Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

msjones

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

Recommended Posts

We teach evolution here and do not touch on creationism much because evolution, to us,makes the most logical sense. We are non-believers so an ID theory does not appeal to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yet there should be a new form of snake appearing every year to 18 months if we can get from one species to 2,900 in a few thousand years. Your hypothesis is actually accelerating evolution.
This statement implies that evolution is the only way that speciation can occur. I will contend that evolution is NOT the engine of speciation, but instead it is due to natural selection working in different environments on an original genome for each animal "kind". Put one kind of animal containing a genome which contains genetic variability into multiple environments and you will end up with multiple species after a small number of generations. Mendel's genetics explains how this type of speciation can occur without any need to invoke some sort of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there is any such demand. I know many, many scientists with strong faith. I don't personally know of any that are creationists though. Any advanced study and practice of science is incompatible with a belief in young earth creation.

My bio professor in college was a court certified scientific expert. I believe he was a bacteriologist? Its been well over a decade, so I may have screwed that part up, lol. He was also a devout Catholic. I don't see how it needs to be an exclusive issue, believing in Creation and being a scientist.

Share this post


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.

No doubt many will receive a strong evolutionary indoctrination if they attend secular schools.

 

DD16 will likely study biochemistry in college and perhaps will do medicine or biomedical research following that. Some of the strongest evidence AGAINST evolution comes from the field of biochemistry, so I don't think she will become an evolutionist from studying this field. She has already taken a two-year home-study course from Cornell University on ornithology which was steeped in evolutionary indoctrination. Still, she does not believe in evolution. The scientific evidence is simply too strong against it. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put one kind of animal containing a genome which contains genetic variability into multiple environments and you will end up with multiple species after a small number of generations. Mendel's genetics explains how this type of speciation can occur without any need to invoke some sort of evolution.

 

Can you give any evidence for this claim, which is so startling that it would revolutionize biology if it were proven? A fossil, a scrap of evidence of any kind that could show that all these thousands of species appeared in a geological blink of an eye? Something in the genome, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt many will receive a strong evolutionary indoctrination if they attend secular schools.

 

Evolutionary education, you mean.

 

DD16 will likely study biochemistry in college and perhaps will do medicine or biomedical research following that. Some of the strongest evidence AGAINST evolution comes from the field of biochemistry, so I don't think she will become an evolutionist from studying this field.

 

If she progresses to the level of biomedical research, I would be dumbfounded if she could get anywhere without understanding how evolution works. The field simply can't function without a knowledge of modern science.

 

I hope you'll still accept her when this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Catholics are generally accepting of evolution, as they do not embrace bible literalism; they seem to believe the scientific accepted dates of the age of the universe, life on earth, and homo sapiens. They don't have an official position, but if humans did evolve, it was under the guidance of God. Pope John Paul II considers evolution a scientific fact. Pope Benedict XVI stated that evolution can coexist with faith.

 

I was brought up Catholic and (imo) very religious, but we didn't take the bible literally, and I remember studying the different geologic ages. Evolution wasn't brought up in school, but nor were we strictly taught that we were created in 7 days. My dad said recently some folks tried to push ID on the school, but they ignored them.

 

This may describe better their official views:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

Other helpful sites:

http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/2009/02/12/can-catholics-believe-in-evolution/ "Catholics can believe in a scientific, biological evolution. This does not contradict the teachings of the Church. In fact, it enhances the beauty of creation by revealing the depths of the wonders of God. It draws us closer to the Creator through His Creation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolutionary education, you mean.

 

 

 

If she progresses to the level of biomedical research, I would be dumbfounded if she could get anywhere without understanding how evolution works. The field simply can't function without a knowledge of modern science.

 

I hope you'll still accept her when this happens.

 

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give any evidence for this claim, which is so startling that it would revolutionize biology if it were proven? A fossil, a scrap of evidence of any kind that could show that all these thousands of species appeared in a geological blink of an eye? Something in the genome, perhaps?
Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of genetics" did an extensive amount of research in the 1800's and has explained how genes work in a population. Included in this is how genetic traits can be lost through certain combinations. Combine this idea with natural selection and it is easy to see how a particular "kind" of animal can be speciated given different environments. I believe this is the commonly-held view of how we came to have so many different dog species, even among evolutionists.

 

The point is that speciation following Noah's flood has NOTHING to do with evolution, as you have implied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do Catholics believe in literal creation?

I can't speak for *all* Catholics, but this gentleman did. He and his wife became good friends of mine and we talked a lot about religion, beliefs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since no one has observed new information (not duplicate, but NEW) being added to the genome of any species, ever

 

This statement is false. Read about Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment. It was really well covered in podcast #152 of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

 

I was a 6000 year creationist when younger. The more arguments I read about evolution, the more I believe that however God made animal life, evolution was involved (and that it took millions of years).

 

Also, after watching Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, I actually read all 700+ pages of Behe's testimony, and I don't believe him to be an honest debater. His "irriducible complexity" concept is bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is the commonly-held view of how we came to have so many different dog species, even among evolutionists.

 

There is only one species of dog in spite of intense breeding that has produced many morphologies. You could take an egg from a chihuaha and a sperm from a great dane and get a dog. You can't do this with a rattlesnake and a gopher snake. Or a deer mouse and a house mouse. Or a black rat and a Norwegian black rat. That's because these species have been separated for millions, not hundreds of years.

 

Even a donkey and a horse--two closely related species--produce a sterile offspring. This is why they are separate species while a chihuaha and a great dane are subspecies.

 

I'm trying to phrase this gently, but you don't seem to understand genetics very well, let alone evolution or speciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the notion that because you were educated at a secular institution you've been indoctrinated is inaccurate.

 

There's nothing wrong with secular schools. There are good and bad secular schools just as there are good and bad parochial schools. Indoctrination occurs in both types of institutions, just as real learning occurs in both types of institutions.

 

Many of the scientists who have contributed to the theory of evolution are religious folks. I don't think the dividing line between the two camps is based on whether you are religious or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am not Catholic, I went to an excellent Catholic school grades 7 to 12 and was always taught in line with current scientific beliefs, including evolution. This was in the 70s and 80s, though, so maybe the issue wasn't as loaded at the time.

 

I never thought there was much conflict between religion (in my case, Christianity) and accepting evolution. I read the Bible as a beautiful, spiritual allegory written by humans. This has never adversely affected my relationship with God. My family has been deeply involved in church my whole life; I attended religious school and camp. I wasn't aware of anyone who felt strongly about literal interpretation in my denomination.

 

I've kept meaning to post this separately, and maybe there's a better place to do this, but is there a term in between "secular" and "Creationist"? I gravitate to secular materials and homeschoolers because we seem to have a similar perspective, but I've noticed that some conservative Christians equate secular with atheist or anti-Christian. I'm not anti-Christian -- I am one -- but don't accept specified roles for women, for example, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, or believe exclusively Christians will be saved. Not trying to debate that -- and I accept those who having opposing beliefs, buy from their bookstores, have them as friends, etc. -- but I'm not sure what label to use when asking about curriculum, books, etc. Is it "secular or liberal Christian"? Though I'm happy with most resources from other religions as well, as long as they are not literalist or exclusivist. (I have done a lot of my own reading in Jewish and Buddhist thought, for example.)

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If she progresses to the level of biomedical research, I would be dumbfounded if she could get anywhere without understanding how evolution works.
Evolution does not exist. Therefore, no understanding of it is necessary in order to function.

 

If the neoDarwinist concept of punctuated equilibrium were true, then we should expect to see the following things:

 

- Individuals of one species should sometimes give birth to individuals of another, perhaps new, species. This is because, according to this theory, the mutations in the genes do not lead to gradual change, as Darwin's original theory predicted. Instead, these small changes are store up until a new species bursts onto the scene. This theory was proposed since the fossil record contains NO gradual transistions. Unfortunately, no evidence of punctuated equilibrium, other than the aforementioned lack of support for Darwin's theory, has ever been observed in operational science.

- The genomes of most creatures on the earth should contain partially- or fully-formed genomes of future species which will eventually be unleashed on the world scene. I realize that genetic engineering technology is somewhat limited today, but I do not recall that this has been the case.

 

Please understand that a theory such as neoDarwinism is simply a religious belief in that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the claims of the theory. If there is some, please offer it here.

