The Warfare Is Mental

Evolution

May 18, 2008

Like God, the word evolution has unfortunately brought untold suffering and confusion to the human race, but it need not be this way.

At the most basic level the definition of the word evolution is change. The American Heritage Dictionary more specifically defines evolution as, “…a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.” That's pretty general, perhaps too general, so in scientific, religious or philosophical discussions like the ones we have here, I define evolution as the idea that all organisms on Earth derived sequentially from a LUCA (lowest universal common ancestor) in a process that produced descendants who differed morphologically or physiologically from their ancestors. Use of the word evolution can also refer to the historical development of a group of organisms such as the evolution of insects.

On November 24th, 1859 Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection made its debut. Thomas Malthus' Population, combined with observations made while sailing on the H.M.S. Beagle influenced Darwin's theory of evolution by descent with modification via natural selection. In Origin we find two related but quite distinct meanings of evolution: special and general theory. Loosely defined, Darwin’s special theory refers to the tendency of an organism or group of organisms to adapt in response to changes in their environments, and microevolution, variation, mutation, adaptation and natural selection are all related, and in some cases, synonymous terms. Using the classic example of the finches, geographical isolation of a species can prevent interbreeding with the parent population so that a series of minor variations may eventually result in an entirely new daughter population or subspecies. Biologists, writers and other scientists have referred to such changes as microevolution.

Darwin’s general theory is the extrapolation of microevolutionary principle to explain the full sum of living organisms and postulated that all life came from a lowest universal common ancestor, and is sometimes referred to as macroevolution, but don't let these seemingly innocent prefixes fool you, as they also afford plenty of misery to intelligent discussions about evolution (see the related posts at the bottom for examples).

The theory of evolution itself has also evolved, and continues to evolve as scientific knowledge continues to grow and self-correct. Darwin didn't have the knowledge of genetics he needed to really complete his puzzle, but his ideas of natural selection with genetic mutation as described by Gregor Mendel (geneticist) became known as the modern synthesis. Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist), Julian Huxley (zoologist), Ernst Mayr (ornithologist), Bernhard Rensch (zoologist), George Gaylord Simpson (vertebrate paleontologist) and George Ledyard Stebbins (botanist) were among those who called the ideas the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, which interpreted evolution as the results of gene flow, genetic drift, mutation and natural selection. By the early 1970's, Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist / evolutionary biologist) and Niles Eldredge (paleontologist) focused on concepts of stasis and cladogenesis, and their ideas are sometimes referred to as punctuated equilibrium.

Steven M. Stanley (paleontologist / evolutionary biologist) has noted the introduction of entirely new species of Polynesian butterflies exclusive to Hawaiian banana trees. His documentation of the devil’s pupfish, found in the 92-degree springs of Death Valley exclusively, represents what appears to be an entirely new species that has appeared on the scene in the last 10-30,000 years. I'm no biologist, but I've read that under such harsh conditions, bacteria can create new proteins and metabolic pathways, which is something a punctuated evolutionary sequence would anticipate.

Related Posts:

False Arguments #23 & #24: The Sufficiency Of Microevolution Tropes

False Argument #14: Microevolution & Macroevolution Are Creationist Fabrications

Christian

Just what is a Christian? Or, what set of behaviors is implied by the term? Famed logician and skeptic Bertrand Russell addressed this in his essay Why I Am Not A Christian:

Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life…"

As in Russell's time, the meaning of the word is vague today. It seems possible to be a Christian by one person’s definition yet equally possible to not be a Christian by another’s. If the definition of the word Christian is assumed to be somebody who believes in God and goes to church, then by that definition there are a great many Christians around. However, if a Christian is defined as somebody who accepts and adheres to the teachings of Christ, then there are hardly any Christians around. Besides, what type of Christian are you referring to? Protestant? Catholic? Liberal? Scientist? The point of all this is not to play the game of semantics; rather, such examples are included to highlight the importance of clarifying our terms to prevent the furthering of ignorance, dissension and misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist

A Fundamentalist is someone who holds to the five fundamental doctrines of Christianity, being 1) The inerrancy of Scripture; 2) The virgin birth and deity of Jesus; 3) Redemption through grace; 4) The physical resurrection of Jesus; and 5) The authenticity of Christ's miracles. Points 2-5 are undoubtedly supported biblically; however, depending on how one interprets the pertinent terms, Point 1 can cause an awful lot of confusion.

A Fundamentalist is not necessarily a person who interprets every word of the Bible literally, although some Fundamentalists do interpret every word of the Bible literally. Biblical literalism is not necessarily synonymous with biblical inerrancy. Whereas the issue of errancy deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message, biblical literalism deals with the literal interpretation of certain passages.

**Related Posts:

Christian

Drawing Conclusions From Faulty Reasoning

It has been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and even that which we are unaware of or indifferent to is still applicable to us. The observation is apparently confirmed in that we were all subject to gravity prior to its discovery. While going out to eat one night, I observed a situation that perfectly illustrates this principle.

The following occurred at a restaurant where placing orders at the counter and seating yourself was the norm. There is a sign at the door explaining all this. As we were placing our orders, a man came up to the clerk and, rather rudely, voiced his dissatisfaction that he had sat waiting for someone to come and take his order. The hostess politely explained the order of things and even mentioned that there was a sign in the door of the restaurant explaining them as well. Nonetheless, the man still refused to acknowledge his own error, and further declared illogically that because he didn’t see the sign, it didn’t exist. His exact words to the hostess were, “If I can’t see it, then it’s not there.”

On faith that was not religious or dogmatic but placed entirely in the never-ending depth of nature, Manly P. Hall said, “There are many levels of life which we cannot see and know, yet which certainly exist." Although the existence of God or a soul that survives death are not things we can apprehend empirically such as a restaurant seating sign, unfortunately many people’s belief or disbelief in God hinges on the same principle of perception. See, in the situation at the restaurant, there was an objective and absolute reality that was in fact perceivable, and that was the presence of an informative sign at the door. It was there, regardless of whether anyone saw the evidence or not. The entire time the man spent in frustration was all in vain and completely avoidable. The whole time he sat there thinking to himself, ‘There’s no order or consistency in this place,’ there was. The point is that human failures of perception do not negate the objective and absolute truth of the a fact’s existence, or its potentiality to illuminate and inspire.

Is Humanism A Religion?

May 17, 2008

There is debate over whether secular humanist organizations meet the criteria of a religion. Several cases have been appealed on account of the idea that secular humanism is a religion, on the premise that as such the teaching of evolution is a religious endorsement. What do our courts say? In 1987 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals noted, "The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the delicate question of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the First Amendment.”

False Argument #11: Darwinism, Atheism And Evolution Lead To Genocide, Fascism, Holocaust

A common false argument based in misunderstanding and fear directly blames Darwinism, atheism and evolution for such atrocities as genocide, fascism, racism and the Holocaust. Like most false arguments, this one has some degree of basis in reality, but not of the degree that can support such illogical claims.

This false argument has its grain of truth in the history of eugenics. Defined neutrally, eugenics is the study of human betterment through means of gene manipulation and control. The movement itself is said to begin with Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In his work Hereditary Genius, Galton states his opinion that humanity should be eugenically regimented. Charles’ son Leonard Darwin was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, and vice-President of the 1912 and 1921 International Eugenics Congresses, the first of which was an offshoot of an earlier meeting by the predominantly German-controlled International Society for Racial Hygiene.

False Argument #9: Bible Claims Sun Revolves Around Earth

Science itself is a continually evolving enterprise and mistakes are a natural part of the evolutionary process. For religious expressions of this peculiar human ability to error, one need look no further than the well-publicized story of the Italian scientist Galileo, (1564-1642) prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Church on grounds that his claim Earth revolved around the sun was heretical. First we must secure accurate definitions of the pertinent terms.

The word heretical can be defined as contrary to the chartered traditions of the Church, and heliocentrism is the notion that the sun is the center of our solar system. Is this idea at arms with anything the Bible actually says, or was it at arms with the power structure’s interpretation of scripture at that particular time?

False Argument #8: Science Has Proven The Soul

The twentieth-century frontier experiments conducted by Duncan MacDougall M.D. of Havervill, Massachusetts are worthy of mention. As a skeptic, it should be noted that MacDougall approached his research from a methodological naturalist’s point of view, writing with detectable resentment towards the blind faith demanded from theologians and so-called metaphysicians regarding the existence of the spirit / soul. Thus his experiments suffer from confirmation bias in that McDougall set out with a specific goal, to disprove existence of a soul that transcends death.

His hypothesis was simple enough:

…the soul substance so necessary to the concept of continuing personal identity after death of the material body must still be a form of gravitative matter…”

Hence it must have weight.

On Discrepancy, Difficulty and Contradiction

May 16, 2008

Even the most unyielding Fundamentalist cannot deny the incontrovertible fact of difficulties and apparent contradictions in the Bible, but in all fairness it must be pointed out that from the standpoint of logic and critical scholarly analysis, difficulties are not synonymous with errors. Here’s an easy way to see how this works. Let’s say you and your friend witness a robbery in which there were three robbers. Your friend was at one end of the street in front of the bank and you were at the other end near their getaway vehicle. Your friend sees all three robbers run out of the bank with the loot and take off down the street, disappearing from his view. Then, one of the robbers gets a bad feeling that the getaway is going to fail; so he ditches his loot and takes off running down an alley. A wino finds the ditched loot and happily makes his way to the liquor store. By the time the robbers arrive at the getaway vehicle, you see two robbers, not three. During the police report, your friend states for certain that there were three robbers who took off on foot, while you state for certain that there were only two. Your friend admits that he never saw any getaway vehicle, while you maintain there was. A third person comes up and reports that he saw a wino find a bag of money, something which neither yourself nor your friend can testify to. Note that although we have several difficulties and apparent contradictions here, all three witnesses are one hundred percent correct in their statements.

There are many situations like this in the Bible, particularly related to the gospels, with typical charges including conflicting statements of Bible writers regarding the accuracy of crucial historical events such as the birth or death of Jesus. The test scholars apply to documents to check for contradictions and errors is known as the internal evidence test, and it deals basically with discrepancies within a given document. In my opinion, related to factual matters, the Bible passes the internal evidence test with such flying colors that I will not address the subject in great detail here, but for the sake of demonstration one example will be included for study. For those who wish to research the issue more fully, see Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties as a great starting reference on the subject. For specific arguments, refer to the index of false arguments

On The Nature Of Truth

Truth almost escapes definition. Rather, it is what is. Houghton Mifflin defines truth as, “conformity to fact or actuality; fidelity to an original or standard; reality; actuality.” Thus it can be said with confidence that the truth regarding any particular event can only be what actually exists or happened, and the truth of any belief can only be its correspondence to that reality. Any given statement regarding life or history can either be true or false, fact or opinion, and while some are easily verifiable, others are not. Especially in the arenas of religion, politics and science, most facts are buried under tons of corporate agenda, human ambition and political motive.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →