Readings in evolution

Posted: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:19 AM by Alan Boyle

Nicolle Rager Fuller / NSF

Scientific and religious leaders are sharing their thoughts on the influence of
Charles Darwin's ideas, 150 years after the publication of "The Origin of Species."

Charles Darwin's 200th birthday may now be history, but the story behind the origins of species continues to be told. In fact, you might be hearing more about "The Origin of Species" at church this weekend, right after the scriptural readings: More than 1,000 religious congregations around the world have signed up to give sermons on the theme of religion and science as part of the fourth annual Evolution Weekend.

The event, which has been attracting more interest from clerics every year, demonstrates the falsity of claims that religious belief and evolutionary theory are incompatible. One of the best things about the project's Web site is that you can peruse the sermons from past years - and easily make every weekend an Evolution Weekend if you wish.

To close off our coverage of Darwin Week, we provide a list of additional readings on the topic of evolution, including pointers to past recommendations from the Cosmic Log Used Book Club:

On the Web and in print: In honor of the Darwin birthday, as well as this year's 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species," the National Science Foundation has put together an anthology on the current state of evolutionary theory titled "Evolution of Evolution." You can read it as a print publication on the Web, or take it in as a multimedia presentation. (And while we're on the topic of print on the Web, the "Darwin at 200" roundups from Seed magazine, Discover magazine, Science News and Scientific American are not to be missed.)
Fresh reads: Here are a few recently published works mentioned in Phillip Manning's weekly roundup of science books: "The Young Charles Darwin," by Keith Thomson; "Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution," by Adrian Desmond and James Moore; "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution," by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending; "The Well Dressed Ape: A Natural History of Myself," by Hannah Holmes; "Why Evolution Is True," by Jerry A. Coyne; "Banquet at Delmonico's: Great Minds, the Gilded Age and the Triumph of Evolution in America," by Barry Werth.
Human evolution: These Cosmic Log Used Book Club recommendations have been around for a while, but they're still fresh enough to give you a sense of what science has learned about human origins: "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors," by Nicholas Wade; "The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors," by Ann Gibbons; "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind," by Donald Johanson. If you're looking for a brand-new look at human evolution, get ready for Johanson's latest, "Lucy's Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins."
More CLUB Club selections: The Cosmic Log Used Book Club highlights books with cosmic themes that have usually been around enough to become readily available at your local library or secondhand-book shop. Among past selections: "The Making of the Fittest," by Sean B. Carroll; "Evolution," Stephen Baxter's sweeping science-fiction epic; and our very first CLUB Club pick, "The Sparrow," a sci-fi novel by Mary Doria Russell that makes you think about how different intelligent species may or may not get along. (Are you listening, Mr. Neanderthal?) I'll add another CLUB Club selection to the list for this month: "Radical Evolution" by Joel Garreau, one of the books that inspired our own special report on "Fast Forward: The Future of Evolution."
Pharyngula's picks: Here are a few selections that P.Z. Myers, the biologist behind the Pharyngula blog, passed along last year: "Coming to Life" by Christiane Nusslein-Volhard; "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin; "Bones, Rocks and Stars" by Chris Turney; and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," another one by Sean B. Carroll. And then there's Carroll's latest, "Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origins of Species."

That should tide you over for the next week or so. I'll be spending some days out of the office, and the posting schedule will be significantly lighter than usual until I'm back at my desk on Feb. 23. So in the meantime, hit the books - and if you have other recommendations for evolutionary reading, post them as comments below. If I use your pick as a future CLUB Club selection, I'll send you a copy of "Remarkable Creatures."

For additional food for thought, take a look at these other Cosmic Log postings:

And for much, much more, search for Darwin on msnbc.com.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

For my part I am happy that ANTI-science reached it's high point a few years ago and now, from president's office to local school boards, is in full retreat. This has been happening for year in other parts of the world, and it's past time it happened here. Pasta la vista, superstitions!

JC, Fairbanks, AK (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:11 PM)

How small and insignificant must a mind be to insist on applying science to the study of God. Science is a great tool for studying the natural world not because it is perfect but because it is the best tool we have. If we are intelligent at all we must acknowledge it’s limitations. It’s great for studying things that can be measured and observed. God is the creator of all things that are. He created the universe. As the creator he preexisted the natural world. Anyone who has even the least little bit of intelligence can see that if he existed before mass existed he must have no mass so we can’t put him on a scale to find out how much he weighs. Anyone with even the least little bit of intelligence can see that if he existed before there was distance he has no size so we can use neither a micrometer nor a distance ladder to measure how big he is. We can use a microscope to look at stuff, but God isn’t made of stuff so a microscope is useless. The study of God is, indeed, unscientific. This is because science is inadequate for the task, it is lacking. It occurs to me that only a dullard would insist that science be the definitive measure of the existence or non-existence of God when it is obvious that science is incapable of measuring God. Thousands of years before the scientific method it was recorded that God created all the stuff that makes up the physical world. Hundreds of years before the scientific method it was written that God is a spirit, as opposed to a part of the physical world. These clearly weren’t written as excuses to avoid being trapped by the scientific method because they predated it. They were written as simple facts, truth, an expression of the nature of God. How small minded and petty a person must be to insist on using a tool that is incapable of detecting God as the standard for whether or not God exists.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:12 PM)

God created evolution.

Rick Mayers (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:22 PM)

To Dan Homer: "If it were even a remote possibility; the world would be covered with viruses {they multiply faster then animals and therefore mutate faster thereby wiping out all competition}."

Natural resources determine species population, not maximum reproductive potential. If viruses multiplied too fast, with detrimental effects, they would cause a population crash and themselves be wiped out.

To Nemo Hamilton: "No one claims incompatability with religion, just the Bible. If churches believe Darwin they don't believe the Bible."

Then the Catholic and Protestant denominations don't believe the bible? Many mainstream religions reconcile evolution with genesis, it is only a small fundamentalist minority in various religions that declare it incompatible, but they do so loud enough they believe they speak for all their fellows.

Jereme BP, Richland, Washington (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:42 PM)

"The Theory of Evolution", which is the foundation science biology, botany and physiology is one of Mankind's greatest achievements of intellect. It's sad so many want it brought down.

During the Dover trial, Behe was right when he said, "If you use the same criteria that identifies Mystical Creation as "science", then you would also have to include astrology and alchemy.

R. Dean (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:56 PM)

What is amazing is that the denialists don't have a clue of what they are talking about. Of course no one can know everything about everything, but then, if we make such bold statements, like a set of scientific laws that has been the backbone of biology and geology over 100 years is a lie...I guess we would care to know what those laws say.
Is there a controversy about evolution? Sure, but only in the public, not in the scientific community. There isn't a single accredited college where it isn't taught in biology(otherwise nothing else makes sense). Did Darwin speak of survival of the fittest? The term was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. What is the method of denialists like Behe? Never bother with publications in peer reviewed journals, take your case directly to the public. Is Darwinian evolution possible? Well, farmers, dog breeders and pigeon fanciers did it for centuries before Darwin, breeding new species from old ones, sufficiently different they couldn't mate with them any more. Darwin only said living conditions of animals and plants do the job of the breeder. Does evolution say we came to exist because of "chance"? No more than the "chance" of a dog bred for herding sheep getting along with sheep well.

HL, Cleveland, Ohio (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:09 PM)

I long for the day when we realize that organized religion is a hinderance to the true progress of our species. Evolution is a concept that requires some thought to grasp, which troubles religious followers used to facile answers to the tough questions. Our species will truly "evolve" when we throw away our myths and superstitions--our churches! The world will benefit from our humbling realization that human beings are pretty fascinating, but we are just one of many species and we haven't been around that long to get get cocky.

Curtis Bartone, Savannah, Georgia (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:28 PM)

who really cares, taxes and death is for sure,you small minded people get into the now,look forward to your own time here because its coming to an end, so go live what life you have left. Then maybe after your gone you'll get the truth,just like the rest of us.

ralph glendale az (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:58 PM)

People, science and religion are completely compatible. They are both the means to the same end. Most great scientists are people who have abelief in a higher being. In my opinion evolution is the ultimate example of "intelligent design." I can not think of a more intelligent design. A process by which gods creation can continue to adapt to an ever changing environment. If we can all open our minds and hearts we can move past confrontation and towards harmony.

chris clark, salt lake city, utah (Sent Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:25 PM)

It's sad that there are so many people on this discussion page who lump all religions together and spew out their disdain for other's belief systems. It's just as sad that there are many here who spout their religous views showing how intolerant they are of those who don't even consider that God can and does exist. Narrow-mindedness runs amok on both sides of the argument. Refreshing it is to see quite a few who are neither one nor the other.
I love science, the good and the bad. I've had an interest is astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, the Big Bang, oceanography, geology plus a few more since I was a teenager. I'm now 54 years old. As of late I find myself becoming fascinated by quantum physics.
I was not raised up in a church, and I was as agnostic as they come for many years. In the past decade I've become aware that the universe makes no real sense if it came about by accident or chance, just as we humans have no real purpose if mankind evolved from a "pool of goo", by chance.
I've had some experiences that convince me utterly that God does exist. I can't prove that God exists. I relize I don't need to. And I still love the branches of science I'm interested in. Sciencedaily.com is one of my favorite websites, thanks to a link from Alan Boyle. God Bless You Alan.
I know all life evolves. Change is what has put us at the top of the food chain, yet I have no doubts that God started the ball rolling. Heck, he made the ball. I suppose I'm a living contradiction. I believe in God, Science, and when I read the words that Jesus Christ spoke with such incredible power and authority, I came to believe in Him also.
Hmmmm. Food for thought.

Jim A, Albany, Oregon (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 12:49 AM)

Let's see... there is a canon of scriptures that was written a pretty long time ago. There were other scriptures as well that were not included for various reasons... Wait a minute... wasn't there some other writings further to the east? Did the same group of guys review them to determine if they should be included in the cannon they were putting together? Am I confused or what? We can clearly see the evolution of animals... however, some would discount that because it conflicts with the "scriptures".... There very well could be a God. However, I'm sure, if there is, he's pretty disgusted with "Religious" people here on earth. "I'm sure if God wanted to tell us something. It wouldn't come from some guy on Sunday television with a bad hair do" - Unknown -

Tom Carson, Hilo, Hawaii (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 1:09 AM)

Dennis from N.C. - Try Joshua 10:12-13.
The reference is to the Sun standing still in the sky. In order for that to have happened, the Earth must have stopped rotating on its axis.

LuAnn from N.Y. - [...] In science “theories” are stronger than facts. After all, gravity is only a theory.

The scientific (and historic) illiteracy in this country is widespread and frightening.

Dan, Indiana (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 9:28 AM)

seriously if all they taught in school was parallel to what the bible says, would we have the the technology we have now? The difference is that some people are trying to put the puzzle together with the peices scattered on the table and others are saying don't dare question we don't need the peices the bible told us how it should look. Just remember the bible isn't responsible for our everyday technology, it's the scientists that are looking for the questions not just the answers. NOTHING IS EVER SET IN STONE

Jake2112 Taylorville Illinois (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 10:30 AM)

Dennis Emer: You're my favorite example of Xian -- one who claims to know his Bible, but clearly has no clue. It my experience, most religious people don't know much about the religions they embrace so blindly.

The OT is full of statements about the Earth being the center of the universe, so you sure as heck didn't look very hard. Try these out:

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

This forum cracks me up. All the fire-and-brimstone Bible-waving by stupid people is laughable. And it's always amusing that those who protest the loudest usually don't link to Web sites or emails.

All you religious people: First, look up what the word "theory" means when it comes to science. It isn't an untested idea like you all seem to think it is. I'd lecture about it here, but you won't listen anyway (nor are you likely to look it up).

Scientific sorts: You won't change any religious people's minds here today, I think. But look at how science has been advancing since the end of the Dark Ages -- since religion began to lose its grasp on the minds of people everywhere. There have been great leaps of progress, and more every day. Religion is dying, and its death is speeding up.

That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people who blindly believe this silliness. Just grab a bowl of popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show as these meatballs proclaim how devoted they are to the fictitious personage of Jesus Christ, and how they think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and how they refuse to believe the universe came from nowhere yet espouse that very belief when it comes to their gods, and so on. It's great entertainment!

Grow up, religionists. Really, grow up. You stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy because you accepted they were silly. I know you need religion as a crutch, but once you realize you can live a good life and be a good person and so forth WITHOUT it, you'll be much better off.

David M. Fitzpatrick, Brewer, Maine (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 11:15 AM)

I saw the PBS show that covered the 2005 court case in Dover Kansas that concerned allowing "Intelligent Design" (ID) in the
HS science curriculum. The backers of ID wanted a presentation of a second way of looking at why life on earth has come to be what it is. Well I say, why not? Let the students make the comparisons for themselves. If CORRECTLY PRESENTED,
I would bet that almost all students would have to conclude that "ID" really is not science compared to Darwin's theory and that it
has no real value in reasonably describing life on earth. In this way, ID would eventually be extinguished and their backers would be victims
of their own intentions.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 1:59 PM)

Dan Homer in Alaska: viruses are not technically alive. They cannot reproduce without a host cell. Thus, it is in viruses' evolutionary interest NOT to kill its animal or bacterial host. It is, however, in a viruses' evolutionary interest to cause illness that makes its host shed viral offspring by sneezing, coughing, or otherwise secreting infected substances. Viruses with 100% fatality rates die out very quickly indeed, having no offspring!

[ALAN ADDS: It's interesting how we invest even viruses with an evolutionary interest ... even though that little splotch of genetic code doesn't really formulate what is or isn't in its interest. That construction, as well as other anthropomorphic terms associated with evolution, makes it easier for us to understand how natural selection works ... but it also tends to make us think that viruses are somehow sentient beings. It's as if we're saying that a coin naturally wants to come up heads half the time and tails half the time.]

Dave, OK (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 9:30 PM)

RE: TED EVANS, San Diego, CA

Since you don't like it, maybe we shouldn't teach science in science classes. Should we teach "intelligent design" then? Let's see . . .

Is "intelligent design" science?
No. ID posits no testable hypotheses aside from the statement that the universe and life are so complex that their existence cannot be explained without a creator. By the way, this statement IS testable, and has been disproved by the mere fact that evolutionary theory exists. ID says we shouldn't try to explain anything because we can't. That's not science, and I don't want my kids learning it in high school or any place else! Science belongs in science classes, and dogmas that stifle scientific pursuits belong in your church, not mine!

Dave, OK (Sent Monday, February 16, 2009 10:10 PM)

Re: Thomas Ashby, Calgary. Your idea is an interesting one. But if we give equal time to "Intelligent Design", shouldn't we also give equal time to all of the various creation myths such as that in Genesis, the Koran and Hindu creation myths just for starters? Wouldn't such non-scientific concepts be better taught in comparative religion or philosophy classes, if they are to be "taught" in schools at all?

James Carson (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:10 AM)

Why isnt christianity, islam or buddhism taught in schools? Because they're faiths. However, the holes in the theory of evolution make it so unlikeky that it's believers have to have a "faith" in the theory. So why is this faith taught but not the others?

Dylan Quigley, Sandpoint, ID (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:09 AM)

Of all concepts thought by men or animals or other organisms very few are exact, yet with every thoughtful arguement for or against some theory most Ideas are an aproximation formed from those few ideas(concepts which don't change).

With nearly everything being done with approximate thoughts how exactly does evolution work? Why are fossils shown that the same kind of animal reevolved over and over like crocodile like creatures did three different times? Does reality require its own exactness to succeed at evolution ? Is reality helping our inexact approximate thoughts becoming exact so evolution can exist?

Jeffrey Waukegan,Il (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:10 PM)

Good point, Alan! Viruses are not sentient, and do not have interests. Viruses with genetic traits that allow them to propagate in their host populations (by causing infected individuals to shed viral offspring for extended periods), will multiply. Viruses that rapidly cause the death of their host individuals, on the other hand, have limited opportunity to spread.

I sometimes wonder whether our sentience as humans is only superficial. Perhaps we don't have as much control over our behavior as we think we have. But this line of thought leads to something dangerously similar to the doctrine of predestination, and I am a fan of random processes, rather than deterministic ones. In human populations, some adaptive behaviors are learned while others are strictly inherited. It is often the interplay of these two that determines successes in terms of finances, reproduction, etc. Oh those random permutations! They make things so exciting . . .

Dave, OK (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:45 PM)

i agree with david from brewer,maine. religion has been a tool devised by the elitists from centuries past to feed upon their unearned rise to power & subjugate the masses to their whims(still going on today)out of man's need to look elsewhere to tell him how to live. man just didn't look inwards to guide himself. your thoughts and actions are your own,not planted there by "god". science is necessary for our modern world & evolution, or theory thereof, is viable. darwin proposed this through careful observations of creatures over a period of time, then used his brain to make those notations for future science. the zealots need to realize evolution is a slow process still being studied, the study itself will continue to evolve as more discoveries are made. science has proven the earth is approximately 4billion years old, not a mere 6,000. that number is based on about how long civilization started forming into cities & societies with those intermingling peoples bringing their beliefs to others and the tale grows taller on down the line. science and religion do not make good bedfellows and should remain separate just as religion and politics remain separate. why do you suppose that is? hmmmm.....

Robbie Withey, New Bern, NC (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:15 PM)

Sigh...Pretty much what I've come to expect on these types of message boards. Creationists who don't understand what a Theory is, Creationists who resort to character assassination, Creationists who lie, and Creationists who resort to religious blackmail. And these are the people who claim you can't be moral without 'God'?

Henry Burns, San Francisco, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:13 PM)

If some people reject "evolution" because it seems to reject God's hand (so to speak) working to make all of creation, I wonder why they drive around in automobiles or fly here and there in airplanes, both powered essentially by the invention of the internal combustion engine. God's word, the Bible, talks about horses and chariots, but not cars and planes. So doesn't that mean the people should reject modern conveniences along with Darwin's theory?

And the atheists here mostly show complete disregard and much unfounded antipathy for religious beliefs which can easily exist alongside scientific faith, neither one necessarily obviating the other.

The pity is that so much intolerance is so openly displayed by both sides.

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:56 PM)

James Carson: Well, I am only speaking of the Dover, Kansas case in 2005. You seem to be saying that some kind of flood gate would be opened. The point being they want ID to be thought of as a theory and dealt with in scientific terms. I doubt very much you would have every kind of religion knocking on the HS curriculum door to have "equal time"...Michael BeHe's "irreducible complexity" arguement was shown to be full o holes and incidently, it is amazing he is employed as a science professor of microbiology.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:03 PM)

The actual choice is between Evolution and Devolution.

All scientific evidence supports the idea that we are evolving creatures living within an evolving universe.

Fairy Tales of various cultures propose that at first everything was perfect, but it's been going downhill ever since. This is devolution. There is no evidence supporting such a belief outside of the Fairy Tales.

"Folk" love this kind of idea because you can blame others for everything going downhill. People also have poor memories, leading to nostalgia (the idea that things were better in the past than they were).

Jaycubed (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:53 PM)

I highly recommend Pilgrim on the Great Bird Continent by Lyanda Lynn Haupt. She examines Darwin's journals not so much for his thoughts on evolution but rather in an attempt to discern how and when during his travels he was transformed from a relatively inexperienced observer into a seasoned naturalist.

Vince Stricherz, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:54 PM)

Readings in evolution

Tom Carson, Hilo, HI (2/16, 0109) wrote, “[T]here is a canon of scriptures that was written a pretty long time ago… Did the same group of guys review them to determine if they should be included in the cannon they were putting together?”
Interesting thing about the canon, people tried to put one together for centuries but failed to until money was on the line. Once there was a price and a deadline to get it the deadline was met.
--and-- “We can clearly see the evolution of animals... however, some would discount that because it conflicts with the ‘scriptures’…”
It actually doesn’t conflict with scripture, nor does the age of the earth or universe. These things only conflict with the interpretation of scripture that some hold. A legal analogy is the confusion some people have with a “threat.” In the common vernacular I could levy a “threat” to sue you for damages done. In legal terms a threat only includes illegal actions. If you park illegally and a shop owner says he will have your car towed there are plenty of people who would call the cops to have the shop owner arrested for criminal threatening.
--and-- “There very well could be a God. However, I'm sure, if there is, he's pretty disgusted with ‘Religious’ people here on earth.”
That’s my assesment.

David M. Fitzpatrick, Brewer, ME (2/16, 1115) Again, the whole interpretation thing above. If you cared to look at all past the English you feel comfortable with and see what scripture actually means you’d (quite easily) find that the earth not being “moved” means it won’t be cast out of it’s orbit. While it would be convenient for all of us, particularly those too lazy to look, if the Bible were written in more modern terms, what we have to work with is scripture written before those modern terms were even conceptualized. The immediate audience for scripture wouldn’t have even understood, in this case, an orbit. Their’s was ignorance based on a lack of technology, math, geometry, etc. When we, now, have ignorance based on sloth we call it “lazymindedness.” What shall we call those who choose to speak out on those issues where they carefully maintain ignorance?

Alan (in Dave, OK (2/16, 2130) As people we, most of us, do actually want to survive, both as individuals and as a species. For all our want to survive we never conciously alter our physiology in such a way that we would alter the gene pool, although that could be coming to a lab soon. In some circles it is clearly understood that references to a species “wanting” to survive are intended to mean that the diversity developed in a given species helps it to be more adaptable to it’s changing surrounding and therefore more apt to survive and not to mean that there is some collective intelligence in the species. But I have noted that here many people seem to think that a lifeform considers the possibilities and consequences and decides how to evolve. I’m not sure “interesting” would be my first choice, but it works.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:39 PM)

"Why isnt christianity, islam or buddhism taught in schools? Because they're faiths."

Actually, you can do that...as part of a balanced, Comparitive Religions' class. Not science.

"However, the holes in the theory of evolution make it so unlikeky that it's believers have to have a "faith" in the theory. So why is this faith taught but not the others?"

Specify the 'holes,' please.

Once again, it's not a matter of 'faith,' it's a theory supported by evidence and testable predictions. (If a theory is correct, then x, y and z should be true of it and a, b and c should *not* be true of it. So one looks for supporting or refuting evidence. What religion does this?)

The only thing that science takes on 'faith' is the basic assumption that the Universe/Nature *is* understandable. And it's been a safe assumption, so far.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:41 PM)

If you do not believe in evolution,why are there different races of people?Darwins theory is rejected by the church because of one sentence,we share common ancestery with apes.The rest of his observations would be accepted as an insightful view of nature.In 200 years from now will there be but one race?

Bill,Islip,NY (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:14 PM)

everyone is arguing about the existence of god, evolution, But consider the argument that the big bang theory, and read the old testament`s description of the beginnings of our universe. Remember that people back then were not as technologicaly advanced as we are today. Now consider the argument of evolution. The bible describes that we were created, life put in our bodies, and put on the earth. This is the point, everything evolves, raptors evolved into modern turkeys, so why is it so hard to accept that we, too, have physicaly evolved into what we are today. The ape is a highly intelligent species. Chimpanzees use tools to crack open nuts and fruits. I watched a program where a pack of chimpanzees killed and ate a monkey. What happened afterward, was that the chimps offered different parts of the animal to other chimps sitting in a circle. They weren`t hungry, they were negociating a heirachy of order among themselves. If you think about it, that behavior is a human trait of social order. Just think about it.

artrhur haynes cleveland, ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:59 PM)

Well I dont know about where it all started, but scientist witness evolution actually in our life times. Its not just a theory, we see it all the time. Its been estimated that the Amazon Rainforest has some 10 new species a "year" evolve. Most grasses and palm trees have evolved in just the last 15 thousand years since the end of the last ice age. They grasses and palm trees as well as maples and other decidious trees did not exist at the extinction of dinosaurs 60 million years ago. Plants appear to continue to evolve at very rapid rates and due to climatic changes, are accellerating their evolutionary changes.

Even humans can also influence evolution of species. All the thousands of breeds of dogs, cats and cattle over the last 200 years as breeders tip the scales of natural selection and we can witness the relatively rapid transitions evolution can take.

The real test to creationist theory will be when we discover life exists on other planets.

Florida Joe, Tampa, Fl (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:36 AM)

For all of the zealots out there, no one is saying Darwin was a god or tried to destroy God with science. Mr. Darwin made observations and drew conclusions that have, thus far, been borne out by the data we have been able to collect. That's science. He was an observer, a recorder, and a thinker. It's a shame that so many people want to either deify or demonize him for just looking at the world and pointing out the way it works.

Dean Hardage, Clovis, NM (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:13 AM)

it takes more blind belief to accept evolution than believeing in a first cause,which is in scientific law that(for an effect,there MUST be a CAUSE.Evolution is full of holes in its theories and ignorances and assumptions.Too bad doctor hugh ross,of reasons to believe org. couldnt go toe to toe with the evolutionalists,as he has SCIENTIFICALLY debunked many claims of the too haughty to believe scientists that there is indeed a intellectual orderly god,,

george bonnar,sydney mines nova scotia canada (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:55 AM)

it seems that when you find one person who seems to know what they're talking about that person is always missing one thing. we arent perfect. as far as im concerned my schools biology book, written by kenneth miller, offers it as the THEORY of evolution and give the definition of a theory so its obviously not taught as fact. And Finding Darwins God is great insight to fitting god into evolutionary theory. Sadly if you're a fundamentalist that all that can be expected... :\ word of god written by man of the time it is exactly what it is :(

Dustin A, Baltimore, Maryland (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 12:09 PM)

"You said that the Old Testament says earth stands still. I have checked 4 versions of the Bible and cannot find that statement. Could you help me with the book and verse?"
Dennis Emer

I Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. (KJV)

I Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before him, all the earth!The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.(NIV)

I Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (New American standard bible)

I Chronicles 16:30: Tremble and reverently fear before Him, all the earth's peoples; the world also shall be established, so it cannot be moved.(Amplified bible)

There are also 59 other old testament verses that describe the movement of the Sun/Heavens, implying the Earth is fixed.

And six more in the new testament.

Jaycubed (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:56 PM)

"My biggest problem with the theory of evolution, is that is is just that...still a theory! or it would be taught and called the FACT of Evolution."

How strange that we have this sort of thing *only* where evolution is involved. I have yet to see any book on 'The FACT of Relativity,' for example. (even though it is a fact, to the ability of our ability to test it so far, which has been pretty thorough)

For the umpteenth time, the way science (and slightly different still, for mathematics) uses the word 'theory' is NOT the same way that most lay people (such as yourself) uses it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

Please look very closely at definitions 5 and 6 here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Disagree with evolution if you insist, but understand just WHAT you're disagreeing with...

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:55 PM)

I hope we could push more into fact of evolution to set the record straight once and for all.

Dominic Maye, Baden-Wurttemburg Mannheim, Germany (Sent Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:39 AM)

I've read Origin of Species twice. Great book, if you're in the right frame of mind. It's not really an adventure story, but it reads like one. Darwin comes across like an excited kid trying to show people his bug collection. But OOS is not the best book from which to learn evolution. There are several good places to learn it, but the best I know of is a book by Ernst Mayr called "What Evolution Is."

OOS great book, but not the best to understand evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EQ63xPRDqY

Review of Mayr book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkZ2w5EPKsQ

Mayr himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8H6-sKM--s

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA (Sent Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:50 AM)

I can actually help both sides of this debate be right. I can show how the descent of man took place through the animal kingom and the ascent of man takes place by allowing a girasas kingdom to enter us.

The process of evolution is going on all the time, only the form is developed during the descent and our future form and consciousness is developed during our ascent. Please see my webpage www.homestead.com/theosophy/ascension.html or search the word girasas

Brenda Tucker, West Hills, CA (Sent Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:01 PM)

To Dennis Emer: I was very interested in your question to Pluto Animus. I hope you don't mind that I have the answer to your question about "The Old Testament says the earth stands still." One of the things that is going to shake the world before the coming of Christ at Armageddon is going to be "the day the earth stands still." I believe this verse is in the Old Testament Revelation 8:7, Revelation 16:2, Revelation 8:12, and Revelation 16:8. I hope this helps. How is life treating you? I hope you and yours are well. Dolores Mecca Stadtmauer

Dolores Mecca Stadtmauer, Ocala, Florida (Sent Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:04 PM)

george bonnar,sydney mines nova scotia canada Says: "It takes more blind belief to accept evolution than believeing in a first cause,which is in scientific law that(for an effect,there MUST be a CAUSE.Evolution is full of holes in its theories and ignorances and assumptions.Too bad doctor hugh ross,of reasons to believe org. couldnt go toe to toe with the evolutionalists,as he has SCIENTIFICALLY debunked many claims of the too haughty to believe scientists that there is indeed a intellectual orderly god,,"

George, George, George...If Dr. Ross could scientifically debunk any actual aspect of Evolution, he'd win a Nobel Prize. What Dr. Ross is, is an Apologetic, which is someone who accepts the basic discoveries of science and then tries to fit orthodoxy around it. In other words, he accepts science just doesn't accept the conclusions.

Henry Burns, San Francisco, CA (Sent Friday, February 20, 2009 5:58 PM)

I have read through all of these anti evolution posts. They all ignore DINOSAURS. They also ignore that we know for a fact that there were different forms of human living at the same time! Dinosaurs lived LONG before humans or mammels for that matter. The fact that there were dinosaurs and more than one form of humans along with the fact that creatures that live today can be found in earlier forms that evolved to what lives now is proof enough of evolution. Horses used to be such tiny little things.

Rick Leers, Niles, MI (Sent Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:26 PM)

I'm so weary of the simplistic thinking of both the hard-core fundamentalist believers and the unbelievers. There's nothing incompatible between religious belief and evolution. Clearly not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God but not writing verbatim from God. Does it make sense that they would refer to carbon dating, the Big Bang, and natural selection to communicate with the people of the time? I'm a behavioral scientist who used to believe that you can't be intelligent and religious at the same time. I have a choice. I can believe that God created the singularity (i.e. the infinitely small point) from which all the universe expanded in the Big Bang or I can somehow attribute it to "spontaneous creation". I submit that attributing such an unimaginably awesome event to God is less far-fetched.

Tom Barrett (Sent Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:20 PM)

"To all Judeo-Christian/Muslim believers: Consider carefully and thoroughly these ideas (I'll be polite, although I'm not sure you deserve that)."

Why dont we deserve politeness. Because we dont believe in your evolutionist religion with no proof to back it up? Or maybe because you were the ones indoctrinated since birth and we actually look for the truth. Evolution is the only thing calling itself science that starts with an answer (that is exists) and then tries to find evidence to prove it. Real science makes no assumptions. Real science looks at the facts then makes a hypothesis. Unlike evolution, which is just the latest fad in history for those who cant stand believing there is a God. But of course prejudice has no reason so trying to aruge with people who believe most of the world believes Christianity because we dont believe in science is kind of pointless isnt it. Those kind of people could have God appear in front of their face and they would still try to prove it away.

Alex D, Omaha NE (Sent Friday, March 13, 2009 11:54 AM)

So most clergy now accept that there is no God just a monkey. Well what that tells me is, that the gentile church has finly gotten to the same leval that the Jewish church was when Christ came the first time! They were calling themselves the Children of God when they werein fact the children of Satan! Look at the doctrines that are being preached in the churches of today, That God cannot save you so well that you will not go back into sin. in other words Satan can keep you unholy, but God in fact cannot make you holy and keep you holy! Who is Almighty? God or the Devil? If the devil can wrest you out of God's hand, then he is stronger. But He is not, so follow and serve the most High God, and He will defeat the Devil at every turn. Those who have the new Birth, are full able to live above the world and sin. But be warned the churches out there are not talking a victory way. JBD

James B Dickinson, Oak Harbor Wa. (Sent Friday, March 27, 2009 4:24 PM)

Excuse me folks , everyone must remember we (as a people) are all human this time round . It doesn't matter what kind of religion people believe in . In the end we will all know the truth . Love&Light LadyDragoness

LadyDragoness Pottsvile pa (Sent Friday, June 05, 2009 7:10 PM)

All anybody needs to know about religion is that the supernatural exists only in the human imagination. Period.

John Morgan, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Friday, July 10, 2009 6:08 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1793634

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG