Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I had stopped reading this thread because I really wasn't that 
interested in Wikopedia.  But I just accidently saw this email and it 
seems to have transformed into a discussion about evolution and 
religion.  My favorite.



Josh wrote:
> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:
> >
> > Of course you are mistaken.  You should get a book and read it.  
> > Here's one:
> >
> > Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316823/
> >
> > It deals with the "randomness" problem that you don't seem to 
> > understand. I think all of Dawkins' books are good, but I can 
> > definitely recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" because I actually read 
> > that one, albeit about 17 years ago:
> I've read a number of books/papers/sites in support of evolution and I 
> haven't found one that addresses the core problems with the theory 
> itself. It seems that the ideologues on that side of the argument ignore 
> the problems because some parts *could* make sense if taken in a vacuum. 
> The blind watchmaker theory seems to have a laundry list of problems, 
> though I have yet to read the book myself.
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393315703/

Although I got a bunch of the Dawkin books from the library, I must 
admit that I didn't get round to reading them.  A friend of mine - a 
Christian who also supports the theory of evolution - recommended me 
against it because he said that he does mix in secular ideology with his 
scientific presentation.  My personal recommendation is the book "God 
and Evolution" by R.J. Berry.

While I would say that I am not totally won over to the theory of 
evolution, I do think that it is a very decent theory.  I recently read 
some of the intelligent design literature, and found it very 
unimpressive.  I read a creationist book about 15 years ago, and got the 
sense that they were trying to pull something over on me.  In contrast, 
much of the pro-evolution literature is much more coherent.

One thing that I am convinced of is that one can believe the Bible is 
the word of God (which describes me) and also accept evolution.  I see 
Genesis 2:7 as an endorsement of evolution.  The word "day" in Genesis 1 
is in some ways an ambiguous translation from the Hebrew, which I am 
also told can mean "eon" or "phase" - the last doesn't even imply that 
it is described in chronological order.

I also think that evolution is very much consistent with the notion 
found in many theology books called "providence."  I guess I see this 
notion as part of the ideas of Augustine, and what is commonly called 
Calvinism today.  It is the idea that God works his will via events that 
come across to us as random.  This concept is all over the Bible.  (If 
you are interested I would be glad to elaborate greatly on this.)

> How about you buy a book, too? May I suggest:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785243631/002-8476775-1547205?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155 

I bought and read this book soon after I became a Christian.  I think 
that many of the reviews have it about right.  It is not a bad book in 
that it gives a fairly comprehensive summary of most of the arguments or 
evidence regarding the truth of Christianity.  But I felt that its 
presentation was a bit shallow and one sided.  A good way to use this 
book is rather as a road map as to which subjects to go to for further 
reading.

It definitely won't convince Mike.


> > > I have studied evolution, and I'm not convinced. Too frequently some 
> > > new discovery alters the theory in a very substantial way yet each 
> > > time scientists claim "we have it right this time."
> >
> > Nothing has ever happened to alter Darwin's theory in a substantial 
> > way. It's pretty much now what it was in 1859.  Every discovery we've 
> > made in molecular biology has served to support Darwin.  You're just 
> > making things up.
> Not at all. The "theory" is constantly being adjusted based on new 
> evidence, but not adjusted with the honest intent of discovering the 
> truth. Virtually every article I've read from evolutionist ideologues 
> about new evidence maintains the attitude of "wow, we were wrong..but 
> since evolution must still be true, lets figure out some way to make it 
> 'work' with this new data." The attitude should be "wow, we were wrong. 
> Lets re-examine everything and see what makes the most sense now."

While the basic principles of evolution are as they were in 1859, I 
think that it is true that many of the mechanisms, particularly at the 
molecular level, are still being worked out, and are very much in flux. 
 Indeed I read a statement like "wow, we were wrong..but since 
evolution must still be true, lets figure out some way to make it 'work' 
with this new data" in the beautiful book by Carroll "Endless Forms Most 
Beautiful."

This does give the impression to the outsider that evolutionists are 
just making it up as they go along.  But I would say that this 
impression is unfair.  Evolutionists are generally very fair scientists, 
who are really searching for the truth.  It is true that many (not all) 
mix this up with a secular agenda, but even these people, I think, try 
to follow the evidence for what it is, and not try to shape it to their 
preconceptions.



Finally Josh - I came to adopt my pro-evolutionist views about a year 
ago.  I can tell you that I had avoided this issue for a long time, but 
I really felt that the Holy Spirit was telling me to start to examine 
the evidence.  The most important thing you can do in any investigation 
is to pray and seek God, and ask for his wisdom (see James 1:5).  If 
nothing else, I really do feel that my relationship with God has very 
much deepened over the last year.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion