the wall that showed a series of hominids strolling along and ending with Man. Darwinism is the faith that all of Nature conspired to place you at its pinnacle. No one would believe it otherwise.


N.B.: I do admire the humorous turn by which you simultaneously display and disclaim narcissism. Two points.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2005 7:02 PM

"Because you said that those who believe God intervenes are to be grouped with Darwinists."

I said that those who said they believed man evolved should be counted as believing that man evolved.

"That is evolution. He made us out of the earth and Eve out of Adam. No one disputes evolution."

That is creation. The people who were polled were given the alternatives of "man was created in present form" and "man evolved". Some 45% opted against evolution. I would think that, since we can't read their minds, we should at least allow for the option that since they opted against evolution, they very well may dispute it.

"Darwinism is the faith that all of Nature conspired to place you at its pinnacle.

No. While you may have the faith that we are the pinnacle of creation (and created in the image of the Most Awesome Being ever), not all need to succumb to such narcissistic nonsense.

The reason the poster you describe ends in a man walking upright is to illustrate the past leading to the present. We do not know what the future will hold, and that is why it happens to stop with us, ie. man walking upright.

What the poster can not depict, but clearly suggests (and what is very clearly the lesson we need to draw from Darwinism) is that other stages will follow, and that evolution will not end with us.

Very much unlike the view of those who think that man was created in his present form, in the image of God. Clearly they believe we are the pinnacle of Creation, and will not improve from here.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 6:28 AM

creeper:

Web definitions for evolution
development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage);


Creation is evolution. And note the "advanced."


At the point where the poster ends Darwin and Darwinists tell us Natural Selection has stopped functioning on humans. We've won. No flattery, no Darwinism.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 7:11 AM

"Creation is evolution. And note the "advanced."

Note the "by degrees". It stands in contradiction to "God created man in his present form".

"At the point where the poster ends Darwin and Darwinists tell us Natural Selection has stopped functioning on humans."

No. It tells us that this is where we are, and we don't know what comes next. Would you have been happier if the famous picture had included speculative drawings of potential shapes of future man?

The picture merely illustrates the evolution of man up to this point; it makes no judgement about what (if anything) comes next; it certainly does not make your narcissistic conclusion the only and inevitable option.

Of course Darwinism is perfectly possible without flattery as it allows for man to be just another stage, eventually to be replaced by something better.

Darwinism contains that possibility, even if you seem peculiarly obtuse in grasping it.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 7:43 AM

Man and all the rest started as earth, but God shaped them into life. Woman was a successive stage from man.

The picture doesn't continue because Darwinism teaches that nothing comes after. Natural Selection , it teaches, is over for Man.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 7:51 AM

Darwinism certainly does not teach that nothing comes after. On the contrary, Darwinism makes it clear that no matter how successful an organism is, something can all go wrong and lead to either the demise or the adaptation of that species. There is no reason to believe that we are above that, certainly nothing contained in the theory of evolution as we know it today.

Natural Selection is not over for man by any means - you're ignoring part 4 of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection when you say that Natural Selection is 'over', and you see it as a certainty that our environment will never change. An outbreak of the Ebola virus could be the end of us, as could any number of changes from the comparatively small to the global.

"Woman was a successive stage from man."

Same species, no?

And is that thing about the rib really to be taken literally?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 8:51 AM

creeper:

You can't insist that Creationist are literalists who aren't literal.

Darwin, as we've noted before, lamented that we no longer allowed Natural Selection to function on us. If his theology suggested Man was either inferior to some other spoecies or just another stage befoire a higher species no one would have converted to it.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 8:59 AM

"If his theology suggested Man was either inferior to some other spoecies or just another stage befoire a higher species no one would have converted to it."

If I remember correctly, it was exactly this implication of Darwin's theory that made it so controversial at the time.

Much as you are enamored of your propaganda campaign to label the theory of evolution a 'faith' or 'religion', it is in fact a scientific theory, and people began to think it was viable because of the evidence supporting it, which is considerable.

Man is not so compulsively narcissistic that he will not accept anything that makes him out to be less than a perfect being in his own right, and the be-all and end-all of all creation.
People began accepting the notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe too, even though it demoted the relative position of man in the universe.

"You can't insist that Creationist are literalists who aren't literal."

