The Whys of Evolution

I have copied the following from the article on this site under the title of "Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution".>>>This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.<<<This is an outline on current thinking of HOW evolution occured. It does not address the question of WHY it occured. I suggest that it leaves open three possibilities as to why.1. Through some random process that required no stimultion or design life has evolved to its current form. (Atheism)
2. An intelligent designer set the process in motion and then abscented him/herself from the process. (Deism)
3. There is an intelligent designer manipulting the process in order to achieve a particular outcome. This choice also raises the question of whether there is constant or occasional manipulation.(Theism)Any of these three WHY's requires an act of faith. I can't see where science can make that choice for us. It does appear to me that when evolution is taught that option 1. is either taught or implied.I contend that in the teaching of evolution, part of the teaching should be that this is HOW we believe that evolution happened, but that we don't know WHY evolution happened. The WHY should then be part of a class on philosophy or religion, with all points of view being discussed.

The best answer that I can think of is to say that an "act of faith" is believing something that cannot proven. There may or not be evidence to cause one to come to a decision, but the evidence wouldn't be conclusive.In this particular instance I would contend that an argument can be maintained for any of the three options as none of them can be conclusively proven, thus the acceptance as truth of any of the three options requires an act of faith.It has been pointed out to me that the scientific terminology in option one is not correct, and I accept that. I believe however, that the point I'm trying to make is clear.

I am brand new to this forum so I don't know what all has been discussed before and frankly I doubt I have the wisdom to add anything new. I'm neither a scientist nor a theologian so my thoughts on this will probably seem simplistic to most.In the reading that I have done it appears to me that there are those on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate that claim they have irrefutable scientific evidence to support their position. Most however, either don't seem to come to any conclusion, or find that the evidence causes them to lean one way or the other.I stand by the statement that science only tells us how, it does not tell us why.I contend that there is no scientic proof for the non-existance of ID, therefore it becomes an "act of faith" to declare the non-existance of ID.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 01:25 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 01:27 PM

You are absolutely right. I made the stupid mistake of saying that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence. My own argument was in contradiction to my original point. ID, or ID's non-existence is a question that is outside the bounds of science. It is either a philosophical or a religious question.Philosophically however, I maintain that it is an altogether different matter. Let's face it, there are very bright people that disagree strenuously over the issue.On a philosophical or religious basis the vast majority of us at some point in our lives make a decision on just what it is we believe. In addition our beliefs evolve, (if you'll pardon the expression ) throughout our lives.We aren't born an Atheist, Christian, or Muslim. We at some time in our lives make a decision in that regard. As there is no empirical proof of any kind, it requires an act of faith to come to a decision.If someone were to never consider the question at all, I would think he would be classified as an agnostic, which is not to say that all or even most agnostics have never considered the question.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 02:39 PM

If you couldn't make up your mind I assume that you would have decided that there is insufficient evidence, which would fit your definition.

I see what you mean but I don't agree. Within any religious community there are those that are part of the culture but don't intellectually accept the faith. (ie. secular Jews, Muslims etc.) Certainly our environment effects our decision but at some point in our lives we still have to give intellectual ascent to what we believe. I'm sure we all know religious people who were raised by non religious people and vice versa.

Antony Flew who over most of his life has been a major spokesperson for Atheism, was raised by a Methodist minister. He has more recently decided that he believes in Deism. Madalyn O'Hair had a son who made a decision to become a Christian.I believe that there is a metaphysical world. I can't prove it, so I have decided as an act of faith to believe that to be the case even though the evidence is circumstantial and not conclusive. I have been friends with and worked with people who were Atheists, Sikhs, Muslims, Agnostics, Budhists and Christians as well as many who decided not to decide. Certainly culture and environment played a part but we were all exposed to people who had made different choices. I would say though that the major choice we make, is whether you accept the concept that there is a deity or not. If one accepts that a deity exists then culture plays a much bigger part of one's decision as to the faith that we accept.You're right when you say I'm not likely to become a Taoist. (It's very similar to Buddhism anyway.) But, as in the case of the majority of the world religions there is a large overlap. For example the teachings of the original Buddha are virtually the same as the teachings of Christ. Frankly I see that the overlap between the various world religions is strong evidence that there is such a thing as divine revelation. I only bring this up to go back to my point that the major decision is the choice that we make as to whether we accept the existence of a deity or not, because divine revelation is, to a large degree, consistent in all major world faiths. (That doesn't mean that divine revelation can't be twisted to achieve physical human lusts for power.)What we believe about the metaphysical, whether we choose to believe or not, is a conscious decision in the same way that we decide who to vote for in an election.

I only agree that it shouldn't be taught as science. Science is only physical not metaphysical. Religion and phiosphy encompass the metaphysical.

Let's be fair. We all try to influence our kids, and even if we weren't they would be influenced by us anyway.I find it interesting that you think that the best way to help kids think for themselves is to keep them from being exposed to ideas that don't agree with your own.Atheism is a belief that says there is no Intelligent Designer or any other form of supreme being. When you deny students the opportunity to contrast Atheism with Theist religions you are then left with kids being taught Atheism or possibly Agnosticism in the public school system. If we want the kids to truly think for themselves then let's give them the tools and the information to do just that.

That is something personal to each individual. I find evidence of God in the nature of creation, (if I may use that word ), from religious texts, from that still small voice that is my conscience, from listening to the experiences of others etc. Of course we don't all come to the same conclusion, in the same way that we don't all vote the same way.I don't understand why you would ask what qualifies me to make that decision. What qualifies me to vote in a particular way? I certainly am in a position to make a more informed position if I am educated about the choices available. Mostly EZ we are going to have to agree to disagree, as I believe that exposing kids to religious beliefs not only doesn't corrupt objective teaching but enhances it.For that matter even if we aren't consciously teaching our views on these issues your views are being passed on to your students if only subliminally, although I would guess that it is less subtle than that.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-24-2005 12:44 PM

Just my point. The only religion that you got out of school was Atheism. If you had recieved instruction on other religions you might have a more rounded view and a happier face as your signature. ) I'd welcome it. Bring in a Mullah. Bring in Richard Dawkins. I want my kids, (they're all adults by the way) to have as much information as possible.I tend to think that is the big picture.

I suppose that I could have sent kids through the private school system but I chose not to. I believe that a public school system should present kids with a balanced approach to knowledge and to life. I don't happen to be one of them, but there are others on this forum that don't agree with evolution, so why should their tax dollars pay for their kids to learn about evolution?I believe that teaching kids about the beliefs of others promotes tolerance. The greater understanding we have of the beliefs of others, the greater respect and tolerance we will have for others, and just maybe we'll all learn to get along better.Sorry about getting personal, but let's use you for example. You said yourself that you received no religious training of any kind in school. Your posts indicate to me intolerance for those who don't agree with your world and religious views.You asked me how I would feel about having a Jewish Rabbi instruct my kids. You assume that because I have religious beliefs that I would not want my kids being exposed to other faiths. Why would you assume this to be the case? I want my kids exposed to all points of view. Do you?You are extremely disdainful of those who didn't vote the way you did. Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts:
"Well, no wonder why a homophobic racist warmonger got into office twice."As I said I believe that children are better rounded, more tolerent and better equipped to make choices in their life when they are exposed to as many points of view as possible.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-24-2005 01:52 PM

Also the result of voting impacts the collective, a decision on faith impacts the individual.When I, or anyone else, makes a decision on faith we make it with what we know. This is true of virtually all decisions that we make, whether it be how we vote, the mortgage we choose, career, or whatever. When it comes to faith none of us have the same knowledge base. I never professed to be knowledgeable about Taoism. If I waited until I knew everything about any decision that I had to make I'd never make one.One of the roles of a school is to help us make those choices.

I don't think that atheists are trying to spread an anti-religious belief structure. I'm just saying that when education is presented without giving other world views atheism is the world view that remains in the void that is left.Darwinism is scientific up to the point that it is presented in such a way that it could only have occurred without any divine impetus. It should be presented in that light.Personally I find science fascinating. In the end, I am interested in the truth. There is no doubt that we all have our "blik" (as per Antony Flew) and as a result we find truth through the prism of our beliefs, but I do try and be open to changing my views based on new information.As for trying to trap you, I'm afraid I'm not that clever. (I'm leaving myself wide open there. Actually, I became interested in this forum to gain scientific knowledge. I had no intention of getting embroiled in a debate like this. Oh well.

As you found the evidence unconvincing you had to make a decision. The unconvincing evidence caused you to BELIEVE that the truth was to be found in Atheism.A better argument could be made for agnosticism being a lack of belief, but even then you would have to BELIEVE that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision.