Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]

Chicago Tribune ^ | 27 November 2005 | Richard Colling

[PatrickHenry]

The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.

They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.

They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.

But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?

The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.

Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.

The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.

The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.

In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I think that is the problem - scientists start with an a priori worldview that says there is no God."

That's not true. They neither say that God does or doesn't exist. It's not a scientific question. There is no way to test the hypothesis of God's existence with science. Scientists start with methodological naturalism because that's a necessity.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I guess we dump all of these ... because none of them address Creation."

If they have to they will.

[beef]

"I understand they fear "Darwinism" as a tool of the left."


Creationism/ID are tools that are also used by the left, very effectively I might add, to discredit conservatives.

[VadeRetro]

There it is in black and white. The usual suspects will not listen.

[VadeRetro]

Seems pretty simple to me, you either believe that God created the word in six twenty four hour days or you believe God is a lair and the whole thing evolved in one way or another over a period of time ranging from eons (what ever they are0 to millions and even billions of years.

Science is about following the evidence. You would appear to be precluded from doing that. Your beliefs on the age of the Earth and the origin of species do not originate in the evidence, do not consider the evidence, and do not belong in science class.

[Oztrich Boy]

1Tim. 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith

If you insist on the literal meaning of Genesis, why do you reject the literal meaning of "called by a false name" in 1Tim. 6:20?

[VadeRetro]

A. It isn't totally "random" as most people use "random." Unguided, yes.

B. The universe is what it is, not what you wish it is.

[BushCountry]

Wrong, actually Darwin believed that God breathe life into the frist creatures in the evolutionary chain. Evolutionary theory is really only concerned with how life evolved after its origin. To this day no one can conclusively state, "here is how life began."

Darwin believe the explanation was "Divine Intervention" most of his life. He was explaining the "How" not the "Why."

His faith in God was unshaken during the development of his Natural Selection theories. It wasn't until he was 40 years old that he turn agnostic, however many believe he had a death bed conversion.

My faith in God is unshaken by Natural Selection theory too. There are too many holes in the Evolutionary Theory that need to plugged. Like, why did Man after hanging around the planet for 200,000 years suddenly develop a conscience and intelligence a mere 6,000 years ago?

GBA's comment is apt to my point.
I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I think evolution is the tool God used to create humans and all living things.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>You are an idiot!<<<

You are about as enlightening as Michael Moore.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin believe the explanation was "Divine Intervention" most of his life. He was explaining the "How" not the "Why."

He actually lost his faith almost at the same time he formulated his theory in the late 1830's. He was an agnostic for most of his adult life.

"It wasn't until he was 40 years old that he turn agnostic, however many believe he had a death bed conversion."

The story of his *conversion* was a lie spun a woman named Lady Hope who claimed to have been at his deathbed. She never met him. So much for the honesty of creationists.

"Like, why did Man after hanging around the planet for 200,000 years suddenly develop a conscience and intelligence a mere 6,000 years ago?"

He didn't; it evolved over millions of years.

[Matchett-PI]

"Metaphysics has to do with the supernatural." ~ Matchett-PI

"Wrong. Take some philosophy.." ~ curiosity

Metaphysics: the philosophical study of being and knowing

(Greek words meta = after/beyond and physics = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first principles" and "being" (ontology).

metaphysics (m t f z' ks) , branch of philosophy concerned with the ultimate nature of existence. It perpetuates the Metaphysics of Aristotle, a collection of treatises placed after the Physics [Gr. metaphysics=after physics] and treating what Aristotle called the First Philosophy. The principal area of metaphysical speculation is generally called ontology and is the study of the ultimate nature of being.

A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

The field in philosophy that studies ultimate questions, such as whether every event has a cause and what things are genuinely real.

http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics

"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - he who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." - Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838

[Dilbert56]

Evolution will mutate into something stronger or die out.

[Coyoteman]

What proof is there that evolution is not a RELIGION itself?

They don't pass the collection plate.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Which version of Genesis are you looking at? Because in the first account, Humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account, Adam was created, then the animals and then Eve.

[Matchett-PI]

Matchett-PI: "Metaphysics has to do with the supernatural."

CarolinaGuitarman: "Actually, it has to do with the nature of being. It's "the science of being qua being". It's been confused over the centuries with the supernatural and occult forces. That's why it's so ignorant of you to use that quote from Darwin's notebooks. You wanted it to mean something it doesn't."

You can run but you can't hide. :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529684/posts?page=112#112

[Matchett-PI]

"no thanks" ~ john_baldacci_is_a_commie

Fear of reality drives a lot of emotionally immature people.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Actually, if you notice there are two accounts of creation in the Bible. One is that humans were created together. The other is that Eve was created out of Adam's rib.

[durasell]

Ribs? Ribs? Did someone say ribs? I'll have a portion, please.

[Quick1]

That's fine if you believe that, you can believe whatever you want. Just don't try to pretend it can ever be science, unless you want to bring some sort of evidence in favor of your belief to the table.