(no subject)

[anhinga_anhinga]

Cardinal Schönborn clarifies the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

> "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

In reality, this question is open.


> "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

In reality, any system of thought which prejudges this issue one way or another in the absense of any decent models for the time frame required for a purely neo-Darwinian model of evolution is ideology, not science.

Nevertheless, the reminder that the notion of evolution is not equivalent to its neo-Darwinian interpretation is helpful. Perhaps this will elevate the level of the debate a bit, on both sides...

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rowan_tree_/]

The level of debate? Heh!
From a conversation with a local pastor (don't ask me how I ended up in his company to begin with): "A woodpecker disproves the evolution. The woodpecker has a long tongue which is exactly the length of its beak and also exactly the length of the sack inside his head to cushion the brain when he is pecking wood. There is no way all three could've developed naturally to be the exact same length". QED. Go argue!
I didn't know about the sack in woodpecker's head. Even local pastors can be a source of knowledge. But the level of debate! Gimme a break!

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

"Disproves" the evolution or "disproves" the neo-Darwinism?

See: if people would at least learn to make this distinction, the level of debate would be improved... (Of course, given that it's so difficult to teach people even to add fractions, the hope is rather dim...)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rowan_tree_/]

Of course, given that it's so difficult to teach people even to add fractions, the hope is rather dim... - Exactly. For instance, the guy was convinced that DNA carries from one generation to another unchanged. Obviously, when you believe that, you run into all kinds of contradictions with evolution theory. I tried to explain how the DNA mechanism works and what mutations are, but he wouldn't listen. And when people don't listen, you can't explain anything to them :-(

Yes, if people see the distinction, the level of debate would be improved. But for that you need someone who is willing to see it.

you are right again..

[faceless-lady.livejournal.com]

There is a lot of people who need such an explanation. For example, biologists like ivanov-petrov. ;-)

Re: you are right again..

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

would you send him the reference? ;-)

I agree... :-)

[faceless-lady.livejournal.com]

In reality, any system of thought which prejudges this issue one way or another in the absense of any decent models for the time frame