• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Steve Tanberg of Denver writes:

I have seen several letters and comments from people who were “shocked” when three Republican candidates raised their hands when asked who didn’t believe in evolution. That question is not a fair without a definition of the term, “evolution".
For those people who are so certain in the correctness of Darwinism, I would ask them to read “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. In his book, Schroeder points out the noisy dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists comes from theologians who don’t understand science and scientists who don’t understand theology. I would add it is worsened by those who understand neither. Schroeder is both scientist and theologian and points out that theology and science are not mutually exclusive.
Recent scientific discoveries have shown evolution by random mutation to be mathematically impossible in the necessary time frame. In other words, Darwin was wrong. I’m not so ignorant as to claim I know how it all happened, but I would caution those who think they do to slow down and educate themselves, and not be so quick to discount the views of others.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Actually, the loudest noise is by laypersons who are neither theologians or scientists. But then again, most people find theologians as "ivory tower" and "out of touch" as most scientists, twisting the words of "God" to mean things that "He" clearly didn't say.

As Professor Dawkins pointed out, theology and science are not mutually exclusive, because the existence of God is a scientific question, because a universe with a God is going to look much different than one without one. And I find it curious that God might choose a mechanicism for the filling of "His" universe that leaves no trace of "Him" and, indeed, doesn't need "Him".

“Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. . . .

“So, it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and that these three Gods make one God.

“According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction, if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one, we have but one. . . .

“Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.” -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Embrace the one seeking the truth and tell the one who's found it to take a hike. RG, me your friendly deicide.

Steve,

Near the end of your letter you said this:

"I’m not so ignorant as to claim I know how it all happened"

Right after you claimed this:

"Darwin was wrong."

But setting aside your blatant hypocrisy, you are fighting the classic straw-man.

You claim to be taking issue with those who were shocked that three Rupublican candidates would raise their hands when asked if they believe in evolution. Then you prop up "Darwin" as a straw-man and dismiss him as "wrong".

Nobody for quite a while has claimed Darwin was right about everything. But like Newton and the apple, Darwin came up with the epiphany that gave us a framework for todays biological sciences.

Question: What happens when a man and woman create a child?

Answer: Evolution.

Do you believe in evolution Steve?

By the way, here's one of many debunkings of your crackpot's crappy book.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html

Why didn`t the candidates get asked "do you believe in light theory"?

A swarm of hornets should be loosed upon man, and he that uses believe and Evolution is the same sentance should be stung about the lips and mouth to keep them silent.

Roger: It is "She", "She", "She'. sheeze!.

Making up mathmatical formuls where you decide the varibles and the amounts and the constants all by your widdle self, is the last refuge of scroundrels.

What is rarely acknowledged is the new-age basis for the 'intelligent design' creation story. The irony that it has been both adopted and promoted by self-described 'Christians' when it should instead be recognized as blasphemy.

For Jewish and Christian faiths, the creation story of Genesis is very clear -- Adam & Eve in the garden, etc. There is nothing about the big-bang, some intervening creator or designer, although such a role for the diety could have easily been described, even in methaphor of scripture. You either believe in such a story or not -- faith, as irrational as it may appear, is still a vital and legitimate part of the human experience, and if it is strong enough, it is possible to hold contrary religious and scientific beliefs simultaneously.

'Intelligent design' however amounts to a free-lance modification of Jewish/Christian doctrine to create a hybrid, modern creation story that tries to synthesize current scientific understanding with established religion to create a new doctrine. It is no different from how other new-age visions such as the recent movie 'What the *bleep* do we know?', and the Fritjof Kapra's book, 'The Tao of Physics' map modern science onto mostly Eastern religious thoughts.

Even the passion and insistence that intelligent design is a scientific theory (as opposed to a religious belief) is part of the charm of an emerging mythology. New religions must be plausible, and for 21st C. Americans, some scientific packaging is a requirement.

Steve, the "mathematically impossible" argument is something I would like to see. Please share this wonderful new theory of impossibility with us!

By the way, Darwin didn't know about DNA, that discovery came later. However, his theory predicted that there had to be some chemical basis of heritability.

"Recent scientific discoveries have shown evolution by random mutation to be mathematically impossible in the necessary time frame. "

Well, of course. But evolution doesn't just happen by "random mutation" - while random chance creates the pool of genes evolution has to work with, natural selection picks out only well-adapted organisms from that pool, allowing them to survive. Natural selection is not random, is in fact quite focused and selective, and is clearly capable of creating great change in a species over time.

I reiterate Old Grouch's sentiment: The blog is fun and informative. Me, your friendly deicide not courageous enough to be an atheist but intelligent enough.

“Finding that no religion is based on facts and cannot therefore be true, I began to reflect what must be the condition of mankind trained from infancy to believe in errors.”
-- Robert Owen

In keeping with the common sense herein articulated, I let someone else convey my sentiment on religion. Me, your friendly deicide chosen to rid the swamps of repression gods create.

"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else. I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

“This experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism. (They're) just shredding the rest of the Bill of Rights which hadn't been shredded already.” -- George Carlin

"Recent scientific discoveries have shown evolution by random mutation to be mathematically impossible in the necessary time frame. In other words, Darwin was wrong." What discoveries? Where is this alleged research? Sorry, but creationists, "intelligent design" proponents, (and whatever it is they call it next time), are always distorting research. Supply some information. Did you make this up? Do you perhaps not really know where it came from? Are you parroting some silly pronouciation of some creationist? Try actually READING some REAL research. In teaching science over many years, I wish I had counted the number of times I have heard undocumented, unreferenced, unscientific claims such as this. Refutation is easy - where did you hear this? Silence. If you want to make these claims, be informative and honest about your data.

Recent scientific studies have shown the brains of Christian fundamentalists to be underdeveloped, accounting for their gross ignorance and frequent intellectual flatulence.

And that statement has just as much documentation as Tanberg's.

"Roger: It is "She", "She", "She'. sheeze!."

Since I was addressing Christians, I use "He", but if I ever get into a debate with a Wiccan or some other new-age religion, I'll be sure to use the appropriate gender for their all-powerful being

Roger that. I`m just kidding, no Goddess worshiper, but She does get some nasty responses, some times.

My original post was sent as a letter to the editor. Unknown to me, the RMN posted it here. Until a friend told me about it, I assumed it was not published. I'm delighted you all read it,but I'm disappointed in the amount of vitriol it has generated. It amuses me that secularists are so quick to accuse the religious of being close-minded and rigid in their thinking, but don't see the same traits in themselves. It's as though secularism has become it's own religion, critical and hateful of anyone who disagrees with them.

Do I believe in strict evolution or intelligent design? I really don't know. I enjoy studying both sides. I've always leaned toward the scientific approach, but always hoped there is some supreme intelligence directing it all.

What's discouraging is the lack of civility and honest dialogue in the discussion. It seems name-calling and hostility has replaced thoughtful discussion. Perhaps that's what they're teaching in public shools these days.

The point of my letter is the question, "Who among you don't believe in evolution?" is not a fair question unless the term is defined. Even asking the question in this manner implies a certain disdain for anyone who would raise his hand.

If evolution is defined as Darwinism then it is false. Gradual evolution from the simple to the complex, invertebrates into vertebrates has been disproven by the fossil records. I'm referring to the Cambrian period where there was an explosion of life roughly 530 million years ago. This explosion lasted 20 million years or so. Eyes, gills, jointed limbs, intestines all appeared nearly simultaneously. It was not a gradual change. During this course of 20 million years, all the present 34 phyla were formed. None has been formed since then.

Another example of lack of randomness in this process is shown in the development of the eye. Five of the six phyla having eyes have been studied regarding eye formation. Pax-6 is the gene group in vertebrates regulating development of the eye. A very similar gene has been found to control development of the visual systems of the other four phyla studied. The molecular similarity among these regulators is nothing less than astounding. Could these five phyla, all genetically separate, have evolved such similar gene groups separately? There are 20 different amino acids available to fill each of the 130 spaces on the gene, which gives 10 to the 170th power possible combinations the amino acids could arrange themselves on the 130 slots on the gene. To understand the size of this number you must realize it is higher than the number of particles in the entire universe. To get the same or a similar combination on five different phyla raises the previous number to a power of 5. The improbability of this means the gene programming the development of the eye must have come from a common ancestor prior to the Cambrian era. This would have to be either the sponge-like Ediacarans or the one-celled protozoa. But neither of these has eyes. This would indicate some sort of pre-programming, which opens the argument for intelligent design.

If evolution is defined as a gradual changing within a species to adapt to one's environment then it is true. I also accept the definition given by Charles B, being the creation of a child by a man and a women. I wholly accept that description of evolution.

At the suggestion of Charles B I read Victor Stenger's review of the book I suggested, Gerald L. Schroeder's "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom." Stenger makes some valid points, but hardly debunks Schroeder. Of course it's not an honest review because Stenger has his own horse in the race, being the author of "Not by Design: the Origin of the Universe." He accuses Schroeder of using "tired old arguments of creationists" but fails to offer better theories for the arguments Schroeder makes. Scientists,just like all of us, too often fall into the trap of losing objectivity when their views are challenged.

Don't feel threatened friends, open your minds to people who think differently than you. We may all learn something.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly