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.

[Gumlegs]

Logic never wins out over belief.

When was the last time you treated something with N-rays?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

As you keep posting, metaphysics isn't about the supernatural. Darwin was talking epistemology. You are showing yourself to be incredibly ignorant of philosophy. Why do you suppose he was talking about Locke??

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Add my name to your list as well.

Creationist BUMP

[durasell]

Revised:

Logic never wins out over belief among the general population.


I actually had to look up N-rays. I'm not as well-versed in science history as I should be. So thanks for that. Interesting.

[Dimensio]

If it is not, where did the coumpounds necessary for evolution come from?

With respect to the theory of evolution, it doesn't matter. Evolution can occur regardless of the method by which the compounds involved came to exist.

[Quick1]

Logic never wins out over belief.

So, we still believe the Sun rotates around a flat Earth?

[Dimensio]

So a quote from before the theory of evolution was even formulated somehow proves something about the theory of evolution.

What can we expect from a known liar like you, though? When you don't have evidence for a claim you just make it up, including outright fabrication of quotes.

[RadioAstronomer]

actually, God is precise and accurate in all HE does. The Bible is a very scientifically accurate test. Moses knew that there was light in the universe (genesis Day one) BEFORE the sun and stars (genesis day 4 i believe).

I used to believe this as well until I really studied it against what we have discovered.

Modern science did not prove this until a few years ago with the COBE explorer.

Not true. The evidence for the Big Bang came long before COBE.

Having studied failry extensively with a working knoweldge of a lot of different scientific fields, there is nothing in Genesis that is scientifically inacurrate or implausible

Except the timeline and order is completely wrong in Genesis.

However, on the evolution side, don't get me started. It is a house of cards held together by a faith on facts much more tenuous than those that support Creation. Even leading evolutionists and Darwin himself admitted as much

This is codswallop. The evidence for evolution is HUGE.

Believing in evolution (macro evolution) is the ultimate Darwin award, I and I pray people don't have to find this out by meeting the Creator at judgement

Don't buy this one either. If there is a God, what I believe in or not believe in would be extremely small potatoes.

Actually I do not see any evidence for life after death personally.

[Dimensio]

Remember, this is someone who claimed that a demonstratably fabricated quote was honest.

[durasell]

Kind of an extreme example. Let's just say the evolutionists aren't going to win this fight.

[RadioAstronomer]

Gets old sometimes doesn't it. Sigh.

[Dimensio]

Ah but you see...there is no standard, only what we see, measure, taste, touch, and know to be repeatable...according to science;yet, the great Clintonius himself has set Webster at naught for having caused doubt as to what IS truly IS!

So you want to play semantic games and try and argume that there are no true "definitions", so anything can really be anything.

What a convoluted twisting of logic in an attempt to make a point that just isn't there.

[rootkidslim]

It is Natural Selection, the key word is selection. Selection is precisely not random. I think you may have confused "evolution as it is taught" with evolution as you imagine it.

[Quick1]

In what possible way was it extreme? It was the perfect example of logic and evidence winning over belief, something you said NEVER happens.

Does it depend on the meaning of never?

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Dimensio]

Still wrongly claiming that Antony Flew rejects the theory of evolution? Or perhaps you're still dishonestly claiming that you never said anything about him in the first place.

Why should anyone ever trust a known liar like yourself?

[VOA]

bump

[durasell]

My meaning of "never" is directly tied into a personal over use of hypberole and grand, sweeping generalizations. Chicks always dig that kind of thing...

[Dimensio]

The problem is, Evolution, because there is not proof for it, is a Belief itself, and therefore is NOT science! There is absolutely no proof for evolution whatsoever! That is why it is called the evolution THEORY!

If you don't understand what a "theory" is with respect to science and what is required for an explanation to be elevated to the level of "theory" then you have no credibility in this discussion. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. No, there is no airtight "proof" but there is no airtight "proof" of anything in science because science does not deal in "proofs".

[js1138]

Randomness goes against a lot that I believe in as a christian.

So you have done something special to be born who you are and not to have been a fetus at the time of the Flood?