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.

[Dimensio]

A the liberal mindset is a religious mindset that assumes fables and myths are all true despite scientific laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics

I stopped here. Anyone who brings up the Second Law of Thermodynamics discussion as some kind of evidence against evolution has just demonstrated that they are too ignorant to hold any credibility in the discussion and that they are just parroting old and debunked creationist lies that should have been discarded ages ago.

[BushCountry]

There are researchers and authors who have worked hard to prove and disprove any notion that he converted to Christianity and TruthOrFiction.com's conclusion is that when all is said and done, there is not enough good evidence that the story is true. We stop short of declaring it fiction, but regard it as not sufficiently proven.

[Coyoteman]

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!

Study these definitions and try again (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[BushCountry]

As I said there is no conclusive proof in either direction.

[Dimensio]

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

Creationist lie #324: all who accept evolution are atheists.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

He is not a Christian. He's a scientist who ornaments his devotion to his science-god with an ocassional thought of the real Creator.

If you look at creation demanding no thought of a Creator then you will never come up the a Christian view. Minus God's creative power, you do away with miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, a future where God creates a new heaven and a new earth and gives us new bodies, etc.

It takes more faith to be a theistic evolutionist than anything else because you have absolutely nothing to base your faith on. All of Christian theology begins in Genesis. Only those with no real understanding of the Bible could think it doesn't matter. They need to learn to be honest.

Interpreting the fossil record has everything to do with the premises you start with.

[Dimensio]

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

Uh, no. "B" does not follow "A" and "C" does not follow "A" and "B."

No one claimed as much. Those are the conclusions, not the summary of the argument. A B and C are all indepdented conclusions.

Let's actually see this "evidence," if it is so convincing. We constantly hear that it exists, but we never seem to get the privelege of eyeballing it ourselves.

It's not our fault that you don't examine the wealth of links, such as the ones that PatrickHenry provides.

[Dimensio]

As I said there is no conclusive proof in either direction.

Of course. When a creationist has no supporting evidence for his or her claim, it's still somehow not dishonest to present it as established fact.

[Chiapet]

For those who are interested, there are two additional articles on the topic in Sunday's Perspective section of the Tribune.

[Dimensio]

A B and C are all indepdented conclusions.

I think I'm going back to bed,

[tutstar]

Baptist Ping

If you believe the Bible can you believe evolution?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

And the next sentences from the paragraph you excerpted,

"The report about Darwin's change of heart comes from one person, Lady Hope, an energetic Nineteenth Century Christian, while many members of Darwin's family denied it and there is nothing from Darwin's friends, colleagues, his own statements or writings to substantiate it. If Darwin did experience something so dramatic as a conversion to Jesus Christ and a complete revision of the theory of evolution that characterized his life and work, there isn't a shred of evidence of it outside of the claims of Lady Hope."

Let's put it this way. Why would Darwin tell Lady Hope, who he didn't know from a hole in the wall, that he was now a Christian and he denied evolution, when he didn't tell his wife and children, nor his friends? His wife and daughters would have been THRILLED if it was true. That they all said it wasn't is positive evidence that it never happened. The whole Lady Hope story doesn't pass the smell test.

[john_baldacci_is_a_commie]

get your wife to slap you cheek.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If you believe the Bible can you believe evolution?

Nope. It is like placing the Creator under the constraints of His creation. All of Christian theology colapses under that premise. It makes the creation lord over the Creator. That's not Christian theology.

[john_baldacci_is_a_commie]

you go ahead in put yur faith in science I'll put my faith in the Creator.

[john_baldacci_is_a_commie]

and you are just a little bit number than moore. by the way, moore claims to believe in evolution too.

[Theophilus]

many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether

• God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Christians don't fear for God, they fear God.
• Humanism is in the business of eliminating Christian influence.
• Evolution is not science.

[john_baldacci_is_a_commie]

and fear of the truth drives many to beleive in evolution.

[longshadow]

1^720th placemarker

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

and fear of the truth drives many to beleive in evolution.

Exactly!