can we just say that natural selection is "survival of the fittest created creatures?"
2007-10-13 20:33:29 · 16 answers · asked by colin 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nope, because Darwin never said that.
I do recall "natural selection" and "descent with modification".
There are prominent evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. Take Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University as a prime example.
Or my late father, not a biologist but a scientist and Christian who thought anyone who denied evolution was a fool.
2007-10-13 20:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
It's rather difficult to arrive at that conclusion. Consider the primal instinct of flight or flight. As Carl Sagan suggested: consider that you're a human ancestor and you and your warrior friend are confronted with a pack of hungry dire-hyenas. Which is likely to have more offspring: the one that says to fight, or the one that runs for his life without thinking twice about it?
Natural selection isn't about the stronger, or the smarter. It's an ongoing and selectively adaptive process by which Nature sorts out the necessary and unnecessary factors to ensure continued, copious existence of a species. What use is an appendix to us? Or your little toe for that matter (other than that we are used to seeing it there)? Neither hold any vital use for survival (anymore, that is).
All in all, how did evolution vs creationism get thrown out on the "frontlines" of this ongoing dispute between religion and science. The main difference I see in the two sides is that religion cannot tolerate being proven wrong about anything, whereas scientific theories (all orgininally hypotheses) had to be proven wrong time and time again, to arrive at a conclusion that worked when held up to the light of scrutiny and criticism.
2007-10-13 21:20:35 · answer #2 · answered by forgottenmorals 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There are plenty of theists who accept evolution.
Calling natural selection as "survival of the fittest created creatures" is a lot like saying "man created god" instead of "god created man". How many creationists would accept that minor modification?
2007-10-13 20:41:44 · answer #3 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
what makes you think that either party has any interest in meeting halfway? meeting halfway on this sort of issue leads to a viewpoint that is incoherent, as demonstrated by the fact that properly enumerating the problems with your short question would take many more words than the question did.
the term 'created creatures' is redundant. creatures ARE things that were created. so you are not just assuming your conclusion in your statement, you are doing so redundantly. there is no good evidence that any species was created, and the definition of natural selection (differential reproductive success of variants within a population) does not require a reference to species anyway. there is no need to redefine natural selection just because you object to the idea of common descent (which is the hypothesis that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor, irrespective of mechanism). you are confused even about the identity of the parties. many believers accept that evolution has occured and is ongoing, they just happen to believe additionally that god did it.
2007-10-13 20:52:26 · answer #4 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Survival of the fittest does not apply to man. In the wild animals born with birth defects are breakfast, lunch or dinner depending on the time of day they are born. With man Defected people can and do procreate.
2007-10-13 20:41:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Natural selection.... Nature determining the end result... not only through evolution but the practice of extinction.... When we look out in nature.. we see the insects, the birds, fish, animals and plantlif thriving... we see any illnesses out in the wilderness quickly being healed.. when we look at the human race we see illnesses growing... changing, becoming more deadly as time goes by... illnesses that eventually will over take even our capacity for science to fail healing... that often occurs even today... the viruses are evolving deadlier every year (what was once simple flu is often called super bugs now) Natural selection.... evolution gave us answers... religions (especially catholic and christians) seek to keep us blind... do we really want them to win this argument?
2007-10-13 20:44:34 · answer #6 · answered by Gyspy 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why would I want to meet a believer halfway? There are worse things than disagreeing with someone - agreeing on something that's wrong for both of us, for example.
2007-10-13 20:46:35 · answer #7 · answered by Voyager 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Last time I check most atheists don't believe animals were created
2007-10-13 20:49:10 · answer #8 · answered by Salvador 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Meeting half way is a good idea. Teach science in science class, and religion in religion class. Sounds good to me.
2007-10-13 20:43:50 · answer #9 · answered by charlie the 2na 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Is that ever going to happen?
Religion has nothing to do with truth (except opposing it) and little to do with morality (religious morality is a sick parody) so why should we want to meet them half way?
Besides, you don't win an argument by conceding your opponents points, you win by making them concede yours.
2007-10-13 20:45:57 · answer #10 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