 

If you would like to read the about the vast body of scientific evidence behind the idea of creation, Part I of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood is an excellent primer. The footnotes are the most fascinating part of this book (and they are longer than the book itself). If you are willing to give your faith a test, you may find a lot of things there that you had never considered before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RegGuheert, I think you need to do some heavy reading up. :) It is painfully evident from your posts that you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't know where to even start. Maybe The Panda's Thumb? Endless Forms Most Beautiful is another good one.

 

But these books probably presuppose a certain understanding of science. You might start with something like a subscription to National Geographic so you can pick up a little bit of lay material about the natural world, the fossil record, and geology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:

 

I don't know where to even start. Maybe The Panda's Thumb? Endless Forms Most Beautiful is another good one.

 

But these books probably presuppose a certain understanding of science. You might start with something like a subscription to National Geographic so you can pick up a little bit of lay material about the natural world, the fossil record, and geology.

Wow, that's incredibly insulting. Its one thing to disagree with someone, quite another to call them completely ignorant. I've yet to see Reg personally attack you, he's merely debating the subject at hand. Perhaps you should stick to the same, as per the rules of the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't call Red "completely ignorant", simply that a certain understanding of science would be helpful on a scientific thread. :) Many here have asked for more information on the topic, and I know I myself am happy to give them a start somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RegGuheert, I think you need to do some heavy reading up. :) It is painfully evident from your posts that you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

 

This was rude and uncalled for. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with his interpretation and quite another to say he has no idea what he is talking about. Personal attacks are not allowed on this board. Stick to the subject matter at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and I apologize to Reg, I have been trying very hard to be patient and considerate, lost my patience that time. I agree it was uncalled for. :grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be teaching my children about evolution for science and how I accept that as the best theory and we will only use science materials that reflect that but, on the flip side, I will tell them that many people believe in a young earth and a literal 7 day/Bible and we need to respect that and have an understanding of where they are coming from but we will not use creationist materials for science class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't avoid teaching evolutionary theory, because at some point my kids will be faced with people who believe it. We always use the term theory, because we don't believe it to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I grew up in a religious family, and have tons of online religious friends, so this whole debate, while fascinating, also rips me apart. I'm a very peaceful and friendly person.

 

The movie "Judgment Day - the Case Against Intelligent Design", made me cry. The journalist was a woman with a born-again father. Throughout the movie, they show snippets of her talking about him. Only toward the end, do they show her, near tears, how he was so scared that she would go to hell if she believed in evolution. A few days after the trial, her father died. Knowing that there are some people that belive their children will go to hell if they believe in evolution, has shown me a different side of this debate (powerful, emotional, and divisive), and I will try to approach it gently.

How horrible. Believing that my child would go to hell would be the worst thing that I can imagine. I am so glad that I have the hope that death and hades will be hurled into the lake of fire.-- Revelation 20:14

Share this post


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.

 

I fully agree with you that parents can (and should) pass on their beliefs to their children. It's part of who we - and they - are.

 

The rest is certainly not true in all cases. My parents are/were evolution believers - and non-believers of religion (for all practical purposes - agnostic at best). I went to a major secular university and majored in Physics. Since graduating I have switched from being a Theistic Evolution believer to a Creationist based on examination of the evidence and thoughts of what is the best conclusion based on the evidence.

 

I know of several others in the science field that agree to one degree or another (ID types to Creationist), but I don't know of any (personally) who will make it public in their workplace - only when talking among friends. It is one of them that suggested I look into the evidence and reasoning myself. It took me about 6 months (once I started) to change my mind.

 

Whenever I've seen polls, those not believing in ToE are gaining momentum - and it's not simply due to blind following (not in all cases anyway). They may not all be young earth... but ToE has some VERY serious flaws...

 

In any event, I won't criticize anyone on here because I know at different points in my life I FIRMLY believed different ways. I would have been a strong Theistic Evolution proponent not all that long ago... so I just can't criticize anyone that is there now - nor will I debate it on a thread. To me, people, if interested, need to research it themselves and come to their own conclusions. To do true research one needs to consider both sides - from the point of those believing in those sides - and from scientists involved in the study - not Joe Blow. Whether anyone wants to or not is up to them.

 

Even if they do - and come to different conclusions than I did - what does it matter to me? Nothing. To each our own. As for me and my house? My kids learn the pros and cons of both... so far, all agree that Creationism fits much better even if it also has questions that are not yet answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've kept meaning to post this separately, and maybe there's a better place to do this, but is there a term in between "secular" and "Creationist"? I gravitate to secular materials and homeschoolers because we seem to have a similar perspective, but I've noticed that some conservative Christians equate secular with atheist or anti-Christian. I'm not anti-Christian -- I am one --I'm not sure what label to use when asking about curriculum, books, etc. Is it "secular or liberal Christian"? Though I'm happy with most resources from other religions as well, as long as they are not literalist or exclusivist. (I have done a lot of my own reading in Jewish and Buddhist thought, for example.)

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

:iagree::confused:

 

I fully agree with you that parents can (and should) pass on their beliefs to their children. It's part of who we - and they - are.

 

The rest is certainly not true in all cases. My parents are/were evolution believers - and non-believers of religion (for all practical purposes - agnostic at best). I went to a major secular university and majored in Physics. Since graduating I have switched from being a Theistic Evolution believer to a Creationist based on examination of the evidence and thoughts of what is the best conclusion based on the evidence.

 

I know of several others in the science field that agree to one degree or another (ID types to Creationist), but I don't know of any (personally) who will make it public in their workplace - only when talking among friends. It is one of them that suggested I look into the evidence and reasoning myself. It took me about 6 months (once I started) to change my mind.

Thank you. I have been reading about individuals like yourself, who have careers in science and ultimately side with creation for years. Why I Believe the Bible—A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there is nothing incompatible with being a geologist, physicist or many other kinds of scientist and not be an evolutionary supporter. WHy would there be? They don't take biiology past high school except for maybe an intro course in college. Just like I don't expect the biologists to be well informed about various theories in physics, neither do I expect physicists to be spending much time on biological theories. My husband is a working PhD physicist and I can tell you since I was attending college with him, he never took any class in evolutionary biology. I did and was a deep skeptic because of the improbabilty of so many positive mutations in a short amount of time. Neither my husband nor I are young earth creationists. And actually, our religious beliefs are not dependent on our view of creation. Rather, since we are Christians, they are dependent on the Gospels. We have known quite a number of PhD scientists who were not evolutionists but you are right, they weren't eveolutionary biologists either or in fact, any kind of biologist.

 

The main way that scientific thinking affects our view of the world is that there is only a tuny bofdy of knowledge that humans have discovered and a tremendous amount we haven't. Furthermore, there will always be more to learn and discover as long as there are humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But these books probably presuppose a certain understanding of science.
Please, if you can, provide the best evidence you can for a documented case of punctuated equilibrium observed to occur in nature. If that is not possible, how about some type of documented proof that new information has been added to a genome (not by an intelligent actor, such as man). If you cannot, then my assertion that the belief in molecules-to-man evolution is simply a religious belief still stands.

 

So far, I've read the following fallacies in defense of molecules-to-man evolution:

 

Appeal to Authority: (Most, all, real scientists believe, etc.)

Appeal to ridicule: (see above.)

Ignoring a common cause: (Vestigial organs discussion typically fall in this category)

Red Herring: (Many generations of E. coli producing more E. coli is not proof of molecules to man evolution.)

Ad hominem: ('nuff said)

 

I've linked to an online book (the entire book and its footnotes). It's not short, but it does have extensive documentation. Most have never considered this side of the argument, and hence have only received indoctrination, not education. Please have a look and see if your "evidence" can hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've linked to an online book (the entire book and its footnotes).

It is online! Thank you. How exciting to dig in. I have many questions about how the flood would line up with archeological evidence and other sources of the history timeline. Is this included? If not, do you have a source for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dangerdad and Satori... thank you for your links as well. I fear I will never get through all of this, but I do love learning about the creation/evolution debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is online! Thank you. How exciting to dig in. I have many questions about how the flood would line up with archeological evidence and other sources of the history timeline. Is this included? If not, do you have a source for that?
Yes. In fact, this book by Walter Brown is mainly an exposition of his flood hypothesis. That is Part II of the book I linked. It is quite an interesting theory. However, I find Part I to be one of the best compendiums of scientific evidence for creation that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually there is nothing incompatible with being a geologist, physicist or many other kinds of scientist and not be an evolutionary supporter.

 

I'm not sure if you are responding to me or someone else, but I commented that being a scientist was incompatible with young earth creationism. I specifically said YEC, not creationism. My understanding is that YECs believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is incompatible with the teachings of physics, astronomy, geology and biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all the responses, but I believe evolution and faith go hand-in-hand. I believe the Bible contains a lot of symbolism - more of a "why" things happened as opposed to a "how", ykwim? - Especially the Old Testament. I do not believe in a "young earth". We have a foundation in Catholicism and the kids are taught evolution AND learn about the beliefs of many other religions. I want them to believe in what makes sense to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was rude and uncalled for. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with his interpretation and quite another to say he has no idea what he is talking about. Personal attacks are not allowed on this board. Stick to the subject matter at hand.

 

I didn't make a personal attack. But he had just expressed a basic confusion about the definition of the word species. How can you have a discussion about speciation without having this foundation? I thought that it would be best to start with an understanding of evolutionary theory before you start reading the young earth creationists and their counter arguments.

 

Similarly, why are he keeps harping on punctuated equilibrium. Even Gould called PE a minor wrinkle in evolutionary theory and often times hard to differentiate from gradualistic changes.

 

For example, let's say that intense selective pressure caused a primitive lion's canines to increase from three to ten centimeters over the course of 80,000 years, which is a blink in geological time. The end result is something that looks like a saber tooth tiger, which has a very different skull.

 

That tripling of tooth length took place over 40,000 generations for those lions, or an increase of .000175 centimeters per generation. Very gradual.

 

But the lifespan of the species is already twelve million years. If you have discovered ten representative fossils, you probably wouldn't find the intermediate fossil that occurred during 1/150 of the animal's lifespan, and if you did, it might be seen not as an intermediate form but either as a separate species or a within the normal tooth range for either the beginning or the ending species.

 

But again, evolution doesn't rise or fall on PE. It's a minor subset of the theory and at best, the ongoing attempts of some evolutionary biologists to refine the theory based on ongoing discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the OP here.

 

Very interesting reading all these replies. I attend a large, liberal Protestant church in Seattle and had never heard of Young Earth Creationism until very recently.

 

I'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution. I can't imagine a Christian claiming that a belief in evolution would be a ticket to hell.

 

I am not a Biblical literalist, so I don't see the conflict between faith and evolution.

 

For those of you who are Creationists/anti-evolution/pro-ID/Young Earthers -- (forgive me if I have not used the term of your choice) are you also Biblical literalists? My guess is that the 2 go together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've kept meaning to post this separately, and maybe there's a better place to do this, but is there a term in between "secular" and "Creationist"? I gravitate to secular materials and homeschoolers because we seem to have a similar perspective, but I've noticed that some conservative Christians equate secular with atheist or anti-Christian. I'm not anti-Christian -- I am one -- but don't accept specified roles for women, for example, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, or believe exclusively Christians will be saved. Not trying to debate that -- and I accept those who having opposing beliefs, buy from their bookstores, have them as friends, etc. -- but I'm not sure what label to use when asking about curriculum, books, etc. Is it "secular or liberal Christian"? Though I'm happy with most resources from other religions as well, as long as they are not literalist or exclusivist. (I have done a lot of my own reading in Jewish and Buddhist thought, for example.)

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

:iagree:Thank you for bringing this up and saying it so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things -- My thought about why "belief" in evolution is declining (I'm sorry for the quotes, it is just that I don't believe in it as much as find it the most logical explanation, as well as the accepted scientific explanation) is that it is skirted around so much today in schools etc. And I've been told by scientists it is the central organizing principle in biology, or some similar phrase, so I'm sad about that.

 

Which brings me to my second point -- great exhibit/museum for us secular/nonliteralist types in San Francisco at the Academy of Sciences. Totally addresses evolution, and global warming while they are at it! Very much recommended. (Other great science museum there is the Exploratorium.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure if you are responding to me or someone else, but I commented that being a scientist was incompatible with young earth creationism. I specifically said YEC, not creationism. My understanding is that YECs believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is incompatible with the teachings of physics, astronomy, geology and biology.
Your understanding is correct, and having young-earth creationist beliefs is NOT incompatible with any science. Yes, the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is different than popular teachings. Does this, in any way, prove that the world is older than 6000 years? There are many, many evidences that the world is young. In fact, most measures of the age of the earth indicate it is young. Here is a link to some evidence for a young earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teach both. There are intelligent people on both sides of the fence here (clearly there are more than 2 general opinions and I'm learning more about this every day - but you know what I mean). And as they grow older, will certainly build on both their knowledge and their exposure. I find the topic comes up naturally, especially when we visit museums, zoos and botanical gardens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't make a personal attack. But he had just expressed a basic confusion about the definition of the word species. How can you have a discussion about speciation without having this foundation?
The word 'species' is about as poorly defined as any term in science. Look around and you will see what I mean.
I thought that it would be best to start with an understanding of evolutionary theory before you start reading the young earth creationists and their counter arguments.
Why? Classification into kingdom/genus/species was originally done by a creationist, so what does this have to do with evolution theory?
Similarly, why are he keeps harping on punctuated equilibrium. Even Gould called PE a minor wrinkle in evolutionary theory and often times hard to differentiate from gradualistic changes.
If that is Gould's view, then punctuated equilibrium has no better chance of explaining the fossil record than did classical Darwinianism. So are you confessing that NEITHER theory even attempts to match the major body of historical evidence that exists?
For example, let's say that intense selective pressure caused a primitive lion's canines to increase from three to ten centimeters over the course of 80,000 years, which is a blink in geological time. The end result is something that looks like a saber tooth tiger, which has a very different skull.

 

That tripling of tooth length took place over 40,000 generations for those lions, or an increase of .000175 centimeters per generation. Very gradual.

 

But the lifespan of the species is already twelve million years. If you have discovered ten representative fossils, you probably wouldn't find the intermediate fossil that occurred during 1/150 of the animal's lifespan, and if you did, it might be seen not as an intermediate form but either as a separate species or a within the normal tooth range for either the beginning or the ending species.

 

But again, evolution doesn't rise or fall on PE. It's a minor subset of the theory and at best, the ongoing attempts of some evolutionary biologists to refine the theory based on ongoing discoveries.

As usual, you give an example of a minor change in the length of a tooth, which could easily be fully explained by programming found in the original DNA. Where did the programming for how to build the tooth in the first place come from? I've read and seen many evolutionary theories. They are purely the product of active imaginations without the slightest shred of evidence. How can the so-called scientific body heap theory upon theory without ever bothering to provide evidence for any of them? The simple answer is that there is a religious attachment to the belief in evolution. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you who are Creationists/anti-evolution/pro-ID/Young Earthers -- (forgive me if I have not used the term of your choice) are you also Biblical literalists? My guess is that the 2 go together.
Yes, I am now, and I agree that they do tend to go together. As others here, I used to believe in theistic evolution. However, I've found the scientific arguments supporting evolution to be lacking (missing in action is probably more accurate).

 

One question I often ask those believing in theistic evolution is whether or not you believe that physical death came to the earth as a result of Adam's sin (some do and some don't). If you do, then the second question is how to you explain the fossil record if there was no death before then. If you don't then there is no obvious contradiction that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The simple answer is that there is a religious attachment to the belief in evolution. Nothing more.

 

Why would I have a religious attachment to evolution? I'm not religiously attached to the theory of gravity, or to the theory of relativity, or to germ theory. I don't follow a strict interpretation of a book written by thousands of years ago about one tribe's god, and if some other theory had a better explanation about the origins of the earth, it wouldn't change my faith one way or another.

 

And frankly, I don't understand why Bible believers are so attached to young earth creationism anyway. The bible also said the earth was flat, that there was some physical object called the firmament that held the stars in place, that you could make the sun stand still without destroying the earth. Nobody believes this stuff anymore and it hasn't destroyed their faith.

 

Why not accept the scientific consensus about the age of the earth and the origin of life? You can still tell yourselves stories about who is guiding those developments. Really, why is evolution and the ancient age of the universe the hill upon which some Christians are willing to make their last stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't exclude anything purposely from Diva's education, so I don't see why I'd start now. Being Christian to *me* doesn't equal being ignorant. Always rather amazes me when that assumption is made.

 

yeah...similar to the counter assumption of "atheists have no moral grounding."

:lol:

 

 

 

We discuss it, look at it from many different vantage points, and will continue to do so through out her education. Its simply a part of a topic. No great importance, really, in that I don't highlight it as being any more weighty than any other science theory. Its simply what some believe *might* have occurred. *shrug* Not teaching it, to me, would lend it far more importance than it has, by implicating that its so potentially shattering to our faith that it couldn't be taught or discussed. Not even close :lol:

 

 

:iagree:

 

I am a Christian who does believe the Bible literally.

HOWEVER, I also understand that "literally" does not mean we ignore explanations of literary devices. Like when the Bible says "a day is as a thousand years" I know that as does not necessarily mean "a day is exactly a thousand years." The point is that DAY according to God is a concept we have little grasp of.

and when Christ tells sinners to cut off their hand or pluck out their eye, He doesn't mean for them to do it: He spoke in parables to explain points.

 

As to evolution? THE Theory? Satori mentioned it best: our evidence points to evolution, just as the Bible points to a 7-day creation period.

I'm convinced that both could be correct.

Or as Phred so ...affectionately...called it, i subscribe to the Goddidit principle: I'm game for any explanation of HOW God did it. "Let 'er rip!" is perfectly acceptable to me, as is a 6000 year old earth. :)

 

But we will be covering evolution in depth this year, so i appreciate Satori's [and others'] links to books and helpful websites.

 

The only thing I would add is that there HAVE been instances where biologists refuse to adhere to the ToE and have been blackballed [there was a link in another thread....].

So yes, YE creationism is incompatible scienTISTS [not science], but only because the scientists "in charge" have already decided the outcome of any debate. It's remarkably akin to what the church did to secular science, but now the shoe is on the other foot. THAT I'm not impressed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I would add is that there HAVE been instances where biologists refuse to adhere to the ToE and have been blackballed [there was a link in another thread....].

 

If I ran a university biology department, I would not hire a creationist and I would suggest the termination of anyone who taught creationist "science," for the same reasons that I would oppose a math teacher who taught that 2 + 2 = 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The simple answer is that there is a religious attachment to the belief in evolution. Nothing more.

 

I am not religiously attached to evolution, just as I'm not "religiously attached" to the germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, etc... or anything for that matter. But I know who is most definitely "religiously attached" to creationism. ;)

 

I mentioned before the religious Flat Earth people and there are still some left in the world. (3500 at least a few years ago.) You may think that hard to believe, just as I find it equally hard to believe of many things that have been stated here. :)

 

This time around, the theory of evolution threatens bible literalists more than the flat earth and geocentrism beliefs. You know why.

 

The church once condemned Galileo (for saying the earth was not the center of the universe), but will not make the same mistake again with Darwin. Coincidentally, this year the Vatican has sponsored a week long conference to explore a possible relationship between Catholicism and evolution, to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. They also do not regard Intelligent Design as a science. I think this will heighten people's awareness and cause evolution to more generally accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We call evolution a theory -- because that is what it is.

 

We study the basics of evolutionary theory, because one hardly can have a solid liberal arts education with basic knowledge of so influential a theory. I believe that one cannot effectively oppose something of which one knows nothing ! Of equal practicality, all college science courses will adhere to this theory, so background knowledge is needed by students.

 

Discussing evolution's flaws and appealing elements is, frankly, very difficult for Orthodox Christians. We accept micro-evolution, and reject macro-evolution. We cannot use the anti-evolution books on the market, because they reflect Protestant thoughts about the Bible, thoughts which are not our beliefs. The whole topic is a pain in the neck, as a result !

 

Pretty much the only usable documents for us are The Hexameron, by St. Basil the Great, and an unfinished work written by Fr. Seraphim Rose (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man).

 

P.S. Somebody enquired whether rejecting evolutionary theory entailed being a "Biblical literalist". It does not. Biblical literalism is alien to Orthodoxy, as are all forms of "personal interpretations" of the holy texts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I ran a university biology department, I would not hire a creationist and I would suggest the termination of anyone who taught creationist "science," for the same reasons that I would oppose a math teacher who taught that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Yes.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...