Skip to comments.Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]
Posted on 11/28/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
So you think the " Teletubbies" are gay too?
Falwell may have a big heart, but he could use a smaller mouth and an increased intellect.
Also, If the people in the middle ages had followed God's dietary and sanitary laws, the plague would have never spread causing the black death...
Wow, I certainly hope the M.D. isn't for Doctor of Medicine.
Back off, jack! No more than yours does on Creationism. The founding of this country was based upon reason. Reason that the Founding Fathers gleaned from the known science of the time, philosophy AND the Bible. However, I don't see that they confounded reason, science and religion in creating the Constitution for the expressed purpose of spreading of religious dogma by the state.
I serve God first.
Well "Bully" for you!
I agree that Adam did not start "aging" (physical deterioration towards death) until after the fall...But how do you know that Genesis only accounts for Adam's post-fall days and his mentioned age of 930 years is not inclusive of his pre-fall days as well?
Prior to the fall, in Genesis 1:14, the stars, sun, moon and etc. ("lights") were given for the marking of seasons, days and years.
Given this passage, it is obvious that time was being tracked prior to the fall. This would indicate, to me, that Adam's 930 years are inclusive of the pre-fall days...It is his accurate age from the sixth day until his death.
It is a subject of interpretation. If you want to argue on it, I will concede since to me it is of no importance.
That depends upon which "scientist" you talk to, now doesn't it. LOL
The above link is posted on my FR profile page, QUOTE: "...science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings. .." Methodological Naturalism ~ Alvin Plantinga
MORE: ".. Since science is not a system of thought deduced from first principles (as are traditional metaphysical systems), and that it deals precisely with objective experience, science is not, nor is any theory of science, a true metaphysical system. ...
However, the claim is sometimes, and more plausibly, made that evolutionary theory, along with some other scientific theories, functions as a kind of attitudinal metaphysical system [Ruse 1989] Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.
Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" [ Ruse 1992 ] Ruse, M: 1992. Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press. (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism") which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. .. ~ John S. Wilkins (talkorigins)
You Darwinist parrots are being made fun of HERE, because you're so predictible - always resorting to the squawk, "liar, liar pants on fire" when you're cornered. LOL
You base this on what?
"What exactly is the creationist position then"
There are two more-or-less cores to the creationist position:
(1) Multiple roots to the phylogenic tree (a polyphyletic tree instead of a monophyletic tree)
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
Your knee-jerk, nonsequitur response shows that you will need to re-read my post at #356 a little more slowly and carefully.
I'll take that as a continuing effort on you're part to change the subject. That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers. Sorry.
Doesn't say that he would....
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
If this be true, He did a mighty poor job!!!
HE came to die for our sins.
How about androgenous, then?
How about TV puppets. Why do they rate any coment from Falwell at all?
The subject was the quote you had from Darwin saying, Origin of man now solved. He who. understands baboon would do more. for metaphysics than Locke
You then said that evolution was a religion because metaphysics is about the supernatural. I proved this was not so; your OWN definition of metaphysical also did not speak of the supernatural. Here is the full definition from Answers.com
"met·a·phys·ics (mÄt'É-fÄz'Äks) pronunciation n. 1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. 2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law. 3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. 4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning." http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics
There is NOTHING there about the supernatural. Again, you have no answer as to why Darwin would bring up Locke.
"That tactic only works with the unstable and easily distracted, but not with critical thinkers."
How does this disqualify you? :)
How does this disqualify you? :)
Matchett's thinking has been critical for years ... on life support, actually.
Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")
Is this not a paradox? Indeed it is upon this issue that evolution falls flat for me and that blind adherence to evolution without a serious consideration of how man, a "so-called" evolutionary product, acts contrary to the dictates of nature(...how man in being his "natural" self actually works against nature) is actually a sign of faith...of the affected evolutionist acting as the "true believer"!
Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature.
Is this not a paradox?
IOW: What paradox?
(2) A massive flood wiped out most life several thousand years ago
A summary of some of the points of evidence is here.
Your link leads to this statement (among others):
The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me not to conclude that these events must be one and the same.How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?
No time for flood and recovery, with global migration of plants, animals, and people. No evidence in DNA of descent from only eight individuals.
