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.

[mdmathis6]

Yes when in doubt...we must appeal to the religion of Webster, the omnipresent standard that the religious and the atheist both recognize.

[aruanan]

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.

This is simply not true. Signed, a Ph.D. in the biological sciences working in molecular neurobiology.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I go from the premise that the Bible is true and God did indeed create the world. I am comfortable to allow science do their thing, as long as a scientist does not have an agenda to disprove God created the world. So far, science seems to verify the Biblical account, at least for sequence, etc.

It also seems interesting that most physical evidence also supports an earth much younger than millions of years old.

[curiosity]

Okay, so by what standard do you want to judge whether evolution is a religion?

[Just mythoughts]

"When you take Genesis literally, you lose the message behind the meaning. And no, Evolution doesn't rule out God."


The message is???

Evolution does too rule out a Heavenly Creator, Christ is the evidence that evolution DID not happen.

[Mom MD]

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

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

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

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

[GBA]

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I think evolution is the tool God used to create humans and all living things.

[WKB]

For your consideration

[curiosity]

The message is???

There are many messages, among others: there is one God, He is the ultimate creator of all things, creation is mediated, the sun, stars, and moon are not gods, mankind fell, etc.

Evolution does too rule out a Heavenly Creator

How so?

Before you answer, let me pre-empt the usual YEC reply. Yes, it's true, I admit, that evolution contradicts a simplistic, strictly literal (and IMHO wrong-headed) reading of the Word of God. But this does not rule out a heavenly creator. There could be a creator who did it in a way that does not conform in the precise scientific details to the way it is described in Genesis.

Christ is the evidence that evolution DID not happen.

Why?

[curiosity]

The Bible is a very scientifically accurate test.

Making such absurd claims impugns both science and the Bible.

Where is the vault holding back the waters in the heavens? How could there be days before the sun was created?

We know that land animals came before birds, yet Gensis says birds came first.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Metaphysics has to do with the supernatural."

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.

[rache]

Well, if the Biblical account of Creation is not true, then please explain to me how and when the sun evolved!

[Mom MD]

Actually the vault holding the heavens back was most likely destroyed at the Flood. The protection from UV radiation afforded by the canopy of the water over the earth was probably one of the reasons ancient man lived approx 10 times longer than modern man.

THe longevity of the first men in the Bible abruptly decreased about the time of Noah.

Days are also a period of time, if it is cloudy and you cannot see the sun, it is still morning.

As far as the sequence of the appearance of life, if you believe the fossil record is complete and dating is accurate thats fine, but you'll get a lot of arguement from biologists that do not. Also I can do more research and get back to you, I'm getting ready to leave and would have to re-read the exact text again, something I can't do right now

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, much disease and loss of life would have been avoided

Sorry, I could go on a long time, but I hope this partially answers your arguements. You do not have to check your brain at the door to be a Christian, or to believe God didn't know what He was talking a bout when He wrote the instruction manal to the human life.

[curiosity]

Well, if the Biblical account of Creation is not true

IT IS TRUE! I'll even say it's history. It's just not written according to the post-enlightment rationalist standards of historical scholarship. As is true of all works in its genre, the details are not intended to be taken literally, and it contains many metaphors and symbols.

then please explain to me how and when the sun evolved!

Evolution is not a theory about the formation of stars.

[Mom MD]

And we all know what the post enlightenment standards of historical scholarship has done to the veracity of recent history!

Sorry, I'm not being nasty, just couldn't resist

Seriously, I think what you get out of textual scholarship is exactly the bias you brought to it.

[Just mythoughts]

"There are many messages, among others: there is one God, He is the ultimate creator of all things, creation is mediated, the sun, stars, and moon are not gods, mankind fell, etc."


Hmmmmm. Genesis means Beginning. First verse is a declaration, and no time associated with the declaration. However, planted in other places gives instruction about a time before flesh man.

Second verse begins with the word AND, describes an event wherein the earth became uninhabitable, and is described in other places within the Bible.

Third verse begin the description of what I call an environmental clean up following the destruction spoken of in verse two.

There are two days of creations of man in the flesh described as in Chapter Two we are told there was no man to till the Garden. Now if one takes what Peter tells us about the length of what a day is that means that from the time of the sixth day creation to the time the Adam was formed/created was a time span of at minimum a thousand years.

There is no other reason for IIPeter 3 the whole chapter, than to give instruction for Genesis as Peter describes what he call a world that WAS, and Peter is not talking about Noah, as he already discussed Noah in the previous chapter.

The Bible is the history of The Adam and his generations to the birth of Christ. The Adam is listed with his generations, genealogy is given.

The whole point of the Bible is pointed to Christ that means a plan and the plan does not allow evolution to just happen. Christ was to be the PERFECT last blood sacrifice required for the forgiveness of sin and as one can read throughout the ToE there is no perfection about evolution.

We are not told when the souls were created, yet we are told that the Adam was not alive until the breath of life, which means soul was breathed into his nostrils.

[Mom MD]

Actually star formation is tied directly to the theory of evolution. You need star formation and several cycles of supernova explosions to populate the universe with the comples molecules necessary for human life (If you belive evolution, all the molecules had to be in place in just the right conditions for life to start)

Of course, the experiments with initial conditions perfect done in the lab (something that could have never happened on a young earth) giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, produced nothing but a few molecules. Nothing complex. And even the production of those few molecules is in doubt.

[mlc9852]

Did God create humans separately?

[mlc9852]

I just will never believe the Bible isn't true. IMHO, if we throw out Genesis, we throw out whatever else someone doesn't agree with. Either it is true or it is a big lie. I believe it's true.

[Vaquero]

I believe you meant god is a Liar....not lair...but be that as it may...as I too have made many typo's over the years....

What did God tell you that would suggest he could lie..or on the other hand spoke with voracity.

You are obviously confusing God with the ramblings of a bunch of desert dwelling goat herders from the bronze age.

I recommend that you keep God as the spiritual entity as portrayed in various religious tomes, but reserve the right to question the voracity of the poor ignorant scribes that jotted down what you construe as history, but in reality is the rants and ravings of primitive frightened, superstitious ancient people.

Just my $0.02......