An analysis of the article, “Biologist and Believer – correcting muddled thinking,” by Andrew Szebenyi:
This article talked about how, through prejudice and ignorance, people are creating conflict where there really should be none. He began by mentioning the common places for confusion namely the meaning of the word “theory,” and the fact that many have misinterpreted the meaning behind Darwin’s writings simply because of a language barrier. Many words had different meanings and or different contexts in Darwin’s time then they have now. For instance, by the word “theory,” Darwin meant, in today’s language, “a working hypothesis.” He went on to say that the issue lies in the fact that both sides exaggerate the beliefs of the other. Some scientists, who have no faith, may attempt to reduce reality exclusively to the sensory, material world. In that case, there is no room for God. While some firm believers may think that scientists are atheists, and may even go so far as to say that science is an instrument of atheism. Clearly both of these are inaccurate, drastic assumptions made by the opposing parties. He continues by saying that, “Faith does not come from science, but from another sort of experience.”
Szebenyi further says that, “Human experience is far more diverse than what we encounter through the scientific method alone. But even within the context of the scientific method, we could not legitimately conclude that chance is the main or only factor that results in evolutionary change.” From the biological point of view, it is natural selection that provides the adaptive direction and meaning for the already created life forms. Putting this into a metaphor he says that, “chance may provide the choice from an already given palette of colors for a painting, but it is the artist who paints the work of art.” Szebenyi concludes the argument by reaffirming that there is no conflict between religion and evolution, and then presents an idea for the reader to ponder: “Is evolution a good example of intelligent design? Certainly. Does this observation prove the existence of God? Not by itself.”
Evolution debate - Biologist and Believer, does one really have a greater arguement?
By all4Him - Posted on April 16th, 2008
Tagged: Constitution
• Creationism
• darwin
• Evolution
• natural selection
• school systems
• theory
Just a suggestion: Bloggers aren't too happy when anyone posts multiple blog entries in a row, even if it's a series. Wait a while before continuing. Constants posts push other people's posts off the Recent Post list, and nobody likes to get kicked off that until they've gotten some reads in.
Check out the Forums up at the top of the page. There's a whole section that can give you some handy blogging tips.
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
Sorry, I hadn't thought about that, I just started this the other day and so I don't know too much about it, thanks for pointing that out, I'll be careful not to do that in the future : )
It's cool. I just figured I'd mention it before somebody got snippy with you. This is a mistake a good deal of us make (including me).
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
yeah, thanks. I appreciate it.
Also, please make sure to use the REPLY button when responding to comments. It helps keep the flow of conversation going and really helps us know who you're talking to. :)
Happy blogging!
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I think modern evolutionary theory is the central idea of all biological sciences. It is the idea that makes everything we find out in biology make sense. As such it is among the neatest and most elegant theories in all science. However, its elegance lies in the fact that NATURAL PROCESSES are only required. IF we allow supernatural input as a possibility then there are problems. In that case, I would argue that evolution is NOT a good example of Intelligent Design.
It is profligate. Billions of species have gone extinct. Why is that necessary? It fosters needless suffering. In order for a large portion of living organisms to survive, they must KILL and EAT another large portion of living organisms. That is not a good idea. It fosters wasteful practices. In order for a human male to fertilize the single egg cell of a human female, he needs to produce millions of sperm cells. The undirected nature of evolution and the fact that ancestor species had adaptations that are no longer needed leads to suboptimal structures. Examples include the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes (it runs for 19 feet when by all rights it need run only a few inches), wisdom teeth in humans, teeth in embryonic toothless whales, hip bones in some snakes, the human appendix, etc.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France