Poor thin..g. Maybe I can be of HELP
I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot pole.
I didn't ask you about your orientation. I asked you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics.
"How does this statement reconcile archaeological sites in the western US which have pretty much continuous occupation during the 4,000-5,000 years ago time period during which most sources claim the flood occurred?"
(1) How were those dates determined? It is possible that the dating methods are faulty.
(2) It is possible that Creationist timelines are faulty.
Neither of these invalidates the massive evidence for catastrophe throughout the paleozoic and mesozoic.
If you look at the flatness of the layers in the grand canyon, and then think about how there is supposed to be 100 million years of erosion between many of the layers, and then you look at the top of the canyon where there are eroded channels, it makes one think that perhaps there aren't so many years between the layers. Perhaps none at all.
Another interesting site to look at is Berthault's paleohydraulogy site: http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
He showed that laminated sediments can be re-created in their original order in flowing water, thus showing that many laminations are the result of a physical sorting of particles, not a time sequence.
There are other paleohydraulic markers you can look at, many of which are outlined in Steve Austin's book about the Grand Canyon: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2005/10/grand-canyon-monument-to-catastrophe.html
C'mon! The thread was absurd before I got here.
" That's sick."
Yes, your penis jokes are sick. Now answer why Darwin mentioned Locke. Show us you understand the meaning of the Darwin quote you like to parade before us.
OOo,oooo, I know, I know! Call me! Call me!
He mentioned Locke because Locke was the father of empiricism!
Small part? Without it, what case would there be? Darwin's Finches?
""I asked you about your orientation I didn't ask you why did Darwin mention Locke when he was talking about metaphysics."
Just noted your lie about my quote. I said the opposite of this. For those who want to see how she lied, this is the link to my actual quote:
Do you think that lying will get you a better seat in Heaven?
So, according to Genesis, did plants come before man (Genesis 1:11-13 then Genesis 1:26,29)?
...or did man come before plants (Genesis 2:5-9)?
If you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you must believe that one of these passages are incorrect.
However, if you do not interpret Genesis literally, then you realize that these two passages were written by different authors, but they both make the SAME points: that God was the Creator and the Provider - God gave man dominion over the Earth - and that man was His greatest creation.
Matchett-PI will claim that there is nothing dishonest about her quoting of you.
"I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature. "
But you are speculating, not citing scientific evidence...how could evolution have created the concept of a "God", since it is argued scientifically that there is no evidence of one. Dogs don't worship at the altar of the unseen Bone....dolphins arguably as intelligent as man don't seem to worship at the altar of the Great Fish. It seems that the best evidence of man having evolved should have been his "lack" of the concept of guilt and morality!
The apostle Paul believe it or not throws evolutionists a bone when he stated "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" The power of Christianity lies in the power of the resurrection, if science could prove it did not happen then let Christianity be consigned to the dustbins of history....
Yet a certain shroud seems to point towards that extraordinary event, as well as the millions of changed lives who have felt His resurrection in their hearts
>The Bible is a very scientifically accurate test.
>Making such absurd claims impugns both science and the Bible.
The Bible was written in the pre-industrial and pre-scientific age, actually even before the Dark Ages. So with all due respect, its about time some ammendments were made. Even the consitution in just 230 years of existence has been ammended so many times..
Some direct quotes from your source:
For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then on the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life.
Statisticians, physicists, etc. have been pointing out and explaining constantly that you can't apply statistics retroactively like this, and biologists have been pointing out and explaining constantly that chemical processes are not equivalent to random assembly. Apparently, when a scientist tried to point out these tried and true annoying facts again (which creationists love to ignore), the response of the writer is
Why could this physicist not grasp such trivial logic? I strongly believe it was because of his tenacious commitment to atheism that he was willing to be dishonest in his science.
Better get some better sources than the Institute for Creation Research if you want to get an understanding of how science works - these people clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
Heck, most of the OT was written before the classical age.
But it doesn't need amendments because it's not about science or technology. It's about the unchanging and timeless truths of faith and morals.
I don't see how. Nature is not a person. She doesn't "mean" to do anything, nor does she act in her own interests. Nature is just matter and physical laws, and they produce what they produce.