Fine. So God literally took the rib out of Adam's side and fashioned Eve out of it. Voila. One species. No degrees of evolution there.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 9:38 AM

Observation and experimentation.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 11:33 AM

The whole Creation story is just an evolutionary tale:

The Book of Genesis
King James Version

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.

001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.

001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
was so.

001:010 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together
of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:013 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.

001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

001:029 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for meat.

001:030 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was
so.

001:031 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was
very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

002:001 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them.

002:002 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made.

002:003 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because
that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.

002:004 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens,

002:005 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man
to till the ground.

002:006 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground.

002:007 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul.

002:008 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there
he put the man whom he had formed.

002:009 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree
that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of
life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.

002:010 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from
thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

002:011 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth
the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

002:012 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the
onyx stone.

002:013 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that
compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

002:014 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which
goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is
Euphrates.

002:015 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress it and to keep it.

002:016 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat:

002:017 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die.

002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof.

002:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air,
and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
found an help meet for him.

002:021 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead thereof;

002:022 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man.

002:023 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 11:36 AM

Evolution how? It says God created man and all the animals. Let it be so, he says, and there they are.

If you want to call it an elaborate metaphor, be my guest, but for the time being we were wearing our 'literal' hat, and that says that God created man in his present image, and not by degrees either. We have not evolved since Adam and Eve, and apparently at that time God looked like us too.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 12:46 PM

"Observation and experimentation."

Unless your response immediately follows what you're responding to, would it be possible for you to briefly quote what you are responding to? You don't have to put it in italics or anything, just simple quote marks would do.

I have no idea what this is in response to, for example.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 12:52 PM

No, it says something quite different than that He Created each out of whole cloth. It says instead that he transformed other matter--waters or earth or Man--into subsequent forms. It is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 12:56 PM

oj wrote: "So you're arguing that since we survived thanks to belief in Judeo-Christianity we shouldn't change that?

This was directed to Jeff, but Jeff's comment was based on an earlier comment by me, so I feel free (compelled?) to answer.

Yes.

Or slightly more accurately that if we change, it should be done slowly and incrementally with care. I especially believe this since 9/11. See this post of mine for a somewhat humerous metaphor on why I believe this (though I must warn y'all that some might find it offensive).

Posted by: Bret at February 14, 2005 1:27 PM

Orrin,

it says he created Adam and Eve - Adam from dust, Eve from a rib - that's one species in one magical transformation from some rather different-looking (and lifeless) basic ingredients right there. There are no degrees here, no gradual change: dust becomes man, rib becomes woman. If you want to have it as a metaphor, fine; if you want to read it literally, there is no evolution, merely a magic transformation from one state to another.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 2:07 PM

001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 2:57 PM

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 2:58 PM

002:007 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 2:59 PM

002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 3:02 PM

002:021 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead thereof;

002:022 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man.

002:023 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 3:04 PM

It is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 3:05 PM
001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God said let it be so, and it was so.

No talk of evolution in degrees; a magical process straight from the magic spell to the happy result.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 3:15 PM
001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Again, god said let it be so, and it was so.

Again, no talk of evolution in degrees; a magical process straight from the magic spell to the happy result.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 3:17 PM

Again, God created a single man (Adam) and a single woman (Eve), and that amounts to a single species, man, in its present form.

Where are the 'degrees'?

Orrin, as a metaphor you're welcome to the whole genesis thing... but taken literally, it ain't evolution.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 3:24 PM

earth bring forth grass

earth bring forth the living creature

man of the dust of the ground

the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman

It is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

It's not metaphorical evolution, but literal.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 3:31 PM

They all refer to one-time events of something being brought about, then not changing.

That is one degree, not 'degrees'. (Not only that, but it is quite a magical step, to go from 'dust' or 'rib' to full-blown homo sapiens.)

Most clearly so with regards to Adam and Eve: One man was created ('the man'), his mate was created, and that is one species, in the form as we know it today, being created without advancing by degrees.

Taken literally, there is no evolution here.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:01 PM

void > water > earth > dust > man > woman. Evolution by stages.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:05 PM

Dust to man - pretty amazing magical step. Hardly gradual.

Man to woman - evolution from one species to the same species?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:10 PM

creeper:

Now you've switched from evolution to Darwinism. Note that evolution is silent on gradualism and speciation. What you're speaking of is what the 13% believe, as opposed to the beliefs of the other 83%, as I pointed out some time ago.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:19 PM

I didn't switch to anything - I stuck to the definition you presented (and I assumed therefore endorsed) at 7:11 a.m. on Feb 14th, and the insistence that came out of our discussion on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

That was the presumption underlying our discussion for the last few posts.

The 83% you refer to are not a homegenous lot at all. 45% believe God created man in his present form. 38% believe that man has evolved. They are clearly contradictory. One says we do not differ from Adam and Eve, the other says we do.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:25 PM

"Now you've switched from evolution to Darwinism."

creeper:

The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism.
Posted by: oj at February 10, 2005 08:20 AM


Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:34 PM

And to get back to the point from your little dodge: a literal reading of Genesis does not yield evolution.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:41 PM

Yes, that's my point. 13% are evolutionist, 4% idiots, and the rest creationist.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:41 PM

"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:42 PM

And 51% believe in evolution. And evolution does not mean a literal belief in Genesis. Make of it what you will.

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:44 PM

13% believe in Darwinian evolution. The rest, except for the 4%, believe in Creationist evolution.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:49 PM

"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

So if I told you a fairy tale in which a prince was turned into a frog and back again, you'd call that evolution?

How did man evolve according to this?

Dust. Man. Where are the degrees, with the emphasis on the plural?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:50 PM

"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

void > water > earth > dust > man > woman. Evolution by stages.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 4:50 PM

Where is the missing link between dust and man?

Or between man and woman?

Or, for that matter, between void and water, water and earth, earth and dust?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:52 PM

Where is the 'inability to interbreed' between man and woman?

...!

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 4:54 PM

You're back to Darwinism again. Evolution never required gradualism or speciation via Natuiral Selection until y'all co-opted it.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 5:23 PM

creeper:

Yes, the fairly tale is evolutionary, as is the Darwinian fairly tale.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 5:23 PM

OJ:

Congratulations. You have pegged the nonsense meter.

First off, way back there you cast a very wide net in deciding what Creationism contained. Turns out that in this, like everything else, you twisted the evidence beyond all recognition. In the talk origins link is this quote:

"Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today."

Their brand of Creationism means all species were instantly created out of whole cloth in their current form. Your use of the term is completely inconsistent with the way its proponents use it.

The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism.
Posted by: oj at February 10, 2005 08:20 AM

You didn't read that Mayr book, did you?

Oh, and if you are going to use a definition for evolution, why not use the one applicable to biology?

(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.

Oh, never mind. I know why. This definition is precise and directly applicable.

Creeper:

Well done. You have proven that OJ cannot mount any objection to the Theory of Evolution that isn't based on an admixture of quote mining, evasion, misdirection, and deceit.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 14, 2005 5:37 PM

Jeff:

Because the poll didn't ask biologists, it asked laymen.

Seventh Day Adventists believe in Genesis, which is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)".

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 8:11 PM
So if I told you a fairy tale in which a prince was turned into a frog and back again, you'd call that evolution?

Yes, the fairly tale is evolutionary, as is the Darwinian fairly tale.

So it's a more advanced stage for the prince to turn into a frog...

... and then it's a more advanced stage for the frog to turn into a prince?

You'll just say anything to avoid having to correct yourself, won't you?

"Evolution never required gradualism or speciation via Natuiral Selection until y'all co-opted it. "

You seemed content with it until it blew up in your face.

More accurately, evolution appears ever more complex since you're trying to co-opt it.

"The rest, except for the 4%, believe in Creationist evolution."

How do the 45% who believe man was created by God in his present state (yep, that means unchanged since creation, whether 6000 years ago or whatever other period you would like to stick in there) believe in evolution of any kind?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 8:12 PM

"YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today."

Find out from them what Creationism is.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 14, 2005 9:19 PM

creeper:

void > water > earth > dust > man > woman. Evolution by stages.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 9:20 PM

Woman evolved from man?

Ain't we the same species, by any definition you would care to name, be it from Aristotle to Charles Darwin to Charlie Sheen to Jimmy Swaggart?

Have you really got a definition ready to spring on us that you and your wife are not the same species?

If not, would you knock it off already?

Posted by: creeper at February 14, 2005 9:35 PM

"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

Woman is a new stage, same species. Only Darwinism posits speciation, not evolution.

Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 10:48 PM

Where does 'stage' fit into commonly accepted taxonomy?

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 12:14 AM

If you really think your wife is a step up from you... (and even if you begrudge her the 'species' bit and knock her down to a 'stage'...) I sure hope she had a fantastic Valentine's Day!

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 12:24 AM

Where does taxonomy fit into evolution?

"a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)"

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 12:56 AM

"Where does taxonomy fit into evolution?"

Where do the Seventh Day Adventists fit into evolution?

Where does your wife fit into taxonomy?

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 5:13 AM

"Where does taxonomy fit into evolution?"

Speciation, no?

Woman is not a separate species from man. They are the same species, with a rather admirable and often demonstrated ability to interbreed.

Dust is not even a kingdom. Nor is it even alive. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life (which is what Genesis describes - not evolution, but the origin of life). Genesis just says that God created life. It says nothing about evolution, and the passages you've presented say nothing about any degrees or stages once life comes into the picture (relieving God of the burden of having to swing that magic wand) - it's all just about magical transitions from dust to something that's alive. Beyond that, there are no degrees or gradual advances (actually - neither is the progression you've presented). Adam and Eve are presented pretty much as we are right now (and conveniently we all look like God, appendix and all).

You make a mockery of reasonable discourse, leading me to believe that you have reached the end of your tenuous argument and, with no evidence to present, are now heading for the emergency exit. The whole idea of speciation seems to have made you exceptionally nervous.

"void > water > earth > dust > man > woman"

It sure would make an interesting poster in a 9th grade class, if only to highlight the absurdity of your proposition. I'm guessing it would do wonders for making people accept the theory of evolution.

Just out of interest, what do you think would come next in this progression? A turtle? A cloud? A Big Mac? A solar system?

It's pretty wide open once you swing that big magic wand.

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 6:03 AM

creeper:

You're backsliding. Speciation is required of Darwinism, not evolution.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 7:19 AM

The modern theory of evolution is Darwinism.

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 7:39 AM

Yes, evolution directed by God is Creationism/I.D.. 83-13.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 8:08 AM

"Speciation is required of Darwinism, not evolution."

How can you have evolution without change?

How can you have change without new species appearing? If all the species stay as they were initially created, then there is no evolution.

"83-13."

51-45.

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 3:38 PM

How has man changed since being created by God?

Posted by: creeper at February 15, 2005 3:40 PM

We haven't. Evolution ended once he changed Adam's rib into Eve.

Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 4:44 PM

That's a highly unusual definition of evolution there, Orrin, and it would be presumptuous in the extreme to impose this understanding of the term on
those polled.

Genesis, taken literally, is about the origin of life, and there is nothing evolutionary about God creating Adam & Eve by whatever instantaneous divine or semi-magical process.

The theory of evolution is not, however, about the origin of life, so we appear to be talking about apples & oranges here.

According to those who believe God created man in his present state, man did not evolve. Period.

Why are you so eager to embrace evolution anyway? Just so you can skew the numbers on some insufficiently refined poll?

Posted by: creeper at February 16, 2005 3:32 AM

creeper;

No, that's the dictionary definition of evolution. Everyone believes in evolution. The only question regarding the origin of life is whether God was involved or only Nature.

Posted by: oj at February 16, 2005 7:36 AM

"No, that's the dictionary definition of evolution. Everyone believes in evolution. "

Sorry, Orrin, but AFAIK the people in that poll were not read the Orrin Judd self-serving definition before taking the poll. They proceeded from a common understanding of the word evolution. One or two might have had a quibble with your claims that when they say they believe in evolution, that meant that Eve evolved from Adam's rib, or Adam evolved from dust, and as a species homo sapiens has not changed since Adam and Eve were kicked out of paradise.

Given the options in the poll, wouldn't someone who believes that God did 'something' that changed dust into Adam and Adam's rib into Eve and that the human being has not changed at all since opt for the answer "God created man in his present state"?

Your sophistry regarding evolution (calling the very act of divine creation evolution) renders the terms evolution and creation both meaningless.

Posted by: creeper at February 16, 2005 10:04 AM

No, Creation is a freighted term, so folks can cover themselves by saying evolution guided by God, as the Vatican did.

But you're right, the terms creation and evolution are meaningless. Darwinists had to so warp them that they've been rendered so.

Posted by: oj at February 16, 2005 10:14 AM

The 45% who opted for the answer "God created man in his present form" did not feel the need to cover themselves. You have no idea what the 38% that opted for "Man evolved, with God guiding" thought, apart from exactly that. They may have meant that God guided evolution, or they may have meant that they accept the theory of evolution, but because they go to church or feel like making their parents happy, they pay some lip service to God.

Both options are equally possible, and for you to claim anything other than what they directly responded is nothing but speculation. Given that the option "God created man in his present form" was available in the poll, the chances are slim that someone meant this, but opted for something else.

I did not say that the terms creation and evolution are meaningless; I said that your sophistry renders them thus. That does not prevent them from having meaning for someone else - those who can crack a dictionary and have some respect for reasonable discourse, for example.

Posted by: creeper at February 16, 2005 11:26 AM

Yes, but you've rejected the dictionary meaning because it doesn't conform to our sect's version of evolution.

That you are actually arguing that a process guided by God conforms with Darwinism demonstrates the meaninglessness of your terms.

Posted by: oj at February 16, 2005 11:54 AM

"Yes, but you've rejected the dictionary meaning because it doesn't conform to our sect's version of evolution"

I don't have a problem with the dictionary definition, but I reject your interpretation of the transformation of dust to man being anything resembling a gradual process, and the creation of woman being a different stage from man. Both are homo sapiens. If I have a daughter, she is not a different stage from me - she's another human being.

It seems to me that you want to define evolution as being any series of changes, regardless of how unconnected, in order to make discussion of this topic more difficult.

"That you are actually arguing that a process guided by God conforms with Darwinism demonstrates the meaninglessness of your terms."

It depends entirely on what is meant by 'guided', as I have said several times. If God takes a laissez faire approach and only intervenes at certain times, when his creation threatens to go awry, then the two (Darwinist evolution and God's guidance) can be compatible, with the meaning of all terms intact.

Posted by: creeper at February 16, 2005 3:38 PM

There you go again:

The definition says nothing about gradualism or speciation. Darwinism does. This is precisely the sense in which your faith has so closed your mind that you are no longer capable of thought.

Posted by: oj at February 16, 2005 5:35 PM

Orrin,

The dictionary definition you cited talks about change by degrees. That's synonymous with gradual change.

Dust spawning homo sapiens is not gradual/by degrees.

Homo sapiens spawning homo sapiens is not change.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 3:55 AM

creeper;

No, it isn't.

Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 7:02 AM

Creeper:

I may have mentioned this elsewhere, but in The Argument Clinic, I present a case for why the theologically exercised conduct this discussion in ways that the unexercised do not.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 17, 2005 8:24 AM

Orrin,

Yes it is.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 8:48 AM

Jeff,

Yes, and thank you for that link. It was rather interesting.

BTW, Orrin and I are also having a discussion about Natural Selection over here: http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/020321.html

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 8:50 AM

Jeff:

Everyone argues from theology, only the choice of faiths differs.

Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 8:52 AM

Orrin,

The dictionary definition you cited talks about passing to a different state by degrees.

Dust spawning homo sapiens is not by degrees.

Homo sapiens spawning homo sapiens is not passing to a different state.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 9:54 AM

DUST WASN'T THE FIRST DEGREE

Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 10:01 AM

Dust to homo sapiens is not by degrees.

Neither are void to water, or water to earth.

"By degrees" = little by little, not by huge leaps.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 10:06 AM

Ah, you're back to Darwinism, rather than evolution.

Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 10:51 AM

No, I was going by the dictionary definition of evolution that you brought into the discussion some time ago.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 11:09 AM

Creeper:

Here is another article you should spend a few minutes with: On Bulls**t

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 17, 2005 12:02 PM

Thanks for the link, Jeff - looks interesting.

Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 12:28 PM
« FUTURE NOT SO "BRIGHT": | Main | DEATH OF A COLLABORATOR (via Bryan Francoeur): »