Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[JFK_Lib]

Prof Collins is a brave man, and koodos to him.

Still, he should not so quickly dismiss all of ID as merely 'God of the Gaps' type knee-jerk.

There are still many gaps to our scientific knowlege and many gaps that have been 'filled' still fall into the miraculous category (IMO) despite science slapping a name onto it. The Big Bang for instance had matter/energy moving at faster-than-light speeds for a while shortly after everything in the cosmos came into existance from nothing within a milisecond. How is that NOT miraculous? How does scinece defining and labeling it rob it of its exemplifying Gods power?

Evolution is the same thing. It shows how finely tuned the entire universe is toward the existance of life, and has been from its inception.

That design speaks far more persuasively to me than some trivial reduction to 'God did it.' That isnt sciencel it is a slogan.

Science needs more than slogans.

[carlr]

I think I just gave them.
We all have our beliefs and I don`t wish to anger or offend anyone.
Any time I have discussed evolution with someone they have to inevitably admit that they don`t know all the process that evolution has taken, but they still believe it to be true and all will be discovered someday.
That is fine and I can claim no more in believing in creation.I can not irrefutably prove that creation is the truth.

I do not know where you stand as such but I am satisfied in a faith in creation.Most evolutionists feel the need to state that evolution is a proven fact which it is not.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Well said. Finally some common sense to all the nonsense posted on this thread.

With regards to Post 15, I was just about to ask what these 'massive amounts of evidence which science has accumulated over more than a century' were all about. There was a great story in Phillip E. Johnson's book 'Darwin on Trial' were some academic group of evolutionists (British I believe) were having a meeting and after a bunch of argumentative discussion, the director stood up and asked the question 'so can we name one thing for certain that we know about evolution and that we can all agree on?' The room went silent.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I am curious are you a Christian? If so why don't you believe in the literal translation of the bible?

[PatrickHenry]

I was just about to ask what these 'massive amounts of evidence which science has accumulated over more than a century' were all about.

We're here to help:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Observed Instances of Speciation. That's right ... observed!
Ring Species. We can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx: FAQS . A true transitional fossil
All About Archaeopteryx.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For those who claim there isn't any evidence.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I agree with you. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution. I place my faith in Intelligent Design (God).

[Doctor Stochastic]

Teaching complex numbers to Fundamentalists (inter alia) isn't easy either.

[forsnax5]

... then what is observed as random is actually "apparently random."

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that all random is apparently random. Random seems to be one of those concepts that are easy to understand (like "infinity" or "forever") but don't really exist. Even the randomness found in quantum theory disappears on a large enough scale.

[VadeRetro]

This is ludicrous.Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.In other word beneficial random mutation.

You have no clue what you are talking about. None. Natural selection has been thrown out? By whom? Duane Gish?

The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.

Militant ignorance.

Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.

It's been estimated that the average human is born with 2-3 unique mutations. We should all be sterile if you're right. You're wrong. There are tons of mutations floating around all the time. Some may be slightly harmful. Many are neutral. Some will be helpful. Only the immediately harmful are immediately weeded out. You don't have to be a genius to realize this.

Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.

The worst thing religious people seem to be able to say about evolution is that it's a religion. Funny that they should consider such to be an insult, but I guess it should be taken that way.

The people who think science is a religion also think science is argued with dishonest quoting and by attacking the founder of the "religion." We see that all the time and it's a hoot.

The situation is not reciprocal at all. All the attacks upon evolution by creationists are based upon absolute militant ignorance and religious horror of what evolution even says. By comparison, the people who defend science on these threads have become quite familiar with creationist literature. (Of course, it isn't very hard to absorb. The information content is virtually nil.)

We've seen everything you've got and it's all bogus. You don't even know what punctuated equilibrium is. One thing it definitely is not is Goldsmith's "hopeful monster" theory. Go to the back of the class.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

If the world evolved then it was set in motion by God and he planned it that way.

Problem solved.

[Dimensio]

This is ludicrous.Natural selection (Darwinism)has been thrown out because it requires more time than even the evolutionist time frame allows ie;to be correct the sun would be exhausted before the process would get us to where we are.

Oh dear. First attempt at presenting a fact and you present some common creationist nonsense. Still, I'm willing to entertain this amusing comment. Why would the sun be "exhausted" in the timeframe? Post facts to support your assertion.

This was supplanted by the "hopeful monster"theory to explain how evolution could make huge jumps in a short period of time.In other word beneficial random mutation.

Er, beneficial random mutation has always been a part of evolution theory. It wasn't something just recently posited.
The two laws of thermodynamics say that 1)new matter is not being created and 2)all matter is in a state of decay.

I'm not aware that thermodynamics covers "matter cannot be created or destroyed", but that's irrelevant because evolution does not propose that new matter is being created. I also know that it does not say "all matter is in a state of decay". Only someone who hasn't actually studied thermodynamics would think that it says such a thing (feel free to correct me by citing a scientific refrence that supports your side).

What this means is there is no scientific basis for a fish to grow claws,a reptile to grow hair or feathers.The gene that causes these traits would have to have appeared out of nothing and repeated the process again and again.

Appeared out of nothing? No. The gene appears as an imperfect copy of the gene of its parent(s), and that gene was an imperfect copy of the gene of its parent(s). Clearly you don't understand basic biology to assert that evolution claims genes coming about ex nhilo.

Mutations when occurring are almost always regressive in nature and are not beneficial to the original species.

Citation for this assertion? Word is that mutations are most commonly

They are also usually sterile so that the mutation stops with that individual whether animal or human.

1) Humans are animals.

2) Animals (including humans) are not the only organisms subject to mutation.

3) No, most mutations don't lead to sterility.

Evolution can no more be compared to gravity than a horse to a unicorn.

Evolution and gravity are both scientific theories. That you don't like this fact is immaterial.

Gravity is the name given to the force one mass exerts on another,call it anything you like but it can be demonstrated by anyone dropping a ball.

The theory of gravity would attempt to explain what causes this force. Thus far, that is less well understood than evolution.

Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever.

Now you're just demonstrating ignorance of current events in science. In addition to the evidence in the fossil record and DNA, evolution has been observed occuring.

Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God.That is why when challenged on the merits no rational argument is presented only assumptions and presumptions that require as much or more faith in the unseen or unprovable as intelligent creation.

Oh, geez, not another creationist who dishonestly asserts that all who accept evolution are atheists.

[Strategerist]

I also know that it does not say "all matter is in a state of decay".

Oh, it's the usual hilarious Creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, of course.

Any summer you can see amorphous and disorganized masses of clouds "spontaneously" organize themselves into hurricanes with perfectly circular eyes surrounded by spiral bands. They 1) aren't even alive and 2) aren't being directed by any higher intelligence to organize.

The earth isn't a closed system and gets a net energy input from the sun.

[RightWingNilla]

By comparison, the people who defend science on these threads have become quite familiar with creationist literature.

Hey who doesnt like to read comic books?

[VadeRetro]

Hey who doesnt like to read comic books?

For pure entertainment, I take a Jack Chick over a Stan Lee any day.

[Nebullis]

Among prominent evolutionary biologists (National Academy of Sciences members), 5.5% believe in a personal God and another 6.5% believe in a deist God. Evolution and religion are clearly not so much at odds as the fundamentalists like to claim. More here (pdf).

[Central Scrutiniser]

Teaching science to creationists?

Better to teach algebra to a donkey.

[Dimensio]

You gotta admit, Chick's literary works are much better at taking the reader to a place far removed from reality. By comparison, Stan Lee's creations seem not only credible, but likely.

[Dimensio]

I've seen two creationists already who are citing an article about Antony Flew accepting an intelligent entity that started up the universe that contains the line "He acceps Darwinian evolution" and claiming that he has rejected evolution. Clearly there are a number of creationists who don't care about reality. They've already decided that evolution == atheism, and any facts that would contradict their predetermined beliefs are completely ignored.

[general_re]

Hey, stranger. ;)

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

He finds a place for God in evolution by positing a "random designer" who harnesses the laws of nature he created. "What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Prof. Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals." God is not in there with a divine screwdriver and spare parts every time a new species or a wondrous biological structure appears.

Hear, hear! I will have to search out and read Prof. Colling's works. He says what I have been thinking for years. I myself stand amazed at the subtlety and omniscience of a God who can set these forces in motion and then stand back, content to let His forces roll along on their own until they produce His masterwork -- a creation who is self-aware and can (someday) hope to understand the universe on two levels -- the physical and the spiritual -- and who can love and revere the original Creator in the way He deserves.