http://www.tolweb.org/Mammalia

(this is just a portion of pages that interested most people, click on those blude links and you will find no direct common ancestors in most cases)

Research by yourself and you will find using evolution to explain the human origin is laughable.

Have fun to excercise your brain!!!!

Unlike the simple-minded black-and-whiters, I can see the distinctions between these two Parties as to how they have cynically used religion as political tools. The fact that many Republicans actually believe such nonsense doesn’t make them any less culpable of demagoguery. I especially deplore those sinners that cry the loudest about the moral issues only to be discovered sometime later to have had close encounters of the naughty kind with people to whom they aren’t married, or people of the same sex (for shame!).

There are reasons why the Democrats have not made a show of their religion as have the Republicans–and no, it’s not because they’re evil, or secular humanists, or whatever. I guess they learned a bad lesson in the last two Presidential elections: you’ve got to appeal to the values-voter if you’re going to win. I doubt that attitudes toward religion have changed an iota for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or whomever, since they decided to make the run for the White House. They have sacrificed principle for expediency. Now, at a time when religion is one of our primary problems to be solved, the Democrats are seeking cover. Very few politicians have the guts or the luxury to tell people the unpleasant truth.

Representative government is a wonderful idea that I embrace–I just wish I had someone to represent me and my views.

I think that Newton’s dual identity as an alchemist/scientist is …well ok fine I think a lot of Newton the person is interesting. His theology was heavily influenced by his science (and vice versa) and so anyone who dabbles in both worlds almost has to pay some form of homage to him. Even if it is an homage to more of a legendary version of the man instead of the actual man.

Which of those two approaches do you think that a scientist like Newton agreed with? Since it seems like he, as a Christian and a scientist, is a major hero to the ID movement.

I’ve always thought it was ironic that ID/creationism champion Newton because he was a Christian. For one thing, back then in the area that Newton lived, everyone was. For another, he was the original proposer of the idea that his mechanical universe followed universal laws–which is to say laws that act the same at any point in spacetime. Newton himself didn’t explore all of the consequences of this idea (although he did use it as an argument against miracles), but it nonetheless laid the foundation for all of the scientific ideas that ID/creationists gainsay. And finally, Newton also explored alchemy. I think we all realize that it’d be silly if a group of alchemers today were to point to Newton as proof that science and alchemy are compatible. It’s theoretically possible that religion and science are compatable, but the fact that Newton didn’t explicitly deny this possibility isn’t evidence for it.

But if he were still alive, for some reason I have the notion that he would argue with the ID movement on theological grounds.

I don’t know enough about Newton’s theology to have an opinion on that, but I’m fairly sure he’d argue against it on scientific grounds. Even without having any understanding of evolution, he’d be able to realize that ID wasn’t even a theory. While he purportedly read the Bible daily, etc., he also thought that things like creation were scientific and attempted to study them via the scientific method. ID, on the other hand, seems to be trying to discredit the very idea of the scientific method.

I’d guess that his vision of the universe was sort of like a clock set in motion by a designer and then left to its own functioning–if he’d lived a bit later on, I think he would have been a deist.

Which of those two approaches do you think that a scientist like Newton agreed with?

I don’t know enough about Newton to say. On the one hand he is known for putting forth the idea of a universe that functions according to deterministic natural laws (which would fit with the idea of God using evolution as his naturalistic means of creation), but on the other hand, he was also known to appeal to a “God of the Gaps” (i.e. supernatural intervention in naturalistic processes) to explain those areas that science didn’t have answers for yet – much as the ID movement does. So probably a both/and.

…of course he’d also argue with Dawkins. To be fair, I expect zombie Newton would argue with a lot of people.

However, I do think that different forms of “belief” are…conflated? confused? by a question like “Do you believe in evolution or creationism?” that almost all of these candidates have now been asked. …not to mention that this question, depending upon one’s definition of “evolution” and “creationism” actually might not be a choice between mutually exclusive things.

Like, to me, evolution is both the fact that all earthly organisms are related to one another and thus commonly descended, and the theories of how to explain these relations. Creationism is what the Creation Museum teaches. One of these is good science, the other is the active ignorance of 200 years of science. But based on John Edwards’ response to this question, it seemed like he thought that creationism is just the belief that God/Jesus guides evolution. Which …depending on who you ask, is not at all “creationism”.

I agree. Creation & Evolution are not mutually exclusive – it is possible to “believe” in both (as I do). However, literal 6-Day Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

As for God “guiding” evolution – that too can mean many things. It can mean a “God of the gaps” approach like many ID folks take, where God miraculously intervenes at various points in the evolutionary process to bring about the results he desires. Or it can simply refer to God setting up the process in the beginning to unfold naturally exactly the way it has in accordance with his eternal purposes. I would agree with the latter but not the former, since the former makes God seem rather incompetent – like he couldn’t come up with a working natural system so has to keep tweaking it along the way.

Did anyone happen to catch Pat Robertson’s bizare mathematical rant yesterday on the “700 Club?” The United States is four hundred years old, and it’s been forty years since Israel’s 6 Day War, and everything God likes to do is in forties, so the end is near…and it’s all clear if you just know how to see what’s in the Bible, right? Of course, after talking about the end of the world, Pat segues into something completely mindless like “Five Things Your Husband Won’t Tell You”. Nice. Thanks, Pat.

You know, just when I think Pat Robertson can’t get any nuttier, he goes and proves me wrong!

As a person who works with evolution (or…rather, looks at fossils and tries to figure out their evolutionary relationships) I agree with you that “belief in evolution” is a weird sounding phrase.

Mike C,

Stop being right! You are indeed correct in saying that “belief” as a word is a rather broad-defined term.

However, I do think that different forms of “belief” are…conflated? confused? by a question like “Do you believe in evolution or creationism?” that almost all of these candidates have now been asked. …not to mention that this question, depending upon one’s definition of “evolution” and “creationism” actually might not be a choice between mutually exclusive things.

Like, to me, evolution is both the fact that all earthly organisms are related to one another and thus commonly descended, and the theories of how to explain these relations. Creationism is what the Creation Museum teaches. One of these is good science, the other is the active ignorance of 200 years of science. But based on John Edwards’ response to this question, it seemed like he thought that creationism is just the belief that God/Jesus guides evolution. Which …depending on who you ask, is not at all “creationism”.