Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution (Thread 2)

Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/May/Week3/15284798.jpg This 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ is described as the “eighth wonder of the world”

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.
The discovery of the 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the “eighth wonder of the world”.

news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?f=rss

They have a website here:
revealingthelink.com/

This is the continuation of the discussion started on this thread:
Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

reggieM

I think our disagreement again stems from my misunderstanding of what you intend to convey by using “ID” in your posts, so thank you for clarification.

I think Christians put far too much effort into trying to disprove certain scientific theories-especially evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design.

Since God is our Creator, He cannot be at odds with science, mathematics, geology or any other field of study. I believe God could have created us in a moment or by evolution.

If there is an apparent conflict between Science and the Bible, then either we are not interpreting the Bible correctly, or Science has made a false assumption.

We experience God in the Spiritual realm. Science deals with the physical realm. I don’t believe Genesis was intended to be a book about science. I think Genesis tells us about the human relationship with God, mankind-and all of God’s creation. It reveals the origin of sin and the need for reconciliation with God.

I read about 500 pages of court manuscripts regarding the trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. I was shocked by what I read.

What I am about to say now is my own impression of what I read in those 500 pages of that court case: Several of those who called themselves Christians appeared to have committed blatant perjury, and finally had to admit the truth on the stand. At one point it got so bad the Judge took over the questioning. This was not our finest hour as Christians.

In the end, upon cross examination, Michael Behe’s claims about the Theory of Intelligent Design fell apart, along with his credibility (this is my opinion.) Behe admitted, under oath, basically that the definition of a scientific theory would have to be changed, for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory.

Too often, we let other Christians tell us things without checking it out ourselves-very dangerous. Then we lose credibility.

I think we should leave science to the scientists. We need to deal with the spiritual issues and concentrate on walking with Christ.

I disagree. The Church studies science in order to understand how it can affect people. In order for the faithful to fully understand the implications of ideas like a missing link, they need to understand what the Church teaches about human origins.

Peace,
Ed

edwest2:

I appreciate your comment. Since I am not Catholic, I do not know the role the Catholic Church plays in the issue of Science and Creation.

As a Christian in the Protestant Sector, I have encountered some pretty fanatical views regarding Science and Intelligent Design.

Peace be with you as well,
Anna

I’ve seen some equally fanatical views concerning the evolution. When Kansas proposed a science standard that pointed out a few of the flaws in evolution the MSM went bananas. Claims went out that the backwards state was trying to teach science from the bible. But nowhere in the new standards was ID or creation “promoted” as an alternative or as an “instead” method.

It seemed nearly a complete reversal of roles when 500 years ago religions were afraid that science might cause people to consider options other than God. Today science is afraid that the flaws in scientific theories might turn people to religion.

I don’t have any problems with the notion of evolution per se. But to decree that this mashed rat is some kind of definitive ancestor of all primates, including man? Maaaaybeee, but it sure seems like there a lot of missing links in between, and that they did an olympic-quality broadjump to this one.

I sometimes think a lot of this “missing link” stuff is fundamentally a conversation among those whose lives and research is dedicated to it. Sometimes that conversation makes the news, and sometimes it doesn’t.

This is an interesting perspective. Things do seem to come full-circle sometimes.

Anna

I agree. It usually takes time for the “dust to settle,” so to speak. It will take time to see if this is authentic or not.

It is difficult to form opinions about Science, when that is not my field of study.

I think you are right in saying that this “stuff is fundamentally a conversation among those whose lives and research is dedicated to it.”

Anna

To Anna Scott,

Why do you think there are fanatical views? As often as I point out what the Catholic Church says about evolution, and science in general, the most common statement I see here boils down to - evolution is a fact. The Catholic Church has not said this. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Its patronage of the sciences extends back centuries.

It appears to me that on this subject, primarily political motives are at work. For example, Cardinal Schoenborn wrote that there is actual design in nature but he is careful to distance himself from what is called Intelligent Design. The Church has always recognized God’s role in Creation but the Biology textbook does not mention it, or, in a few cases, denies it. And while the Church monitors ongoing developments in evolutionary science, it holds that science alone cannot explain the ontological leap to the human being.

There are regular attempts here to disprove this or that event in the Bible as having never happened as if God is incapable of performing miracles. The fact that some do not recognize miracles is not relevant. If the Living God died for us all and rose again, then He is alive at this moment. This combination of scientific knowledge and Divine revelation leads to the truth.

As a Christian, you know you pray to a person, not a symbol.

God bless,
Ed

You misunderstood me. I was talking about fanatical views in the Protestant Sector, not views of the Catholic Church.

You said, “Cardinal Schoenborn wrote that there is actual design in nature but he is careful to distance himself from what is called Intelligent Design.” I admire the Cardinal for taking this position. I agree that we can find design in nature.

In a previous Post, I wrote about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. I stated the following:

"I read about 500 pages of court manuscripts regarding the trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. I was shocked by what I read.

What I am about to say now is my own impression of what I read in those 500 pages of that court case: Several of those who called themselves Christians appeared to have committed blatant perjury, and finally had to admit the truth on the stand. At one point it got so bad the Judge took over the questioning. This was not our finest hour as Christians.

In the end, upon cross examination, Michael Behe’s claims about the Theory of Intelligent Design fell apart, along with his credibility (this is my opinion.) Behe admitted, under oath, basically that the definition of a scientific theory would have to be changed, for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory."

I don’t think any Catholics were involved in that case, but I am not certain. Maybe you would know.

I do believe that God is our creator and I do believe in miracles.

I agree with what you said: “scientific knowledge and Divine revelation leads to the truth.”

Anna

It is interesting that the courtroom seems to be the place where things get decided. I also read the Dover transcript but all I can really say is that it has become a sort of apologetic for those who oppose certain ideas - Dover said it’s religion, the end.

It’s certainly not the end. The idea that life is designed is real. Whether we call ourselves Protestants or Catholics, a look at the idea of Intelligent Design and the motives of both sides needs to be considered. As I see it, there is a contingent manning the barricades against design since it might bring up the ‘G’ word to kids in school. The various Institutes and other organizations have presented some compelling material but the struggle appears as much about ideology for these groups as science.

In the end, the truth will be told. It may be under a label other than Intelligent Design but there is certainly actual design in nature. About the missing link, all I can say is that too much time and effort has been expended into promoting a certain worldview.

Peace,
Ed

Thank you!


accessories decorative & fashion & hair & ladies & sport

Ed, I agree with what you are saying. I also believe there is design in nature; and Science is often presented in a way that excludes the possibility of God.

I also think that sometimes Christians are too quick to jump on a “band wagon” like the ID movement, without getting all the facts first. Something may sound like “Christian truth,” and be something else entirely.

I think the Dover case did a lot of damage to the image of Christianity. When those who call themselves Christian commit blatant perjury, as was the case in the Dover trial, it makes us all look foolish.

Anna

I concur. When we make God’s transcendent truth dependent on scientific evidence, we open up the possibility that if and when that scientific evidence no longer fits our view of God’s truth, we have undermined belief in God himself.

Thus, if we insist that science MUST conform with literal six-day Creationism and Young Earth theory, if it is ever proven without doubt that the earth is old and that six-day Creationism is false, then we look like fools and belief in God is undermined in the seeking soul.

Very well said, my friend.

What makes Christians look foolish? A single court trial? There is no band wagon. I read Michael Behe’s blog on amazon. He has some worthwhile things to say. Some good observations. I think, especially lately, too much is being made of evolutionary theory, including on this forum.

And why is this issue so important? Why has it become the new circumcision for some? There was a post here saying that Cardinal Schoenborn might have become Pope but that certain of his views regarding evolution would disqualify him. Where is the sense in that?

No, I do not wait for other Christians I know to do foolish things, or when they do, think it paints all Christians in some way. I was not in that courtroom.

From the earliest days of the Church, the image of it was not held in high regard. And then, for a time it was, then not, back up, and now, in so-called Modern Times, back down. The issue of Intelligent Design has become one of politics as much as any science. And the issue of evolution has become the anti-theist cornerstone since it comes from science which leads to reason which leads to reality.

There is a constant, global campaign currently going on, again, to detach man from God and to turn the human mind into an idol to be worshipped. Why is there a sign that reads “Man created God” on the sides of buses? Ask yourself.

Peace,
Ed

A quote from my earlier Post, “I think Christians put far too much effort into trying to disprove certain scientific theories-especially evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design.” So, I think we agree on this.

I also agree that there is, as you said, a “global campaign currently going on, again, to detach man from God and to turn the human mind into an idol to be worshiped.” In fact, there is quite a resurgence in Paganism. It is all around us.

The actions of a few can definitely shape the opinions of non-Christians, and drive them away. This is a sad reality.

As for Behe, in the Dover trial, he admitted under oath that you would have to change the definition of a Scientific Theory in order for ID to be considered a Scientific Theory. That’s just the beginning. Behe’s testimony about ID sounded very credible, until the cross examination. Then Behe’s theories crumbled along with his credibility. I read about 500 pages of the trial transcripts. I was horrified by the behavior of some of those who called themselves Christians.

When something is in the news, it reaches a lot of people; and so much damage can be done. It is all a matter of viewpoint.

Anyway, I’m really tired. So, I’ll stop here.

Anna

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.