For those not interested in the subject of evolution, feel free to skip the rest of this and hit your delete buttons now. OT means off-topic, so you've had fair warning if you proceed. With Kansas back in today's news, I was reminded of a fascinating interview last week on NPR's Diane Rehm show, whose guest was Francis Collins, the longtime director of the Human Genome project, a leading researcher in medical genetics, and a self-professed Evangelical Christian. You can hear the archived program here: http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/06/07/r2060725-10891.asx I've taken the trouble to transcribe one part of the interview that I found especially interesting, which follows: "The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. Those who would deny that should sit with me some day and go through the DNA evidence of our relatedness to other species. "If I look at our genome, and compare it with that of the chimpanzee, they are 98.8% the same. Now some might argue "well, God simply used some good ideas in a slightly different way over and over again in multiple acts of special creation", but the data doesn't support that. For instance, chimpanzees have two more chromosomes than humans do. When you look closely to see what's going on there, those two chromosomes have fused together to make one of ours, and when you look at the DNA sequence at that fusion point, it has a remarkable character; it has the type of sequence that one sees at what's called the telomere, the tip of the chromosome; no other chromosome has that in the middle. It's clearly the signature of two chromosomes having come together, and when you look at the chimp and you look at the human, it's inescapable to conclude that we are descended from a common primate ancestor. "We humans have pseudo-genes; genes that have lost their function. They've acquired some sort of major flaw, and in some instances those are genes which are located in the same place in the chimpanzee, or even in the dog or in the horse, yet in us they have stopped working. "What's going on? Would God have put those there just to confuse us or mislead us, when in fact we are completely different, special acts of creation? That sounds like a trickster god, not the God I worship. "So, I don't think by the study of DNA, or for that matter the fossil record, one can any longer deny the reality of evolution. But that's not a problem for me as a believer. If God decided to use that mechanism of creation, that's incredibly elegant; that's incredibly awe-inspiring." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Good post, Rich. And the last statement, below, pretty much sums up my precise feelings, as a believer in both God and evolution- one of God's mechanisms of creation. What I've become more aware of lately is that creationists believe that scripture is a literal truth, word-for-word. With that as an unchangable pillar of one's faith, it is more easily seen that logical argument and evidence are not going to change their minds. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
"So, I don't think by the study of DNA, or for that matter the fossil record, one can any longer deny the reality of evolution. But that's not a problem for me as a believer. If God decided to use that mechanism of creation, that's incredibly elegant; that's incredibly awe-inspiring."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
First off I'll second Chuck's appreciation for the post and add that there's no need to call such discussions here off topic. Such posts are defending real science and such a discussion is very much on topic. Chuck Hards wrote:
What I've become more aware of lately is that creationists believe that scripture is a literal truth, word-for-word. With that as an unchangable pillar of one's faith, it is more easily seen that logical argument and evidence are not going to change their minds.
Any time I hear people saying that scripture is literal and "the word of God" I remember back to the only Man of the Cloth I ever really got to know and who helped me understand religion. Though an Episcopal priest he told me more than once that scripture should not be taken literally. If it were to be taken as gospel (pun intended) we'd have to make a lot of changes in our lives in order to comply. A few examples: Deuteronomy 21:20-21 (Kill the child that misbehaves) "And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" Psalms 78:31 (Kill fat people) "The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel" 2 Kings 2:23-24 (Kill kids that make fun of ugly people) "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them" And my favorite: Corinthians 14:33-55 (Women should shut up) “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” There are many more, but you get the idea...
Thanks for taking the time to transcribe that section, Rich. I found that playback over the web was a little jerky, but the show is also available as a podcast, which should play a little more smoothly. I'll look forward to hearing it. From my point of view--a non-religious viewpoint--the whole kerfuffle over evolution is quite troubling. Some religious people thump on their Bibles and claim evolution is a dangerous lie. Some other claim evolution as proof of an elegant God. An unfortunate number of my co-nonreligionists (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) claim dismissively that evolution is proof that there is no God. I'm distressed that the whole lovely mechanism of evolution is used as some sort of club to beat up people that other people don't agree with. I'm quite happy to appreciate evolution in and of itself. The science is compelling and carries no other agenda than to force a deeper appreciation of the universe we live in. The attachment of that process to either a religious or non-religious world view is a deeply personal choice. There ought to be plenty of room in the world for that. On Aug 1, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Richard Tenney wrote:
For those not interested in the subject of evolution, feel free to skip the rest of this and hit your delete buttons now. OT means off-topic, so you've had fair warning if you proceed.
With Kansas back in today's news, I was reminded of a fascinating interview last week on NPR's Diane Rehm show, whose guest was Francis Collins, the longtime director of the Human Genome project, a leading researcher in medical genetics, and a self-professed Evangelical Christian. You can hear the archived program here: http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/06/07/r2060725-10891.asx
I've taken the trouble to transcribe one part of the interview that I found especially interesting, which follows:
"The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. Those who would deny that should sit with me some day and go through the DNA evidence of our relatedness to other species.
"If I look at our genome, and compare it with that of the chimpanzee, they are 98.8% the same. Now some might argue "well, God simply used some good ideas in a slightly different way over and over again in multiple acts of special creation", but the data doesn't support that. For instance, chimpanzees have two more chromosomes than humans do. When you look closely to see what's going on there, those two chromosomes have fused together to make one of ours, and when you look at the DNA sequence at that fusion point, it has a remarkable character; it has the type of sequence that one sees at what's called the telomere, the tip of the chromosome; no other chromosome has that in the middle. It's clearly the signature of two chromosomes having come together, and when you look at the chimp and you look at the human, it's inescapable to conclude that we are descended from a common primate ancestor.
"We humans have pseudo-genes; genes that have lost their function. They've acquired some sort of major flaw, and in some instances those are genes which are located in the same place in the chimpanzee, or even in the dog or in the horse, yet in us they have stopped working.
"What's going on? Would God have put those there just to confuse us or mislead us, when in fact we are completely different, special acts of creation? That sounds like a trickster god, not the God I worship.
"So, I don't think by the study of DNA, or for that matter the fossil record, one can any longer deny the reality of evolution. But that's not a problem for me as a believer. If God decided to use that mechanism of creation, that's incredibly elegant; that's incredibly awe-inspiring."
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Michael Carnes MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net home.earthlink.net/~michaelcarnes
Folks like us feel that indeed, there ought to be room for that, Michael. And while there are many harmless fundamental scriptural literalists who are content to let you live in peace in your ignorance, likewise there are hundreds of millions of scriptural literalists (of all stripe) who believe that if you don't believe as they do, you must be either converted- or destroyed as irredeemable and evil. Remember that to these people, all that mankind need know about the universe is already known. Speculation beyond what is written between the covers of the holy books is heresy requiring swift punishment. The Inquisition never went away. --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
The science is compelling and carries no other agenda than to force a deeper appreciation of the universe we live in. The attachment of that process to either a religious or non-religious world view is a deeply personal choice. There ought to be plenty of room in the world for that.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
The Inquisition never went away.
Thanks for the remarks, Chuck. I'm actually listening to the Diane Rehm podcast right now. I've obviously come to different conclusions than the guest, but it's still a good interview and his position is well thought-out. A little humility--all around-- is all that's called for in this matter. We're walking around with ape-brains, imperfect senses, raging hormones--making it a bit difficult to even perceive the universe well, much less come to solid conclusions. It's hardly a surprise that people of good intent still can arrive at different places.
I carry mine in a bowling-ball bag. --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
We're walking around with ape-brains,
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Something else to think about is that many people define themselves by their place within their faith. If you present evidence contrary to elements of their beliefs, it is perceived as a personal attack. Tread lightly- from my own experience, I have not been nearly sensitive enough in dealing with such people. --- Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (4)
-
Chuck Hards -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney