Jump to content

Menu

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?


Recommended Posts

I am going to be honest at the chance of sounding very uneducated to you all. I really don't see how an atheist view of evolution is not a "gazillion throws of the dice".

 

In a way it is. Throw a set of dice a gazillion times, and you may come up with a lot of "losers." But every once in a while a combo hits that is a winner.

 

That winning combo give an "advantage" that leads to reproductive success, and gets passed on. And the little changes add up over long periods of time.

 

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In a way it is. Throw a set of dice a gazillion times, and you may come up with a lot of "loosers." But every one in a while a combo hits that is a winner.

 

That winning combo give an "advantage" that leads to reproductive success, and gets passed on. And the little changes add up over long periods of time.

 

Bill

Okay, so the idea is that the losers don't survive, or don't reproduce, or only have a few surviving generations? We have billions of years to toss the dice "gazillions" of times, so we are bound to have some winners, who go on to toss the dice again? I also don't understand that if men are the higher form of Gorillas then why do we still have Gorillas?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm answering the Title of the thread as the OP of the thread presumes the answer.

 

Yes, I do teach evolution...as a theory alongside other theories and what we believe. My children will face people of all sorts. They will have to face these theories in colleges and universities. I also teach them that even if they don't agree with it, they will be expected to listen and respond with the answers the teachers want, because the teachers don't give a flip about other theories out there, only the one they are using as their base.

Well, that's because in modern biology there are no other theories out there. So I wouldn't expect a teacher to "give a flip" about any other opinions regarding biology as they aren't relevant to the discussion.

 

I am going to be honest at the chance of sounding very uneducated to you all. I really don't see how an atheist view of evolution is not a "gazillion throws of the dice".

Let's stick with this analogy for a moment. It is. The only thing is, there is no presumption of an ending point. Man was not the desired outcome. You see evolution as unlikely because you can't imagine how a random process can produce a desired outcome. You have to change your paradigm. We are the result of those gazillion throws of the dice guided by natural selection across millions, dare I say billions of years. We're the outcome. We're what happened. Along with lions and tigers and bears. We're not what was going to happen. We're just what DID happen. So instead of the dice throwing all 7s they threw a 3 and a few 9s and the trail looked more like 5581023499834... on to infinity. It wasn't 7777777777777... It was just random. A gazillion RANDOM throws of the dice.

 

In the evolutionary journey from point A to point B we're the survivors. Every single one of our ancestors lived to reproduce. Every. Single. One. The ones that died before they had kids aren't part of us. They didn't get to throw their dice. They aren't mixed into the population.

 

You only get a few throws. Your kids are the outcome. Then they play. They get a few throws and then your grandkids play. The game has been going on for a long, long time. That's evolution.

 

But look around. All mammals still have four limbs. Even birds have four limbs, their arms are just used as wings. The basic shapes are just reused in nature. Because the quadruped is what there is to work with. We don't see chimeras, that is things like Griffins, because they can't evolve. Since that first fish crawled out on land the four-limb shape has been determined.

 

Just as you can't throw a 13 when you play craps. There aren't enough spots on the dice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's stick with this analogy for a moment. It is. The only thing is, there is no presumption of an ending point. Man was not the desired outcome. You see evolution as unlikely because you can't imagine how a random process can produce a desired outcome. You have to change your paradigm. We are the result of those gazillion throws of the dice guided by natural selection across millions, dare I say billions of years. We're the outcome. We're what happened. Along with lions and tigers and bears. We're not what was going to happen. We're just what DID happen. So instead of the dice throwing all 7s they threw a 3 and a few 9s and the trail looked more like 5581023499834... on to infinity. It wasn't 7777777777777... It was just random. A gazillion RANDOM throws of the dice.
Thanks for explaining. I have no reason for not quoting the whole thing...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the idea is that the losers don't survive, or don't reproduce, or only have a few surviving generations? We have billions of years to toss the dice "gazillions" of times, so we are bound to have some winners, who go on to toss the dice again? I also don't understand that if men are the higher form of Gorillas then why do we still have Gorillas?

 

Men are not higher forms of Gorillas. Evolutionary theory holds man and other apes share common ancestors. The thing is there are a lot of niches in the natural world.

 

A thin beak might confer and advantage for some birds in some locals, where a thick beak would confer different advantages (and disadvantages).

 

The thing isn't that we all evolve into the same thing, it's that each species finds a place where it can survive and reproduce in the natural world.

 

Gorillas have evolved in ways that make them successful in their environments, and they are better at some things than men are.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the idea is that the losers don't survive, or don't reproduce, or only have a few surviving generations? We have billions of years to toss the dice "gazillions" of times, so we are bound to have some winners, who go on to toss the dice again? I also don't understand that if men are the higher form of Gorillas then why do we still have Gorillas?

That's an easy one. Since Americans came from England why are there still English?

 

The concept "higher form" is misleading. We aren't a higher form we are a relative of the Gorilla. For example, in the jungle the Gorilla is actually much better adapted for where it lives. We aren't the "higher form", it is. Gorillas exist because there's a niche where they are best suited to live.

 

But there are many factors that go into the term, "best suited". For example, while a gorilla may be best suited to the jungle as it is now, what about in 50 years when it's a desert? As the environment changes, and it always changes, animals become better or less better suited to thrive where they are. This generation the elephants with large tusks may be the dominant type of elephant. 10 generations from now the elephants with genes that stunt tusk growth will be the dominant elephant type because all those with tusks will have been hunted and killed by humans. The "pressure" can be anything, it doesn't matter. But whatever it is it can change in a heartbeat and then the creature that was best suited suddenly isn't anymore.

 

So while the common ancestor of both gorillas and humans may have lived in the trees of a nice jungle... perhaps the ancestors of humans came down from the trees while the ancestors of the gorillas stayed up in them. We had to stand up straight to see over the savanna grasslands and those who could didn't get eaten.

 

Have I cleared this one up for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone on another thread said that ID is inbetween Evolutionism and Creationism. That seems terribly incorrect now that I was corrected on my idea of what ID is. I wonder why they said that?

ID originally started out as an information concept. How can we identify things that are designed by intelligence and the difference between those that are and are not? For instance, Mount Rushmore. What makes it more than just a mountain? Can we identify certain things about it that say "designed" as opposed to "natural" when we have (had) things like the Old Man in the Mountain in Connecticut. Sometimes things look designed but aren't. Can we teach a computer to delineate between them?

 

If mankind disappeared tomorrow and aliens landed here how would they tell the difference between the Pyramids and a mountain? Would it be because there is a natural process in place to create mountains but not pyramids? How could you tell if you didn't have several million years to sit around and observe the process?

 

So this went around and around and then someone hit on the idea that perhaps this could be applied to God. Can we tell if there's a designer behind creation by the way creation was created? What about life itself? Michael Behe wrote a book called Darwin's Black Box which introduced a concept called Irreducible Complexity which says that some things in biology are unable to have evolved, they must have been created. The eye for example. Since evolution causes things to happen by degrees, well, what good is half an eye? It's all or nothing. So it must have been designed and created.

 

Only that falls victim to the same thinking as the many throws of the dice analogy. Evolution of an eye only doesn't work if the eye is a goal. Evolution has no goals. Parts are caused and used then changed and used for other things and eventually you might end up with something completely different than what you started out with. Look at a bat's wing. That started out as front leg.

 

Anyway, all of the examples in Darwin's Black Box have been quite thoroughly refuted and even in a court case. Behe admitted that for his version of things to be considered science astrology would have to be considered science as well. But I'm wandering off topic...

 

ID has been co-opted by the creationism crowd to try and make their opinions sound scientific. It's not a bridge between creationism and evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's because in modern biology there are no other theories out there. So I wouldn't expect a teacher to "give a flip" about any other opinions regarding biology as they aren't relevant to the discussion.

 

Phred, to be honest, I didn't even read your post past this point and have no interest in doing so. You and I are both hard headed and debating wouldn't lead anywhere, because we both have scientific arguments to back up our sides and we stick by them. So just as one teacher may not give a flip, neither do I give a flip where or why you stand on this subject ;) I've even taught my children that they may later disagree with me and I'm okay with that. And for your information, I do know of and personally know scientists, genetic scientists, science professors, and science teachers that that do not hold the theory of evolution. They are all very educated and do very well in their fields.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DISCLAIMER: I wanted to be HONEST but I do worry that the below could offend both creationists AND evolutionists. These are my honest thoughts about these things. My goal in stating it the way I did was not to offend but to state the belief as strongly as I believe it. Maybe there was a better way to do so, but I couldn't do it this morning.

 

We don't avoid evolution AT ALL. By discussing it, it strengthens our faith because it's so ludicrous. Mathematically and scientifically, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it happened that way. There HAS to an intelligent designer behind it.

 

However, we also aren't young earth creationists (though I believe it could have happened that way, the evidence scripturally and scientifically doesn't point to that it DID happen that way). And I don't understand throwing adaptation out the window at all.

 

Anyway, the scientific facts are AMAZING as are various beliefs, the reasons and people behind them. I have no reason to add or take away from the science OR scripture in regards to this topic as what is available is plenty to keep me in awe.

:iagree:No offense here... so hard to find like-minded persons on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phred, to be honest, I didn't even read your post past this point and have no interest in doing so. You and I are both hard headed and debating wouldn't lead anywhere, because we both have scientific arguments to back up our sides and we stick by them. So just as one teacher may not give a flip, neither do I give a flip where or why you stand on this subject ;) I've even taught my children that they may later disagree with me and I'm okay with that. And for your information, I do know of and personally know scientists, genetic scientists, science professors, and science teachers that that do not hold the theory of evolution. They are all very educated and do very well in their fields.

But you don't have scientific arguments to back up your side. Neither do the scientists, science teachers and science professors that you say do not hold to the theory of evolution. I'm sure they're educated. But mostly they don't know what they're talking about. As is evidenced by the fact that you don't present an iota of their "scientific arguments" but simply continue to claim they have them.

 

I'm sure you truly believe what you're saying. Sadly, you've been misled. If you want to come back and say that you believe what you believe and it's based upon faith and that's that... fine. If you want to say that you believe the Bible and you choose that over anything else, fine. But to say that you have scientific claims that rival the Theory of Evolution in validity... that's simply not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phred, to be honest, I didn't even read your post past this point and have no interest in doing so. You and I are both hard headed and debating wouldn't lead anywhere, because we both have scientific arguments to back up our sides and we stick by them. So just as one teacher may not give a flip, neither do I give a flip where or why you stand on this subject ;) I've even taught my children that they may later disagree with me and I'm okay with that. And for your information, I do know of and personally know scientists, genetic scientists, science professors, and science teachers that that do not hold the theory of evolution. They are all very educated and do very well in their fields.

 

Not to "pile-on" but there really isn't a "scientific" alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The ToE elegantly explains the diversity of life on earth, and as scientific discoveries advance is validated time and again.

 

The scientific method could invalidate the ToE, and point to some other explanation. But that has not happened. There is no other explanation that rings true as "science."

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you don't have scientific arguments to back up your side. Neither do the scientists, science teachers and science professors that you say do not hold to the theory of evolution. I'm sure they're educated. But mostly they don't know what they're talking about. As is evidenced by the fact that you don't present an iota of their "scientific arguments" but simply continue to claim they have them.

 

I'm sure you truly believe what you're saying. Sadly, you've been misled. If you want to come back and say that you believe what you believe and it's based upon faith and that's that... fine. If you want to say that you believe the Bible and you choose that over anything else, fine. But to say that you have scientific claims that rival the Theory of Evolution in validity... that's simply not true.

It does have scientific basis and, with a little research and time, you could easily find the information and various books online. If I've taken the time to read evolutionary books, I'm certain you could take the time to read non-evolutionary books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't avoid evolution AT ALL. By discussing it, it strengthens our faith because it's so ludicrous. Mathematically and scientifically, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it happened that way. There HAS to an intelligent designer behind it.

I guess I missed that the first time around. So you're saying since you don't understand it the only possible alternative must be magic?

 

Sigh... the strawmen provided by the various organizations are ludicrous, purposefully. They aren't science nor are they truthful.

 

Let me ask this. What good does it do to spend time studying something that isn't really evolution? You don't really learn anything useful. These strawmen are useless. All they're good for is to convince you that science is bad and counter to your faith. What possible good can that do anyone? Especially your kids?

 

If you believe that God created the universe and everything in it then science is just the study of God's firsthand creation. A more intimate Word than even the Bible. How can anything learned from it be harmful or bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It does have scientific basis and, with a little research and time, you could easily find the information and various books online. If I've taken the time to read evolutionary books, I'm certain you could take the time to read non-evolutionary books.

I have. They aren't science. At best they're faith-based. At worst they're strawmen and falsehoods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It does have scientific basis and, with a little research and time, you could easily find the information and various books online. If I've taken the time to read evolutionary books, I'm certain you could take the time to read non-evolutionary books.
Oh mommaduck, I am so dissapointed in you. I thought you weren't going to read any more of what Phred had to say.

 

I will probably have more replies or thanks, but I am still reading and only skimming at the moment. I am making dinner and ducked in to see if a couple of other threads had hits. (about history of course!)

 

I read the rest and will now try my best to do my part to let this thread die.

Edited by Lovedtodeath
Link to post
Share on other sites
. I decided to investigate. Interestingly, in my dozens of textbooks, the definitions of 'theory, fact, law, and principle' are rarely even addressed until around the turn of this century (2000 AD). It's like they are common words and everyone knows what they mean. Then, these definitions begin to receive emphasis in the late 90s. Not only that, their meanings seem to change. Upon further investigation, I found that Craig Dilworth (philosopher of science) wrote a paper in 1990, published in 1994 (i think), which attempted to redefined these words. The reviews that I read on his paper were not flattering. Why would science make this change? Because now, it sounds like a theory is the ultimate in truth; more true than even a fact. "It's a fact!" no longer means that it is true. Now we can say that science aspires to theories, not facts. Thus, the Theory of Evolution becomes almost sacred.

 

 

I'm a bit of a word nut myself and keep a book shelf of a dictionary from the the late 1890's, "The Century Dictionary of the English Language, an Encyclopedia Lexicon". Really intricate hand drawings and engravings to illustrate different words. Anyway I looked up theory and here's one of the explanations that seemed to be aimed at the scientific world:" A Theory in the sense, will most commonly though not always, be of the nature of a hypothesis; but with good writers a mere conjecture is hardly dignified by the name theory".

 

I don't have anything that goes back further but it sounds like the change if there was one started much earlier then 1994 and science has been using theory in a much different way then the garden variety most folks use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh mommaduck, I am so dissapointed in you. I thought you weren't going to read any more of what Phred had to say.

 

I will probably have more replies or thanks, but I am still reading and only skimming at the moment. I am making dinner and ducked in to see if a couple of other threads had hits. (about history of course!)

 

I read the rest and will now try my best to do my part to let this thread die.

I meant of that post ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I just say, that I have found this whole thread enlightening and entertaining! :D

 

I still believe that ID happened at some point, to quote a song in one of my all-time favorite movies, "nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..." the rest of the song is pretty irrelevant.

 

 

Anyhow, believing in an infinite God, who is beyond the human construct and understanding of time, I have no difficulty believing in an infinite number of possibilities as well -- which is why my children will learn about all of the possibilities (theories) of how the world came to be.

 

Really, really have enjoyed this thread, Phred, Momma Duck, Bill, et.al.

Link to post
Share on other sites
May I just say, that I have found this whole thread enlightening and entertaining! :D

 

I still believe that ID happened at some point, to quote a song in one of my all-time favorite movies, "nothing comes from nothing, and nothing ever could..." the rest of the song is pretty irrelevant.

 

 

Anyhow, believing in an infinite God, who is beyond the human construct and understanding of time, I have no difficulty believing in an infinite number of possibilities as well -- which is why my children will learn about all of the possibilities (theories) of how the world came to be.

 

Really, really have enjoyed this thread, Phred, Momma Duck, Bill, et.al.

 

Me too Lisa. On all points. The trouble with science and the theory of evolution is that it tends to discount the Creator's role. I've studied quite a lot of the facts of science and it always leaves me thinking 'wow! A Grand Creator was behind this.' So all the details to me, sort of start to make my eyes glaze over...

 

Phred is clearly an intelligent guy. And I enjoy reading his posts. Even reading the scientific details in his posts (which I haven't independently verified) I'm left thinking, 'Wow, A Grand Creator was behind this.'

 

My ds9 science text is awesome. But they keep using this word that just makes me bristle. Adaptation. Now before anyone gets all over me....I have no problem understand the concept of Adaptation. I get it. I believe in. But it just seems like so much of what they are teaching a 4th grader is all about the Creation and yet the Creator is never mentioned. Only Adaptation.

 

Oh well. This neverending thread is fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you don't have scientific arguments to back up your side. Neither do the scientists, science teachers and science professors that you say do not hold to the theory of evolution. I'm sure they're educated. But mostly they don't know what they're talking about. As is evidenced by the fact that you don't present an iota of their "scientific arguments" but simply continue to claim they have them.

 

I'm sure you truly believe what you're saying. Sadly, you've been misled. If you want to come back and say that you believe what you believe and it's based upon faith and that's that... fine. If you want to say that you believe the Bible and you choose that over anything else, fine. But to say that you have scientific claims that rival the Theory of Evolution in validity... that's simply not true.

 

jumping in: Yes there is scientific evidence. The layers of the earth and Carbon dating half life indicate a young earth. But the problem with your beliefs and mine is that I believe mine and you believe yours. So there we are, we really don't want to be faced with alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes there is scientific evidence. The layers of the earth and Carbon dating half life indicate a young earth.

 

No. This is just not true. Scientific evidence is that the earth is old, old, old - approx 4.5 billion years old.

 

But the problem with your beliefs and mine is that I believe mine and you believe yours. So there we are, we really don't want to be faced with alternatives.

 

Scientific people are open to reasonable alternatives which match the data which is available to us.

 

I can understand someone who posits a creator + old earth (which is the stance of many Christian denominations). I do not share this belief (of a creator) but I can understand it.

 

I cannot understand the young earth belief at all. It is not validated by any serious science at all. All the 'evidence' for it is misrepresentation & obfuscation designed to bend reality to fit the biblical world & is predicated on the bible being literally true. The starting point is that the bible is true & 'evidence' is presented to match it.

 

I don't think it's a matter of belief on both sides: I think the difference is that some would rather believe a millennia old book of stories, rather than draw the conclusions which our reason & intellect lead us to.

 

In fact, isn't there a story about a creationist scientist who read the bible with scissors & cut out every piece which was inconsistent with science? And at the end the bible was in shreds and he says he was so dismayed that he chose to disregard science & believe in the bible? I gather now he spends time finding scientific 'facts' which prop up the biblical world view. See, that doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

 

You might as well believe in fairies. Or that the entire world is an illusion. Or that you're actually an alien living in a different dimension and have been playing a virtual reality game called "life on earth in 2009" To me, these seem just as reasonably possible hypotheses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. This is just not true. Scientific evidence is that the earth is old, old, old - approx 4.5 billion years old.

 

 

 

Scientific people are open to reasonable alternatives which match the data which is available to us.

 

I can understand someone who posits a creator + old earth (which is the stance of many Christian denominations). I do not share this belief (of a creator) but I can understand it.

 

I cannot understand the young earth belief at all. It is not validated by any serious science at all. All the 'evidence' for it is misrepresentation & obfuscation designed to bend reality to fit the biblical world & is predicated on the bible being literally true. The starting point is that the bible is true & 'evidence' is presented to match it.

 

I don't think it's a matter of belief on both sides: I think the difference is that some would rather believe a millennia old book of stories, rather than draw the conclusions which our reason & intellect lead us to.

 

In fact, isn't there a story about a creationist scientist who read the bible with scissors & cut out every piece which was inconsistent with science? And at the end the bible was in shreds and he says he was so dismayed that he chose to disregard science & believe in the bible? I gather now he spends time finding scientific 'facts' which prop up the biblical world view. See, that doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

 

You might as well believe in fairies. Or that the entire world is an illusion. Or that you're actually an alien living in a different dimension and have been playing a virtual reality game called "life on earth in 2009" To me, these seem just as reasonably possible hypotheses.

 

 

I will ignore your last paragraph as it is beneathe you to ridicule someone's beliefs to that extent and will put it down to the late hour.

 

There is a tremendous amount of evidence of a young earth. But you have to listen to it first to see that it is there. The layers were formed at the same time, not over millions of years. It was the result of a catastrophic global event. We call it the Flood. I have listened to the theories of evolution and the old earth theory repeatedly because I was intrigued by the notion of a time before Adam. Not having studied ancient history or Biblical history at all because of my youth I was willing to listen to anything. I was searching for truth and wanted to hear it all. So for 10 years I did. And I keep listening. I just attended a seminar 2 weeks ago on evolution and then on Creation. I still have no doubt, looking at all the evidence, that God designed this extremely complex and outrageously perfectly in sync earth. In six days. less than 10,000 years ago.

 

But of course you have your way of thinking and I would never, out of respect for you as someone created in the image of God, and out of respect for your right to keep listening and searching for truth, ridicule you or your beliefs, however far fetched I find them. I would never say you didn't have a right to my respectful disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. This is just not true. Scientific evidence is that the earth is old, old, old - approx 4.5 billion years old.

 

 

 

Scientific people are open to reasonable alternatives which match the data which is available to us.

 

I can understand someone who posits a creator + old earth (which is the stance of many Christian denominations). I do not share this belief (of a creator) but I can understand it.

 

I cannot understand the young earth belief at all. It is not validated by any serious science at all. All the 'evidence' for it is misrepresentation & obfuscation designed to bend reality to fit the biblical world & is predicated on the bible being literally true. The starting point is that the bible is true & 'evidence' is presented to match it.

 

I don't think it's a matter of belief on both sides:

Yikes. I will not quote that which seems to be a violation of board rules. I prefer to allow people time to edit.

 

I believe Old Earth Creationism here, but it seems my beliefs do not line up with most Old Earth Creationists, or Young Earth Creationists. That's okay. We all believe that God deserves the glory and honor and power. That is what I care about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will ignore your last paragraph as it is beneathe you to ridicule someone's beliefs to that extent and will put it down to the late hour.

 

There is a tremendous amount of evidence of a young earth. But you have to listen to it first to see that it is there. The layers were formed at the same time, not over millions of years. It was the result of a catastrophic global event. We call it the Flood. I have listened to the theories of evolution and the old earth theory repeatedly because I was intrigued by the notion of a time before Adam. Not having studied ancient history or Biblical history at all because of my youth I was willing to listen to anything. I was searching for truth and wanted to hear it all. So for 10 years I did. And I keep listening. I just attended a seminar 2 weeks ago on evolution and then on Creation. I still have no doubt, looking at all the evidence, that God designed this extremely complex and outrageously perfectly in sync earth. In six days. less than 10,000 years ago.

 

But of course you have your way of thinking and I would never, out of respect for you as someone created in the image of God, and out of respect for your right to keep listening and searching for truth, ridicule you or your beliefs, however far fetched I find them. I would never say you didn't have a right to my respectful disagreement.

 

 

I'm not sure she was "ridiculing" you and your beliefs; I think she may have been trying to emphasize just how stunning the 'young earth' perspective can seem to those who have never heard it. I realize the terms "alien" and "fairy" may seem provocative, but I think her use of them can help us understand her perspective.

 

I'm the OP for this thread, a long-time Christian, and was literally dumfounded when I recently heard of 'young earth.'

 

I don't say that with the intention to belittle anyone's beliefs, but rather to emphasize just how baffled I was upon first learning that many of today's Christians believe earth is only 10,000 years old. The gulf between the two (or three, or more) sides of this discussion is vast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What completely, utterly blows my mind is that people can believe in an omnipotent god, creator, being, gaseous cloud (pick your deity)... and yet not believe that said deity would be capable of putting something as simultaneously simple and complex as evolution into play.

 

Pick your vastness of scope, people.

 

 

a

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to "pile-on" but there really isn't a "scientific" alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The ToE elegantly explains the diversity of life on earth, and as scientific discoveries advance is validated time and again.

 

The scientific method could invalidate the ToE, and point to some other explanation. But that has not happened. There is no other explanation that rings true as "science."

 

yet :)

Manymanymany "scientific" explanations "rang true" as science for hundreds of years before we realized how wrong they were. A scientific explanation doesn't mean it is a correct, TRUE one. THAT's what i teach my kids: that very often science is wrong, so to keep studying and watching what is currently being researched.

 

 

Let me ask this. What good does it do to spend time studying something that isn't really evolution? You don't really learn anything useful. These strawmen are useless. All they're good for is to convince you that science is bad and counter to your faith. What possible good can that do anyone? Especially your kids?

 

If you believe that God created the universe and everything in it then science is just the study of God's firsthand creation. A more intimate Word than even the Bible. How can anything learned from it be harmful or bad?

 

I do agree very much with the big statement above. I have certainly noticed [and vocally corrected] the mixture of the terms "some scientists believe" with "science says" --- SCIENCE doesn't put forth theories: scientists do. The "harm" comes when we start accepting what scientists believe as fact instead of verifying -and continually questioning- what they can scientifically observe [yes, even gravity].

 

It's been said that God made man, but man made religion.

 

God is the author of science, but man is the author of theories. ;)

 

 

And yes, there are a few scientists who have decided to come forward with their belief in creationism. Very few. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a dinner party. ......Yet nothing of any value ever comes out of there. No published papers, no discoveries, no Nobel prizes... nothing but apologetics.

 

...... Do you teach them about how Darwin first synthesized the idea of evolution by natural selection in his book, The Origin of the Species but that he delayed the publication out of fear of the repercussions from religious organizations?

 

oh, there's plenty for quite the dinner party ;)

I teach them that in the same way Darwin rightly expected --and got-- repercussions from religious organizations, many scientists who believe in creation and/or don't believe in the entire ToE are feeling a similar blackballing repercussion from the so-called scientific community.

 

Evolution is not wrong. It's not an opinion, it's verifiable fact.

I am with ya so far as evolution that we can readily observe in a lab or in the field.

we have absolutely no verifiable fact to prove that fossil A evolved from fossil B. we have plenty of fact that shows relations, but none that prove evolution for those specific fossils.

 

 

It seems that, in the past, a virus infected a cell. But not just any cell. An egg cell or a sperm cell. And that sperm or egg actually went on to be the one that reproduced. The virus left its mark in the DNA by injecting its own DNA into the host. .... We have several of them. So do Chimpanzees. In exactly the same place in our genes. There's no way that could happen unless we share a common ancestor. We also share some of these ERVs with Gorillas and Chimps. Here's another interesting thing. All of the ERVs we share with Gorillas we share with Chimps. But not all of the ERVs we share with Chimps do we share with Gorillas. That shows that we split off from Gorillas before we split off from Chimps. Exactly as predicted. We share a common ancestor with Chimps more recently than we did with Gorillas. This is borne out by DNA, by the fossil record and by the presence of ERVs.

 

We do share a common ancestor with Chimps and Gorillas and other primates. There are ERVs in common with Bonobos and Baboons and Monkeys (New and Old world) too.

 

 

unless we find out that those ERVs could have affected more than just ONE species' ancestor. ERV's aren't quite as simplistic as you make them sound.

 

we actually stumbled across ERVs a few weeks ago studying koalas, so for the rest of the lurkers out there......

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1794577

"Analysis of the human genome sequence reveals the presence of between 30 and 40 phylogenetic groups of viruses, ranging in prevalence from 1 copy to more than 1,000. Each group is thought to descend from one cross-species infection, followed by a series of amplification events, most probably including re-infection [4]. Indeed, it appears that proviruses make up a greater fraction of the human genome (6 to 8%) than do protein-coding sequences (1 to 2%) [5]. Only a minute fraction of the inherited proviruses can encode functional retroviruses, as all have suffered mutational decay to an extent related to their period of residence in the genome."

 

With your deep understanding you can do a service in educating people and clearing up the untruths about the Theory of Evolution. Then people can decide for themselves what makes sense them.

 

except that there are already plenty of scientists who have a "deep understanding" of the ToE and still decide that the Theory has serious flaws and doesn't elegantly explain everything. Those scientists are then blackballed from the scientific community and considered NOT credible because they haven't published any papers cuz they were blackballed......vicious cycle.

So if you are intent on equating "educated" with "complete agreement" you will be sorely disappointed. ;)

 

What completely, utterly blows my mind is that people can believe in an omnipotent god, creator, being, gaseous cloud (pick your deity)... and yet not believe that said deity would be capable of putting something as simultaneously simple and complex as evolution into play.

 

Pick your vastness of scope, people.

 

This is where I am :)

I'm a Goddidit gal ;)

 

and yes, for the record, I do accept that based on what we know now, the ToE is a very plausible explanation. But I'm open to the fact that it may eventually be proved very wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What completely, utterly blows my mind is that people can believe in an omnipotent god, creator, being, gaseous cloud (pick your deity)... and yet not believe that said deity would be capable of putting something as simultaneously simple and complex as evolution into play.

 

Pick your vastness of scope, people.

 

 

I agree, and I think it was on a pro-evolution Christian website that I first read this argument: to say that God could not have created a universe where evolution occurs is to put a limitation on God's power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, and I think it was on a pro-evolution Christian website that I first read this argument: to say that God could not have created a universe where evolution occurs is to put a limitation on God's power.

 

Erm... I'm not sure how I feel about my off-the cuff comment being something that has already been stated on a pro-evolution Christian website, but what's done is done.

 

 

a

:auto:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The earth is not young, it is old. The Egyptian civilization (or the Chinese, Persian, Mayan... ) would have been under water (if the flood had occurred) and yet there is no gap in their historical records to indicate the death of everyone Egyptian. No water damage on their monuments. It's as if the flood never happened. I put this down to the fact that the flood never happened.

 

In many cases the goal of homeschooling is to be able to teach children things that they would otherwise be unable to learn in a public school context. At its best it works to maintain cultural, historical and religious integrity. At its worst it works to propagate mis and disinformation.

 

To say that we don't know whether fossil A actually evolved from fossil B... so? Why do we need to know that? Tell me why we need to know the exact descent and I'll start to worry about whether or not A evolved directly into B. What I do know is that both A and B are gone. Their species are no longer represented on the earth. Why is that? Where did they go?

 

They either evolved or they all died out. But then we find fossils of other species later on that look a lot like them. Same basic feature set... is it more likely that this fossil is a descendent or that it just *poofed* into existence?

 

If you want science to consider a creator as part of the equation you have to provide evidence that this creator exists.

 

Bueller? Bueller?

 

To simply say that science changes so we can disregard the conclusions... that's silly. Science refines, yes. But the basic data facts don't change. And we speak in provisional language because, unlike the absolutism of religion, we never rule out the slightest possibility. In this case, the Theory of Evolution is an umbrella that covers facts. Lots of them.

 

The basic tenet of evolution, that the frequency of alleles within the gene pool of a population will change over time under the influence of natural selection and genetic drift simply cannot be disputed. The only way that man did not evolve from a common ancestor with other primates would be if there were not enough time for this to have happened. Hence the desire for a young earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To say that we don't know whether fossil A actually evolved from fossil B... so? Why do we need to know that? Tell me why we need to know the exact descent and I'll start to worry about whether or not A evolved directly into B.

 

we only need to know the exact descent if you want to maintain the theoretical history of evolution as FACT.

 

 

What I do know is that both A and B are gone. Their species are no longer represented on the earth. Why is that? Where did they go?

 

great questions. unfortunately, the ToE doesn't irrefutably answer them.

 

{and i will remind everyone that abiogenesis and the ToE are two different ideas, so I'm sticking w/ ToE for now.}

 

They either evolved or they all died out. But then we find fossils of other species later on that look a lot like them. Same basic feature set... is it more likely that this fossil is a descendent or that it just *poofed* into existence?

 

so we have early fossil A and later fossil B.

Fossil B appears to have descended from fossil A.

 

what if fossil B existed alongside fossil A, but we simply don't have fossil evidence of an early fossil B? we certainly don't have a complete fossil record, and fossils only happen under very specific circumstances.

no evolution, simply existence.

 

if we have amino acids just *poofing* into existence with a few chemicals and electricity, why do you want to discount an additional *poofing* of some other critter into existence?

 

If you want science to consider a creator as part of the equation you have to provide evidence that this creator exists.

 

Bueller? Bueller?

 

I do?

 

science has no observable, provable, direct evidence whatsoever that everything evolved, yet they have accepted it --and teach it-- as historical FACT.

Bueller? Bueller?

 

To simply say that science changes so we can disregard the conclusions... that's silly. Science refines, yes. But the basic data facts don't change.

 

 

I didn't say that :)

I said we need to constantly be on the watch, especially since science is currently blackballing creationists and their questioning of the ToE.

 

very often our interpretation of the "basic facts" is so skewed that the conclusions are completely different.

 

And we speak in provisional language because, unlike the absolutism of religion, we never rule out the slightest possibility. In this case, the Theory of Evolution is an umbrella that covers facts. Lots of them.

 

yes, but the facts are only conclusive as far as we can prove them and observe them. We can do neither with fossils that are millions of years old.

 

I do believe it wise to speak in provisional language, but it discounts that openness when the scientific community refuses to consider or publish or review possibilities that are put forth by those who have valid questions about flaws or holes in The Theory.

The basic tenet of evolution, that the frequency of alleles within the gene pool of a population will change over time under the influence of natural selection and genetic drift simply cannot be disputed.

 

 

sure it can.

We have plenty of fossils that haven't changed much At. All. in hundreds of millions of years. The fact that it CAN happen doesn't mean it DID.

 

I do agree that it is a very very HUGELY plausible theory. I simply disagree that it is indisputable.

 

The only way that man did not evolve from a common ancestor with other primates would be if there were not enough time for this to have happened. Hence the desire for a young earth.

 

no, not "the only" way -- it is absolutely plausible that man and primates could have existed without a huge species to species evolution, even WITH an Old Earth.

 

Questioning the current proposal of the ToE doesn't need to rely on a Young Earth or religious philosophy. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure she was "ridiculing" you and your beliefs; I think she may have been trying to emphasize just how stunning the 'young earth' perspective can seem to those who have never heard it. I realize the terms "alien" and "fairy" may seem provocative, but I think her use of them can help us understand her perspective.

 

I'm the OP for this thread, a long-time Christian, and was literally dumfounded when I recently heard of 'young earth.'

 

I don't say that with the intention to belittle anyone's beliefs, but rather to emphasize just how baffled I was upon first learning that many of today's Christians believe earth is only 10,000 years old. The gulf between the two (or three, or more) sides of this discussion is vast.

 

Yes the gulf is vast and the post was ridiculing. I believe that to think we evolved from one species to another is science fiction. I cannot even begin to understand how anyone could believe that until I remember that the Bible states that it would happen and why. Then I understand and try not to be hard or harsh with them. And in this day and time of "tolerance" I expect the same treatment of gentleness from "enlightened" people.

My ds18 informed me that I should not debate the topic but debate why should an unproven theory be taught in the public school to impressionable children as fact. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

 

For the record. I teach my children the theory of evolution to show them what others that are unsaved believe. I explain to them why they believe it and encourage them to investigate it. My son has thoroughly studied evolution and apologetics for the last 5 years all over the country under Astro and Nuclear physicists, Biologists, Former evolutionist, and all sorts of scientists. If he has come to the conclusion that it is not worth debating, God will change hearts and minds, I will not debate it. I do hope it stays civil. Wish I could stay, it is a great conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The earth is not young, it is old. The Egyptian civilization (or the Chinese, Persian, Mayan... ) would have been under water (if the flood had occurred) and yet there is no gap in their historical records to indicate the death of everyone Egyptian. No water damage on their monuments. It's as if the flood never happened. I put this down to the fact that the flood never happened.
Carbon dating is not infallible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm... I'm not sure how I feel about my off-the cuff comment being something that has already been stated on a pro-evolution Christian website, but what's done is done.

 

 

a

:auto:

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Sorry if I'm being slow/dense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to see proof. Not methods, not theories.

 

I don't understand. "Methods" simply refers to the various ways we go about discovering and revealing "proof". Doesn't it? Am I missing something here?

 

In another post you also referred to the teaching of evolution as fact when it is an "unproven" theory. But evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is unfortunate that it isn't taught well and clearly, and that most people have little to no understanding of what evolution is. But "commonly misunderstood" is certainly not the same as "unproven".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just out of curiosity how many other methods would you have to see to change your mind?
I am not sure that I understand the question, but there have been fossils and artifacts dating using this method by two different groups of scientists who then came up with widely different dates. (Does that answer your question?) Since studying such, I made up my mind. Having not looked into it recently, I don't have anything to cite.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand. "Methods" simply refers to the various ways we go about discovering and revealing "proof". Doesn't it? Am I missing something here?

 

In another post you also referred to the teaching of evolution as fact when it is an "unproven" theory. But evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is unfortunate that it isn't taught well and clearly, and that most people have little to no understanding of what evolution is. But "commonly misunderstood" is certainly not the same as "unproven".

Some of the ideas taught as evolution have proof, others don't.

 

Many things that are now touted as proof have the same thing going for them as ID... We want proof of evolution and have evolution already as a theory so we will see how we can fit these things into that idea.

 

I will say that the when I learned about Eastern ideas of life force and energy some things (like the Big Bang, or molecules appearing and disappearing) do make more sense.

I am not here to argue, just wanted to give my opinion after reading the entire thread... wow. :)

 

I believe in God as the Creator. As far as evolution, if it does exist, I believe God put it in motion, and controlled the outcome. As far as the Big Bang Theory, maybe that is what God did. The Bible says he created, it doesn't say how. Honestly, I just don't care how, lol. :)

 

As far as teaching my kids evolution, well they are still young. I don't teach algebra in 3rd, 1st, and pre-k, so why would I teach ebolution? Eventually, I will tell them what it is, and explain my position just as I explained it you. I just don't see why it is so important... it doesn't need to be argued, IMO. Scientists have believed certain things were true, and then later realized they were wrong. Ideas change over time.

 

I can say that I read somewhere (I will look for it if neccessary), that by the end of his life, Charles Darwin was way less confident about evolution as he previously was. Not sure if that can be proven, I will look for the source. I really don't want to argue or anger anyone... just not worth it.

 

As far as the issues with God on this thread, well I know someone already said it, but it is a good point... we cannot see the wind, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. We can see it's affects, and I believe we can see the affects of God all around us.

 

As far as complete understanding of everything, maybe we just aren't meant to know. Our minds just cannot comprehend certain things. I feel God just wants us to have faith that He is in control, and not worry about things that are not neccessary to know. Does knowing whether or not evolution is true or not change your life? Not mine, and I don't think it will affect anyone else's either, believer or not.

 

:grouphug:

Great post. I read that about Charles Darwin somewhere too. I am rather excited about taking a year of science to delve into his original writings along with other discussions of evolution. That is a ways off for now though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the gulf is vast and the post was ridiculing. I believe that to think we evolved from one species to another is science fiction. I cannot even begin to understand how anyone could believe that until I remember that the Bible states that it would happen and why. Then I understand and try not to be hard or harsh with them. And in this day and time of "tolerance" I expect the same treatment of gentleness from "enlightened" people.

My ds18 informed me that I should not debate the topic but debate why should an unproven theory be taught in the public school to impressionable children as fact. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

 

For the record. I teach my children the theory of evolution to show them what others that are unsaved believe. I explain to them why they believe it and encourage them to investigate it. My son has thoroughly studied evolution and apologetics for the last 5 years all over the country under Astro and Nuclear physicists, Biologists, Former evolutionist, and all sorts of scientists. If he has come to the conclusion that it is not worth debating, God will change hearts and minds, I will not debate it. I do hope it stays civil. Wish I could stay, it is a great conversation.

 

If you've read this thread you know that there are Christians who reject the notion of a young earth. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...