The Truth About Evolution and Religion

If you mean 'can animals realize their desires within the constraints imposed by physics?' then then the answer is often yes, they can exert their 'will' to perform actions. If they want food, they can go hunt.If you mean something else by free will, you'll have to explain what it is.

This raises a few questions.You propose this thing called the soul to solve what we might call the Problem Of Continuity.But it only does so if the soul always stays the same. Otherwise, the question: why would we call it the same soul? is just as relevant as question as why, despite the many changes I have undergone since my birth, we maintain that I am still the same person, and my body is still the same body. This concept of the "soul" only starts to solve the Problem Of Continuity if my soul always has exactly the same qualities. For it to solve the Problem Of Continuity my soul must have exactly the same qualities as it did when I was a babe unborn.But this view of the soul as a permanent peg on which I hang my temporary spiritual qualities seems to be in sharp distinction from the view that religion takes of my soul.So it seems at least that your use of the word "soul" must be highly idiosyncratic (or inconsistent).Would you care to comment on this?Thanks.

I should say that that is a distinction without a difference.

Now that I think about it a bit more, you're probably right. Anyway, it's not really relevant to this thread anyway, which should be about evolution and religion, rather than about if free will exists or not.

It is a poorly defined concept, but if you feel differently by all means define it. That can be defined. It's the ability to choose and the ability to understand self-actualization. Why are you amazed that Gould, a naturalist, doesn't care about souls? Souls are purportedly not physcial, right? If they have no realm in the physical world then science is disinterested in metaphysics, no? What exactly is your point?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Your thought process seems very disjointed. Who cares if Gould believed in souls or not? What is your point?Secondly, everyone in here I would think freely admits that such a thing as freewill exists for the sole fact that we all have the ability to choose things. Where they may differ from you is whether or not freewill was imparted by God.What precisely is it you would like to discuss because you seem to be all over the place?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I want to discuss my fax to the following organizations. So far, there has been no response from any of the objects of my criticism:Emailed and faxed to:
Discovery Institute
208 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 981042776 South Arlington Mill Drive, #813
Arlington, VA 22206Attn: Steven Buri, Howard Ahmanson, Tom Alberg, Charles Barbo, Christopher Bayley, Bruce Chapman, Robert Cihak, Skip Gilliland, Slade Gorton, Richard Greiling, Patricia Herbold, Bob Kelly, Bryan Mistele, Byron Nutley, James Spady, Michael Vaska, and Raymond WaldmannNational Center for Science Education
420 40th Street Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2688Attn: Kevin Padian, Elizabeth Stage, Jack Friedman, Robert West, Brian Alters, John Cole, Barbara Forrest, Martha Heil, Duane Jeffery, Michael McIlwrath, Andrew Petto, Frank Sonleitner, Lorne Trottier, Bernard Winograd, and Eugenie ScottOn November 24, 2009, I attended an event honoring Charles Darwin that included a question and answer period with Gerald M. Edelman, Paul Ekman, and Terrence Deacon. The program can be see at
150 Years of the Origin of Species - THIRTEEN ForumAfter telling the panel of experts I made a video on YouTube titled The Truth About Evolution and Religion at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ
I said: 1) Evolution applies only to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains the adaptation of organisms to their environment, not the increase in the complexity of organisms as they evolved from bacteria to mammals (common descent).The panel did not respond to the first point. The panel’s answer to the second point gave the many school children in the audience and web conferences the impression that natural selection was indeed a scientific explanation for adaptation and common decent. My question is 2 hours, 21 minutes, and 43 seconds into the video.Six minutes before my question, a young woman in the audience pointed out that there was no scientific definition of consciousness, a word that the panel was bandying about. The panel avoiding commenting on this point and the implication that human beings are indefinabilities or embodied spirits. I discuss the mind-body problem in my review of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, at
http://www.dkroemer.com/page81/page81.html
Mr. Dawkins is another one overstates the applicability of natural selection.In my opinion, the panel’s responses were disingenuous and served to disseminate misinformation about evolutionary biology. This misinformation is harmful because it serves to dissuade children from believing in religion. I’m writing to the executives and members of the boards of the Discovery Institute and the National Center for Science Education because I feel these two organizations propagate the same kind of misinformation about evolutionary biology that the panel propagated.If you have any questions about my analysis of evolution and criticism of your organizations, don’t hesitate to call or write.Very truly yours,David RoemerEdited by dkroemer, : Deleted my phone number. My true name is on my website.

Never post your real name and phone number, Dave. I suggest you edit that out immediately for your own good. Because these people have bigger things to do than argue semantics with a layman.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : edit to add

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Semantics? Read my fax again. I accused Terrance Deacon (he was the only panel member to actually speak) of being dishonest and harming children. By the way, Professor Deacon began to discuss the matter with me but abruptly stopped and told me to stop copying him in my emails to the Design Institute and the National Center for Science Education.By not answering my statement that evolution does not apply to the human soul they created the impression in many children listening that the idea of the soul is so irrational that my point does not merit a reply.Terrance Deacon's response left the impression that natural selection did indeed explain common descent.

It doesn't. Were they there as teachers, or were they there as a panel that discussed their opinions? If the former, shame on them. But I suspect it was the latter, in which case, what the hell are you whining about, if that's their opinion and they're there to discuss it, what could possibly be wrong about giving that opinion? He probably thought you meant the entire ToE.

You don't have to make assumptions about what Terrance Deacon said. You can hear what he said from the link I gave you. Deacon and his like deceive not only children, but science writers. The following quote is from Christine Kenneally in her book The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language. Kenneally, Pinker and Bloom are linguists, not biologists. They think that natural selection explains the complexity of life:"But, continued Pinker and Bloom, complexity is not a problem for evolution. Consider the eye. The little organ is composed of many specialized parts, each delicately calibrated to perform its role in conjunction with the others. It includes the cornea,Even Darwin said that it was hard to image how the eye could have evolved.
And yet, he explained, it did evolve, and the only possible way is through natural selectionthe inestimable back-and-forth of random genetic mutation with small effectsOver the eons, those small changes accreted and eventually resulted in the eye as we know it." (pp. 59—60)Edited by dkroemer, : No reason given.

Well, no wonder they ignored you. We can try to put you straight about any delusions you may have about biology, but who else has to pretend to take you seriously?

No, they don't. They mentioned "the inestimable back-and-forth of random genetic mutation with small effects".C'mon, try a little harder.I am certain that in a world of six billion people there must be at least one person who believes in evolution without believing in the theory of evolution.You, for reasons that only you know, think that you would score some sort of a point if you could produce such a person.You have so far failed to do so.But if you ever prove me right, let me know. Then I'll explain to you why proving me right doesn't prove me wrong.Sheesh.

Are you saying that everyone understand that natural selection explains only adaptation? That natural selection does not explain the increase in the complexity of life as it evolved from bacteria to mammals?

Hi, Kroemer.Welcome to EvC! Just out of curiosity, what does explain common descent, in your view?
And, how are souls and metaphysics related to this?----- I am a professional biologist.I hesitate to agree with your statement as written above, lacking, as it is, any mention of the other crucial component of evolution (i.e. mutation).Did you intend to portray the entirety of the Theory of Evolution with the phrase "natural selection," or were you intentionally leaving mutation out of it?If the former, I request that you stop using the term "natural selection" the way you are, and revert to using "evolution," and submit that you are wrong about professional biologists not saying such a thing.If the latter, then I think you are correct that no professional biologist would say such a thing, but this is such a trivial and unimportant admission, that further insistence on pursuing this line of reasoning will only make you look silly.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.