Jump to content

Menu

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?


Recommended Posts

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.

 

There is NO proof for this so I'm doubtful you'll be able to come up with anything - but I'm willing to look at what you have. I am familiar with some "quote mining" attempts to support this premise & with the "Lady Hope" story. Both are, frankly,bunk. This is just one of those things that gets repeated like an urban legend as far as I'm concerned.

 

And the point is usually presented as not that the doubted evolution but rather whether he still believed in God or not. Two different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 696
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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".

 

 

where is the evidence that one species example humans, evolved from another species? If this were true we would have thousands of skeletons or artifacts in various stages. There are any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
we only need to know the exact descent if you want to maintain the theoretical history of evolution as FACT.

Untrue. That's your belief. It's not correct.

 

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.

B is dated later than A. Direct descent is not necessary to state that B evolved from A.

 

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?
We don't have amino acids just *poofing* into existence, that's yet another strawman. And yes, I'll dispute anything *poofing* into existence by magic and being enough to seed an entire species.

 

I do?
If you wish to use God as part of your argument then you need to show that this god exists.

 

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

Bueller? Bueller?

Every creature alive on earth today comes from other creatures that either are alive on earth today or were alive on earth recently. These creatures that gave birth (or otherwise) to every creature alive today came about similarly. And so it goes backward in time. If you make the assumption that all life comes from other life and discount magic, as I and all reasonable scientists do, then you have to look at fossils as a part of that chain of life. Nowhere do we find organisms that came about from nothing and never spawned other organisms. Since we've seen all variations of evolution in the lab and observed it in the wild fron adaptation to speciation there is no doubt that life evolves and that these fossils we find are part of that vast web of life. To assume otherwise would be silly. Unless you can make a case for what these fossils are other than part of the evolutionary chain then it's just common sense to place them someplace there.

 

Can you?

 

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.

Creationists are not blackballed. They simply fail to meet the standards that are applied to all scientific work. We're not going to change the standards for 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.
We don't need to observe a creature from millions of years ago to know much about it. Do you allow that a murder victim's skeleton can tell us much about the crime? If you are insistent upon disallowing all evidence that isn't directly observed there are many prisoners you're going to have to set free.

 

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.
And while you speak about these supposed flaws you have yet to show any of them.

 

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 fact that one creature fits a niche well and has no need to evolve over the millennia does not mean that others will not meet up with pressures that force their evolution. If you feel you can dispute the facts, then please do dispute them and stop simply saying you can.

 

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. ;)

I have yet to see a disputation of the ToE that remained within scientific boundaries.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon dating is not infallible.

 

Where carbon dating is fallible is generally when people mess up with samples. Any method of radiometric dating depends on what we know about how elements decay. If those methods are as unreliable as some like to claim they are then I hope to heck we stop fooling around with things like nuclear fusion! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Dating the earth uses a number of different methods; Uranium lead, Rubidium Strontium, Carbon 14, Fossil records show a move from simple to complex. Strata within the fossil record show only certain species within certain strata, you don’t have fossils from different era’s. So what you have is a convergence of methodologies all pointing to an earth 4.6 billion years old. The age of the Sun solar system moon are all consistent with the date given the earth. That is they don’t contradict a 4.6 billion old

earth. So I guess what I'm saying is I'm seeing a convergence of methodologies reaching the same conclusion, which gives us a preponderance of evidence for a 4.6 billion old earth.

I’m not trying to convert anyone here but I think it’s important to realize how you’re making up your mind. I think understanding Darwin and evolution is very important to how we go about studying science in the future. Science should not be held back because of religious belief’s.

I’ve never read anywhere that Darwin had second thoughts about his discoveries’ . I have read quite a bit about why there is such a schism between religion and

evolution. That’s a different story and started back when on origins was released. Darwin saw no conflict between religion, meaning a belief in God and evolution.

I also don’t recall the quote about fact.

Now I have to go watch football! Good evening!

Link to post
Share on other sites
where is the evidence that one species example humans, evolved from another species? If this were true we would have thousands of skeletons or artifacts in various stages. There are any.

 

We have exactly that. I honestly don't know what some who demand "missing links" or intermediate species expect. What else is Homo habilus? Homo ergaster? Homo heidelbergensis

 

You've made a prediction about what scientists would find if evolution were a reasonable theory and that's exactly what science has found.

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.

That is your belief. That is not scientific.

 

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.

I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the Bible in this day and age of enlightenment. I try not to be hard or harsh with them but to understand why they need to believe this. However, I find that I am discriminated against for my lack of belief. When I state that I don't believe I am banned from boards and immediately labeled as an "unbeliever" which makes me unfit to correspond with.

 

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.

Are you exactly like your parents? No. You're different. Every organism that is born is different from its parents. That's called variation. It doesn't need to be proven, you can observe it. So as each generation is born the percentage of certain genes changes within it. There are more or less blue eyes. The population has evolved. Do you dispute this? Sometimes there are mutations that happen which cause an organism to be more or less fit to live within its environment. Look at arctic foxes. They're white. Foxes not in the arctic are not white. How do you think that happened? They evolved, that's how that happened. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of things you can observe that show evolution. From large examples to small. Genetic to biologic to zoologic. That's why it's taught. Because it's real and not magic.

 

For the record. I teach my children the theory of evolution to show them what others that are unsaved believe.

There are those who are saved who believe it as well. Also the entire Catholic church believes it too. You're showing the same intolerance you don't wish others to show you.

 

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.

's'ok. Those who examine the evidence come around to accept evolution. Those who start with a preconceived answer in their minds and fear of being not saved come to find your belief preferable. The term evolutionist is actually offensive as it's not a belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carbon dating is not infallible.

carbon dating is only used for objects back to about 50,000 years. There are many other types of dating used to date objects that are much older. And they are effective enough to know the difference between 10,000 and 4 billion years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I’ve never read anywhere that Darwin had second thoughts about his discoveries’ .

 

 

He didn't. Even Answers in Genesis has a page rebutting the belief that he did. It seems to have sprung from a very vague claim of a Lady Hope's about what he may have said to her on his death bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be clear, though, I do not believe we evolved from monkeys. :D

We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor with gorillas. Humans, chimps, and gorillas all share a common ancestor with monkeys. So there's no need to tell your children that we evolved from monkeys.

 

I do believe dinosaurs existed. :)

That's good. :001_smile:

 

As far as the young earth vs old earth debate, well God's days may not have been the same as our days. Either way, who cares? Why argue? We cannot prove it. Debating is fine, but hurting feelings and insulting others to prove your position is not neccessary.

I leave arguing about God to those of you who believe in him. However when it comes to proof it isn't the age of the earth we can't prove. That's 4.53 billion years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
where is the evidence that one species example humans, evolved from another species? If this were true we would have thousands of skeletons or artifacts in various stages. There are any.

There are fossil hominids all over the place. Here's a list of prominent fossils... just to show you the scope. This list goes on for quite a bit longer after the link. To say there aren't any is a creationist fabrication. Please don't fall for it.

 

TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumai", Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc). (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002) It has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids.

"ARA-VP, Sites 1, 6 & 7", Ardipithecus ramidus

Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Berhane Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994) in 1992 and 1993 at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consisted of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and partial arm bone from 2 individuals.

ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual.

ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features.

KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid", Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells 1967). This is a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old. (Creationist arguments)

KP 29281, Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). This is a lower jaw with all its teeth which is about 4.0 million years old.

KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis

Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.1 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism.

AL 129-1, Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult.

lucy_small.gif AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight. (Creationist arguments)

AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis?

Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981). Its age is about 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 individuals of all ages. The size of these specimens varies considerably. Scientists debate whether the specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they belong to a single species in which males were considerably larger than females. Others believe that the larger specimens belong to a primitive species of Homo.

"Laetoli footprints", Australopithecus afarensis?

Discovered in 1978 by Paul Abell at Laetoli in Tanzania. Estimated age is 3.7 million years. The trail consists of the fossilized footprints of two or three bipedal hominids. Their size and stride length indicate that they were about 140 cm (4'8") and 120 cm (4'0") tall. Many scientists claim that the footprints are effectively identical to those of modern humans (Tattersall 1993; Feder and Park 1989), while others claim the big toes diverged slightly (like apes) and that the toe lengths are longer than humans but shorter than in apes (Burenhult 1993). The prints are tentatively assigned to A. afarensis, because no other hominid species is known from that time, although some scientists disagree with that classification. (Creationist arguments)

AL 444-2, Australopithecus afarensis

Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Kimbel et al. 1994). Estimated age is 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of a large adult male, easily the most complete afarensis skull known, with a brain size of 550 cc. According to its finders, it strengthens the case that all the First Family fossils were members of the same species, because the differences between AL 444-2 and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually dimorphic hominoids.

wt40000_small.jpgKNM-WT 40000, Kenyanthropus platyops

Discovered by Justus Erus in 1999 at Lomekwi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 2001, Lieberman 2001). Estimated age is about 3.5 million years. This is a mostly complete, but heavily distorted, cranium with a large, flat face and small teeth. The brain size is similar to that of australopithecines. This fossil has considerable similarities with, and is possibly related to, the habiline fossil ER 1470.

 

taung_small.gif Taung 1, "Taung Child", Australopithecus africanus

Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart 1925). The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial cast of the brain. It is between 2 and 3 million years old, but it and most other South African fossils are found in cave deposits that are difficult to date. The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3). The brain size was 410 cc, and would have been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded brain, canine teeth which were small and not apelike, and the position of the foramen magnum(*) convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). Although the discovery became famous, Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community until the mid-1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils.

(*) Anatomical digression: the foramen magnum is the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes. In apes, it is towards the back of the skull, because of their quadrupedal posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column. In australopithecines it is also placed forward from the ape position, although not always as far forward as in humans.

TM 1512, Australopithecus africanus (was Plesianthropus transvaalensis)

Discovered by Robert Broom in 1936 at Sterkfontein in South Africa (Broom 1936). The second australopithecine fossil found, it consisted of parts of the face, upper jaw and braincase.

sts5_small.gif Sts 5, "Mrs Ples", Australopithecus africanus

Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It is a very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be female, but there has been a recent claim that it is male. It is the best specimen of africanus. It is about 2.5 million years old, with a brain size of about 485 cc. (It has recently been claimed that the fossils Sts 5 and Sts 14 (see next entry) were from the same individual)

 

 

 

 

From here

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dating the earth uses a number of different methods; Uranium lead, Rubidium Strontium, Carbon 14, Fossil records show a move from simple to complex. Strata within the fossil record show only certain species within certain strata, you don’t have fossils from different era’s. So what you have is a convergence of methodologies all pointing to an earth 4.6 billion years old. The age of the Sun solar system moon are all consistent with the date given the earth. That is they don’t contradict a 4.6 billion old

earth. So I guess what I'm saying is I'm seeing a convergence of methodologies reaching the same conclusion, which gives us a preponderance of evidence for a 4.6 billion old earth.

 

I’m not trying to convert anyone here but I think it’s important to realize how you’re making up your mind. I think understanding Darwin and evolution is very important to how we go about studying science in the future. Science should not be held back because of religious belief’s.

 

I’ve never read anywhere that Darwin had second thoughts about his discoveries’ . I have read quite a bit about why there is such a schism between religion and

evolution. That’s a different story and started back when on origins was released. Darwin saw no conflict between religion, meaning a belief in God and evolution.

 

 

I also don’t recall the quote about fact.

Now I have to go watch football! Good evening!

Sorry, I don't recall a quote about fact either. lol. I'll have to read back... I am not disputing the age of the earth or saying that the earth is 10,000 years old. I do not believe in a Young Earth. The fact that I was disputing was the age of the Egyptian civilization.

 

carbon dating is only used for objects back to about 50,000 years. There are many other types of dating used to date objects that are much older. And they are effective enough to know the difference between 10,000 and 4 billion years.

see above.

He didn't. Even Answers in Genesis has a page rebutting the belief that he did. It seems to have sprung from a very vague claim of a Lady Hope's about what he may have said to her on his death bed.
Thanks. I can't wait to read this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
where is the evidence that one species example humans, evolved from another species?

 

Well, in a word, everywhere. It's in DNA. It's in the fossil record. It's in biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, so on and so forth. It is all around us.

 

If this were true we would have thousands of skeletons or artifacts in various stages. There are any.

 

There are many.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the ideas taught as evolution have proof, others don't.

 

Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of?

 

Many things that are now touted as proof have the same thing going for them as ID...

 

I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but creationism/ID and evolution would make some of the same predictions. When I was a kid growing up and I was being taught creationism, one of the arguments was that the earth was just so perfectly suited to our needs that it couldn't have been "mere chance". The problem with this argument (aside from the complete misuse of "chance" with regards to evolution) is that evolution also predicts that the earth would be "suited" to us -- or put more accurately, that we are suited to it. But either way, the result, or the prediction, is basically the same. Is that what you mean?

 

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.

 

Sure, but if we find something that doesn't fit the theory, then the theory gets updated, revised, or discarded. That's the way science works.

 

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.

 

Interesting! :001_smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is NO proof for this so I'm doubtful you'll be able to come up with anything - but I'm willing to look at what you have. I am familiar with some "quote mining" attempts to support this premise & with the "Lady Hope" story. Both are, frankly,bunk. This is just one of those things that gets repeated like an urban legend as far as I'm concerned.

 

And the point is usually presented as not that the doubted evolution but rather whether he still believed in God or not. Two different things.

 

Yeah, what she said. :001_smile: PLUS, I have to wonder how this is really relevant. Even if Darwin had completely recanted on his death bed, does that somehow prove the theory false? Is the validity of a scientific theory dependent upon the continued acceptance of the scientist who first discovered it? A certain number of other scientists? What's the magic number? Or is the prestige/reputation of the scientist(s) involved? No, of course it's none of these things. It is dependent only upon the evidence. And the evidence has grown exponentially since Darwin's death. Evolution is not "dependent" upon Darwin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor with gorillas. Humans, chimps, and gorillas all share a common ancestor with monkeys. So there's no need to tell your children that we evolved from monkeys.

 

 

That's good. :001_smile:

 

 

I leave arguing about God to those of you who believe in him. However when it comes to proof it isn't the age of the earth we can't prove. That's 4.53 billion years.

 

Phred. You make my head hurt. I think you are a brilliant man in many ways. But you make my head hurt.

 

Maybe I am too uneducated to read your posts without my head hurting. I don't want you banned at all though.

 

I find it amazing that you can know so much about the science of it all and yet still believe a Creator is not behind it. That is the part that makes my head hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys give me some good books to read on the subject? This thread made me realize that I am not ready to be the best teacher to my kids on this. Today at my library I picked up "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Evolution - Creation Struggle" by Michael Ruse. Has anyone here read these and are they any good? I want something that will not bash religion because my belief in God will not change but I am very curious and would like to research and learn much more. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you guys give me some good books to read on the subject? This thread made me realize that I am not ready to be the best teacher to my kids on this. Today at my library I picked up "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Evolution - Creation Struggle" by Michael Ruse. Has anyone here read these and are they any good? I want something that will not bash religion because my belief in God will not change but I am very curious and would like to research and learn much more. Thanks!
I am interested as well... obviously. I was thinking of studying this with DD in late middle school.

 

I will look for it. I know I have the material somewhere... just have to find it.
I am very interested in this as well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you guys give me some good books to read on the subject? This thread made me realize that I am not ready to be the best teacher to my kids on this. Today at my library I picked up "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Evolution - Creation Struggle" by Michael Ruse. Has anyone here read these and are they any good? I want something that will not bash religion because my belief in God will not change but I am very curious and would like to research and learn much more. Thanks!

 

I think Ruse is OK though I think his criticism of Dawkins is off (he criticizes Dawkins and others as being too hostile to religious people who are not creationists). People who are religious though will, I think, find him a less annoying person to read than Dawkins. Ruse is an atheist but he is a lot more sympathetic to religious folks & makes a big point of bringing along side those denominations who don't have a theological problem with evolution. He's definitely a critic of creationism but he's not a critic of religion & I think therefore a bit more palatable to many readers of faith than Dawkins is.

 

Haven't read the Miller book.

 

You might want to look at Eugenie Scott's Evolution v.Creation (2nd ed).

 

I'm still waiting for my copy of Dawkins' latest to arrive so I'm not sure how it is but I suspect this will be very good in terms of having up to date evidence, clearly explained. I linked to it somewhere above but here it is again:

The Greatest Show on Earth - the Evidence for Evolution Dawkins is very much against religion so that bias is strong in his other books and I do think some people stop reading & hearing what he has to say.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you guys give me some good books to read on the subject? This thread made me realize that I am not ready to be the best teacher to my kids on this. Today at my library I picked up "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Evolution - Creation Struggle" by Michael Ruse. Has anyone here read these and are they any good? I want something that will not bash religion because my belief in God will not change but I am very curious and would like to research and learn much more. Thanks!

 

The Language of God

 

Great book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you guys give me some good books to read on the subject? This thread made me realize that I am not ready to be the best teacher to my kids on this. Today at my library I picked up "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Evolution - Creation Struggle" by Michael Ruse. Has anyone here read these and are they any good? I want something that will not bash religion because my belief in God will not change but I am very curious and would like to research and learn much more. Thanks!

"Why Darwin Matters" Michael Shermer

The Jungle: Great Adventures in the Searc... by Sean B. Carroll

Evolution: The First Four Billion Years by Michael Ruse

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate F... by Sean Carroll

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne

Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane

For balance read Michael Behe's book, "The Black Box".

 

 

There is also a book by a theologian from Great Britain that describes how the split between the Evolutionist and the church evolve or was created. I'll try and find it later.

"The Origins of the Conflict Between Science and Religion" Peter Harrison

 

Of course you could go back and read the "Voyage of the Beagle" or the "Origin of Species". The captain of the Beagle (Fitzroy I think) also wrote a book to give you some perspective on Darwin. I don't think it's really necessary as Evolution does not depend so much on Darwin, but if you want to refute some of the claims being made today it's worth reading.

Edited by monk17
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend watching the PBS series on evolution. It's easy to digest and isn't unfriendly to religion. It's just factual. I would also recommend against reading Behe's book. It's been refuted and Behe himself was embarrassed on the stand in the Kitzmiller case. It's not balance, it's an attempt at getting nonscience in through the back door by making it popular with people.

 

Scarlett, I'm sorry for your head hurting but science helped create some wonderful pain killers that can help :001_smile:. Seriously... I wish I could help you to see how I can understand the universe without a creator. It's an entirely different vision than you have. One that's not frightening nor one that makes your head hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those seeking some historical perspective on this subject, may I suggest Edward Larson's Teaching Company course, Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy. Those who are interested in the history of science as well as social ideas may be as intrigued as I was by the course. You can read more here and, of course, check your public library to see if it is readily available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that parents have the right to pass along their beliefs to their children, even if this belief denies commonly accepted scientific knowledge. I'm pretty sure, however, that if any of our children decide to pursue biology, archeology, geology, physics, medicine, or most other scientific disciplines, that they will invariably come to accept evolutionary theory. If they don't when they are being homeschooled, they certainly will as they gain deeper knowledge in their chosen scientific discipline.

 

If you won't want your children to believe in evolution, you might steer them away from a career in science.

 

Actually, I was a believer as a child because I was taught to be. I had no reason to disbelieve. Immersed in scientific academia in college, I became a convert to God- designed evolution as a compromise during my studies. As a Zoologist, I still believed in God, but not the literal Bible.

 

Having continued my Bible studies over the last 20 years, I came to believe I was sold a crock of goods by the scientific mind set. They were all so sure and so scoffing about faith in general let alone creationism. I was untrained and ill equipped to combat all of it.

 

I, more firmly than ever, believe the God of the Universe, created every living thing in 6 days and "that it was good".

 

But, as has been said by many, I teach evolutionary theory because it would handicap my children to not know about it. I am blessed to have and use materials that affirm my faith and will help my children stand fast. There were no such materials when I was growing up. Had there been, had I been taught as I am teaching my children now, I would have been so much more equipped to defend my faith.

 

So it was more the scientific community that led me astray AND science that brought me back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But, as has been said by many, I teach evolutionary theory because it would handicap my children to not know about it. I am blessed to have and use materials that affirm my faith and will help my children stand fast. There were no such materials when I was growing up. Had there been, had I been taught as I am teaching my children now, I would have been so much more equipped to defend my faith.

 

So it was more the scientific community that led me astray AND science that brought me back.

What materials are you speaking of? Edited by Lovedtodeath
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in a word, everywhere. It's in DNA. It's in the fossil record. It's in biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, so on and so forth. It is all around us.

 

 

 

There are many.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

I read these and explored all the links until I realized you have to have a predisposition to want to believe these theories. I don't and the wording and reports were so full of "Creationist think... but scientist think...there are similarities that indicate...." and so on and so forth. The fossils found were of apelike origins with a "humanlike tooth" not a mouth full of human teeth. According to these websites you sited it is still supposition and hope.

 

One thing I know. When I die, I will know. You will know. I am not taking that risk of being wrong, because if you are right, I have lost nothing. If I am right (which I am), I will have lost everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to these websites you sited it is still supposition and hope.

I agree. That is what I meant by the parellel between ID and evolution. The evidence to back up either is based on someone starting off with a preconception.

 

 

One thing I know. When I die, I will know. You will know. I am not taking that risk of being wrong, because if you are right, I have lost nothing. If I am right (which I am), I will have lost everything.
Quite a few people who believe in evolution are not athiests. I didn't know this before I was on these boards. Perhaps that is what you are thinking?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I was a believer as a child because I was taught to be. I had no reason to disbelieve. Immersed in scientific academia in college, I became a convert to God- designed evolution as a compromise during my studies. As a Zoologist, I still believed in God, but not the literal Bible.

 

Having continued my Bible studies over the last 20 years, I came to believe I was sold a crock of goods by the scientific mind set. They were all so sure and so scoffing about faith in general let alone creationism. I was untrained and ill equipped to combat all of it.

 

I, more firmly than ever, believe the God of the Universe, created every living thing in 6 days and "that it was good".

 

But, as has been said by many, I teach evolutionary theory because it would handicap my children to not know about it. I am blessed to have and use materials that affirm my faith and will help my children stand fast. There were no such materials when I was growing up. Had there been, had I been taught as I am teaching my children now, I would have been so much more equipped to defend my faith.

 

So it was more the scientific community that led me astray AND science that brought me back.

 

Me too. I was brought up as a cultural "Christmas and Easter" Christian. I was basically agnostic through most of my later high school and college years. I was a biology major - and I became a creationist the year after I took genetics from a hard-core atheistic evolutionist professor. Mostly because he kept shutting up a certain student who asked questions without ever answering them. It made me wonder what he was so worried about, so I started doing my own research on the topic. A year later, I was a convinced creationist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing I know. When I die, I will know. You will know. I am not taking that risk of being wrong, because if you are right, I have lost nothing. If I am right (which I am), I will have lost everything.
The objections you raised in the first part of your post made no sense to me. Then I read this, and now I think I am starting to understand. For you, this has nothing to do with the mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution. That's not what you're interested in or what you care about, and that's fine. You object, not because of lack of evidence or invalid arguments, but because you believe that your salvation depends upon your belief in creationism.

 

I take a different view. Obviously. :)

 

The evidence for evolution is so compelling, so convincing, so complete, and so undisputed that I have to believe either: 1. evolution is a simple and beautiful truth about this universe that God created, a force that He put into play, much like gravity or the electromagnetic force, etc.. or 2. that God created the world in six days about 10,000 years ago in such a way as to lead us to conclude that the earth is over 4 billion years old when it really isn't and that life evolves when it really doesn't.

 

Since I do not for one second believe that God is a trickster, I go with #1.

 

To me, giving the glory to God for all creation has nothing to do with whether He did it gradually over billions of years using forces like natural selection, or whether He did it in six days, or whether He did it in one nanosecond. The point of a Christian life is (this is NOT intended to be a comprehensive list) to live guided by the gratitude we feel for this beautiful creation, this precious life we have and all the beauty around us, to value, treasure, protect, and preserve God's creation. We can feel those feelings and act accordingly (or not!) whether we think the earth is 4 billion years old or 10,000 years old, whether we recognize descent with modification or ignore it. Personally, I feel that to understand the universe and the natural world is to better understand God. So for me, evolution is not at all a "threat" to my faith, but in fact just the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I was a believer as a child because I was taught to be. I had no reason to disbelieve. Immersed in scientific academia in college, I became a convert to God- designed evolution as a compromise during my studies. As a Zoologist, I still believed in God, but not the literal Bible.

 

Having continued my Bible studies over the last 20 years, I came to believe I was sold a crock of goods by the scientific mind set. They were all so sure and so scoffing about faith in general let alone creationism. I was untrained and ill equipped to combat all of it.

 

I, more firmly than ever, believe the God of the Universe, created every living thing in 6 days and "that it was good".

 

But, as has been said by many, I teach evolutionary theory because it would handicap my children to not know about it. I am blessed to have and use materials that affirm my faith and will help my children stand fast. There were no such materials when I was growing up. Had there been, had I been taught as I am teaching my children now, I would have been so much more equipped to defend my faith.

 

So it was more the scientific community that led me astray AND science that brought me back.

 

Lizzie, our paths have been very similar. I was a believer as a child b/c it seemed natural. With me, I had very little true religious instruction. In public school, everything evolution was taught as facts & disciplined science. Into high school classes, I considered nothing else. No one even talked about it. It was just science/evolution. (sadly, my teachers were all church goers) The same through my undergraduate training. Creation was not even considered honest science... just superstition.

 

However, when I got to graduate school, it all began to change. The professor was a complete passionate evolutionist... we studied reproductive physiology & behavior.... the old arguments couldn't work anymore for me. I began to see holes & impossible conclusions/reaches. Several students in my class were asking key questions... he couldn't answer them. Through that class, I began questioning evolution and even became prolife (class & ultrasounds). :lol: Professor was in SHOCK. So many areas (cell biology is ex) had obvious designs... intricate patterns that revealed no accidents... but professors wouldn't consider the idea.

 

I finished my masters & began to attend church. The evolutionist helped lead me to church. :001_huh: Science & religion are completely complimentary ..... scientists like George Washington Carver were ridiculted b/c it was no "correct" to combine the two. Sad, b/c many great discoveries were credited to the faith of the scientist or natural observations in the "design" of the world.

 

With homeschooling, it was very difficult to figure out how to combine the two. It was not until a homeschool conference that I found my answer. I even found out evidence is often hidden from the public in science b/c it doesn't support evolution ideas... and the mainstream science movement can't tolerate it. I learned that dating results can vary greatly from lab to lab. You never hear this in mainstream classes.

 

Now, I can teach my children to understand multiple theories and they will have better tools to support creation than I was given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since I do not for one second believe that God is a trickster, I go with #1.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm sitting in church tonight and one of the verses in my pastor's sermon is Romans 11:33-36. I think to myself, "I really should post that on the undying 'Theology vs. Evolution WTM thread"! "No", I say to myself, "we should keep on topic". "On the other hand there are all sorts of tangents already!"

 

Then I come here at 10:30 p.m. and see this. And I just have to say, "I AGREE" God is most certainly NOT a "trickster!"

 

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgments,

and his paths beyond tracing out!

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?â€

“Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay him?â€

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For those seeking some historical perspective on this subject, may I suggest Edward Larson's Teaching Company course, Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy. Those who are interested in the history of science as well as social ideas may be as intrigued as I was by the course. You can read more here and, of course, check your public library to see if it is readily available.

 

I can second this. It's an excellent course and Larson manages to present the whole matter very respectfully. I think people from all sides of the issues could get a lot of of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I'm sitting in church tonight and one of the verses in my pastor's sermon is Romans 11:33-36. I think to myself, "I really should post that on the undying 'Theology vs. Evolution WTM thread"! "No", I say to myself, "we should keep on topic". "On the other hand there are all sorts of tangents already!"

 

Then I come here at 10:30 p.m. and see this. And I just have to say, "I AGREE" God is most certainly NOT a "trickster!"

 

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgments,

and his paths beyond tracing out!

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counselor?â€

“Who has ever given to God,

that God should repay him?â€

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

 

:001_smile: I'm glad you posted it. What a beautiful verse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still waiting for my copy of Dawkins' latest to arrive so I'm not sure how it is but I suspect this will be very good in terms of having up to date evidence, clearly explained. I linked to it somewhere above but here it is again:

The Greatest Show on Earth - the Evidence for Evolution Dawkins is very much against religion so that bias is strong in his other books and I do think some people stop reading & hearing what he has to say.....

 

In the first chapter, he says:

 

This is a book abut the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an anti-religious book. I've done that, it's another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again.
I was happy to read that, because that makes it accessible to a wide audience. I'm enjoying it so far, but haven't read enough to give a sound review. Just enough to know that I will be recommending it to friends and family!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in a word, everywhere. It's in DNA. It's in the fossil record. It's in biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, so on and so forth. It is all around us.

 

 

common DNA doesn't *prove* descent. It proves a relationship, but it doesn't prove evolution. It CAN prove descent, but we don't have that sort of proof. yet. :D

 

ID proponents use the very same statement to support that an intelligent designer used the same methods to create everything. :)

 

 

There are fossil hominids all over the place. Here's a list of prominent fossils... just to show you the scope. This list goes on for quite a bit longer after the link. To say there aren't any is a creationist fabrication. Please don't fall for it.

 

lining up fossils in chronological order and showing there's some sort of "relationship" doesn't prove descent or evolution. It merely proves that those types of hominids existed and that we can show a relationship [which we can see now in existing creatures.]

 

where's the proof of *descent*?

 

The evidence for evolution is so compelling, so convincing, so complete, and so undisputed that I have to believe either: 1. evolution is a simple and beautiful truth about this universe that God created, a force that He put into play, much like gravity or the electromagnetic force, etc.. or 2. that God created the world in six days about 10,000 years ago in such a way as to lead us to conclude that the earth is over 4 billion years old when it really isn't and that life evolves when it really doesn't.

 

Since I do not for one second believe that God is a trickster, I go with #1.

 

and I have #3: since we have no compelling proof of actual descent, then there's an answer we may not have uncovered yet. And I simply don't know what it is yet.

 

God is not a trickster, no matter HOW we try to interpret scripture.

If He created Adam [or any man/kind] as an adult, then at one hour old that man would appear to be.....20? 30? How old would Adam appear to be at 2 hours old? Just because we may claim that God is trying to "trick" us does not make it so. If indeed we have a "young earth" and he created the earth in a mature state, then of course it would appear to be even older. Does this make God a trickster? absolutely not.

 

I don't necessarily subscribe to a YE philosophy, but neither do I discount it.

{{and Phred --I'm still working on my response to your post above :) }}

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have exactly that. I honestly don't know what some who demand "missing links" or intermediate species expect. What else is Homo habilus? Homo ergaster? Homo heidelbergensis

 

You've made a prediction about what scientists would find if evolution were a reasonable theory and that's exactly what science has found.

 

those aren't proof of *descent* -- we want PROOF of *descent*.

 

Simple, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What sort of thing would you consider to be proof of descent?

 

good question:

more than what we have now, that's for sure.

 

we need more than just showing a relationship: we have proof that creatures can exist alongside each other for millions of years w/o evolving. Show me something that conclusively proves later fossil B wasn't living alongside early fossil A instead of having evolved from it.

 

But then we get into proving a negative, which is impossible. So I remain open to the fact that we may have our evolution/descent charts completely wrong and that evolution may in fact not BE a FACT.

 

again: i'm not saying that i don't think descent is UNlikely, just that at this point, we don't have enough fact to PROVE historical evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peek, if we were to follow your line of reasoning we'd have to stare at the moon for a month without blinking to determine that it truly orbited the earth. We can see that it goes around the earth by taking in that it starts at one point and ends up back there after a month. We don't need to stare at it to know it doesn't go whipping off around the solar system randomly. The same is true of the fossil record. We don't need every organism that's ever been alive to know that they started at one point and ended at another. Common descent implies a pattern of gradual change and diversification throughout time. The hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been discovered are consistent with this pattern.

 

More to the point, they are inconsistent with any other pattern. They are certainly inconsistent with a pattern of all life having been created at one point and staying as it was created forever.

 

Those of you who have claimed to have found creationism because of the "evidence" let me ask this... is there any one of you who found creationism before you found the Bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
good question:

more than what we have now, that's for sure.

 

we need more than just showing a relationship: we have proof that creatures can exist alongside each other for millions of years w/o evolving. Show me something that conclusively proves later fossil B wasn't living alongside early fossil A instead of having evolved from it.

 

But then we get into proving a negative, which is impossible. So I remain open to the fact that we may have our evolution/descent charts completely wrong and that evolution may in fact not BE a FACT.

 

again: i'm not saying that i don't think descent is UNlikely, just that at this point, we don't have enough fact to PROVE historical evolution.

Peek, both may be true. An organism may evolve from part of a population while another part of that population still exists.

 

Your want a standard of proof that can never be provided. If you can see all the mechanisms of evolution shown to you. If you can see fossil evidence of the progression of organisms... if you can see that the organisms represented by the fossils are no longer with us... then Peek...

 

Where did they go if they didn't evolve into something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
common DNA doesn't *prove* descent. It proves a relationship, but it doesn't prove evolution. It CAN prove descent, but we don't have that sort of proof. yet. :D

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Peek. Of course proving a genetic relationship proves descent because reproduction is the only method of transferring genes from one organism to another. I can't walk up to somebody and zap them and transform their genetic makeup into something that resembles my own. The only way I have of transferring genetic material is by reproduction. Therefore if you test the DNA of my child you can prove she descended from me, and if you test the DNA of my brothers, you can prove common descent in that we share a parent, well two parents actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peek, if we were to follow your line of reasoning we'd have to stare at the moon for a month without blinking to determine that it truly orbited the earth. We can see that it goes around the earth by taking in that it starts at one point and ends up back there after a month. We don't need to stare at it to know it doesn't go whipping off around the solar system randomly. The same is true of the fossil record. We don't need every organism that's ever been alive to know that they started at one point and ended at another. Common descent implies a pattern of gradual change and diversification throughout time. The hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been discovered are consistent with this pattern.

 

More to the point, they are inconsistent with any other pattern. They are certainly inconsistent with a pattern of all life having been created at one point and staying as it was created forever.

 

Those of you who have claimed to have found creationism because of the "evidence" let me ask this... is there any one of you who found creationism before you found the Bible?

 

Phred, you have a very difficult time leaving religion out of a series of scientific questioning when it comes to discussions. i have found that our discussions are more productive if you stick to the topic and stop inserting religion into everything.

 

My question is not one of religion, but of direct historical observations.

 

The key word in your statement above is IMPLIES.

 

We *can* directly observe the moon and *verify* its path. Yes --but until we were able to do that we couldn't state *for a fact* the orbit of the moon.

that's where the THEORY comes in. Same w/ gravity and other generally-accepted-as-fact scientific principles.

 

I agree that it implies that pattern, but we still have no irrefutable PROOF that it did happen as we claim. Lining up the fossils makes sense, but it still might be WRONG. I'm sure as our technology increases and new evidence presents itself we'll re-arrange the fossil record more accurately if needed.

 

THAT's where I leave the die-hard proponents of the ToE: i like the theory, i teach the theory, I will make sure my children KNOW the ToE, but we don't teach that it is irrefutable FACT. We simply don't know.

 

We DO know that there are lots of species that did remain virtually [not completely] unchanged for millions of years, so it's not "certainly inconsistent" to assume that other life forms might have done the same.

 

I will not be surprised to see us eventually gather so much evidence that we DO have irrefutable *proof* of evolution and descent. But we don't have that now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Peek. Of course proving a genetic relationship proves descent because reproduction is the only method of transferring genes from one organism to another. I can't walk up to somebody and zap them and transform their genetic makeup into something that resembles my own. The only way I have of transferring genetic material is by reproduction. Therefore if you test the DNA of my child you can prove she descended from me, and if you test the DNA of my brothers, you can prove common descent in that we share a parent, well two parents actually.

 

 

except we have common dna in creatures that haven't actually descended from each other.

 

which is how we can prove paternity: common dna doesn't prove descent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peek, both may be true. An organism may evolve from part of a population while another part of that population still exists.

 

Your want a standard of proof that can never be provided. If you can see all the mechanisms of evolution shown to you. If you can see fossil evidence of the progression of organisms... if you can see that the organisms represented by the fossils are no longer with us... then Peek...

 

Where did they go if they didn't evolve into something else?

 

good question. I'd like to see some scientific proposals that take those questions into account instead of immediately assuming that anything outside the ToE is some ID/creationist nutjob that needs to be hammered down a few notches ;)

 

and we still have the possibility that fossil B didn't evolve *at all* from fossil A, period.

again: it may certainly be possible, but we don't have proof of descent.

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

×
×
  • Create New...