For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

Great post!

It reminds me of what St. Augustine himself said:

I'm at a similar place. The two noisiest groups are the Young Earth Creationists and the New Atheists. I recently visited a college campus where I used to go to school and a young man was camped out on a sidewalk, preaching against evolution. He had a large poster showing "facts" like the earth may be less than 10k years old, geology proves there was a global flood, it tried to explain away fossils, all dinosaurs ate nothing but plants, and man and dinosaurs co-existed (kind of like in "The Flintstones" I guess). There was another poster with a picture of Darwin and it said something to the effect that Darwin was not a good scientist.

This preacher sounded angry. He attracted an audience and some mocked him. He said gems like, "you might be descended from a monkey, but I'm not!" He often said something to the effect that scientists want to disprove the Bible. And he had this look. Fanatics tend to have rather an angry, crazed look about them. He had two people passing out literature. I'm sure for at least some people in the audience they must have had the impression that Christianity is all about proving that the world is flat.

Ryukil said:

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.

Click to expand...

What if evidence arises to disprove evolution?

I don't 'believe' in evolution, instead I accept it based upon the evidence. If evidence was to arise which pointed to a different theory of how the diversity of life arose on the planet, then I would most likely accept that, based on the evidence. My belief in Christianity would remain largely untouched.

theFijian said:

I don't 'believe' in evolution, instead I accept it based upon the evidence. If evidence was to arise which pointed to a different theory of how the diversity of life arose on the planet, then I would most likely accept that, based on the evidence. My belief in Christianity would remain largely untouched.

Click to expand...

Are you sure contrary evidence would be recognized if it were found? Especially since no one is really looking for it.

Now, granted, if something BIG were discovered people might acknowledge it, but I expect it would be more subtle. I'll use Christianity as an example. If Jesus' burial remains were found, that would be a pretty big indicator Christianity is false (check out the Talpiot tomb). But it would be nearly impossible to prove the remains actually were Jesus. Just think how much controversy has swirled around deciding whether the remains of James were found. No one is ever going to accept that Talpiot is real - even unbelievers don't accept it.

But what about something more subtle. Suppose a letter from James to Mary was discovered in which James argues with his mother that Jesus is just perpetrating a hoax. Such a thing would fit with Christian belief (Mark 3:31-35, John 7:5). But it would also fit with the position of some unbelievers, who would claim it as proof that Jesus was a fraud. Both sides can fit the evidence into their view.

So, again, I suspect that any evidence which might suggest problems with evolution is more subtle than most people would expect. Everyone seems to be looking for the big kill.

Hi Resha, good to chat again!

Resha wrote-

Now, granted, if something BIG were discovered people might acknowledge it, but I expect it would be more subtle. I'll use Christianity as an example.

Click to expand...

But the two are very different. Christianity is based on the life of a single human being thousands of years ago. Practically no evidence is expected (it's pretty much untestable). Areas where there would be expected evidence would be those about worldview (evidence that Heaven was real, that only Christians went there, etc.). Even those are often untestable.

Evolution on the other hand (and to clarify, I think we are both talking about Universal Common Ancestry - UCA), is an idea with huge implications for nearly every branch of science, on every continent, in nearly every lab. That's enormously testable, by comparison.

So, again, I suspect that any evidence which might suggest problems with evolution is more subtle than most people would expect. Everyone seems to be looking for the big kill.

Click to expand...

While evidence "that might suggest problems" is certainly possible, an idea with the grand, sweeping impact of UCA leaves literally millions of areas were the evidence has to come up in a very specific way, otherwise it is powerful evidence against UCA. And literally millions of tests have been done in those areas.

For instance - lets look at just blood protein biochemistry. Blood proteins are not required by design considerations (say, upright walking), and are highly changeable due to protein shape. UCA predicts that for every single new species found, their blood proteins will be in accordance to the grand nested hierarchy of the Family Tree of common descent. If not for common descent, this would be extremely unlikely (practically impossible). Yet, of the thousands of new species found, their blood proteins fit just as expected.


OK, now you can do the same thing with hormone chemistry, immune tags, and so on.

OK, so much for biochemistry. You can do the same thing with the fossil record ("no rabbits will be found in cabrian strata"), etc, again giving thousands of easily falsifiable predictions for all of the millions of places where excavations are happening. The same for Genetics. The same for physiology. The same for pathology. and so on. The point is that UCA makes literally hundreds of millions of eminently testable predictions, thousands of which are tested every year.

and yet, all of them keep coming back in support of UCA., month after month, year after year.

Wow.

Are you sure contrary evidence would be recognized if it were found? Especially since no one is really looking for it.

Click to expand...

Um, no. There are millions of scientists in fields affected by UCA/evolution. In science, the best ticket to fame, fortune and TENURE is to find evidence against an established theory. In fact, the more well established or more famous the theory, the more valuable it is to find evidence against it. The rules are that you can't fabricate evidence, and your evidence has to be publically verifiable. Seems simply, but those make it hard.

That's why Einstein was so prominent - because he found exceptions to Newton's theories. What about Newton? he was so prominent because he found evidence against Aristotle's ideas. And so on, for practically any famous scientist (Curie, Faraday, Darwin, Millikan, you name it).

So the upshot is that there is an army of millions of scientists working hard to come up with any solid evidence against UCA/evolution. It's the exact opposite of "no one is really looking for it".

In Jesus-

Papias

Papias said:

But the two are very different.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry my example didn't work for you.

Papias said:

In science, the best ticket to fame, fortune and TENURE is to find evidence against an established theory.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you know of biologists intent on disproving evolution?

Resha wrote:

Are you saying you know of biologists intent on disproving evolution?

Click to expand...

Yes, though "intent on disproving" may not be best way to describe it.

What I'm saying is that the business of science is "testing current theories by trying to find evidence against them". That applies to biology as much as any other field of science.

The main way that "intent on disproving" is not the best descriptor is that it "disproving" evolution (UCA) is not widely seen as likely, for good reason.

Consider this comparison. Would an investor like to earn an average yearly return of 6,000 %? Of course she would. Is she doing everything she can to move her return in that direction (up)? Of course. Does she realistically think she'll ever make a yearly return of 6,000%? No. Should we say that she is "intent on making a yearly return of 6,000%"? I probably wouldn't phrase it that way, because a yearly return of 35% would be far from 6,000%, but would make her pretty happy anyway.

So that brings me back to what I had said:
So the upshot is that there is an army of millions of scientists working hard to come up with any solid evidence against UCA/evolution. It's the exact opposite of "no one is really looking for it".

This is correct. In the same way that there is an army of investors working hard to come up with anything that gives them higher returns. That the exact opposite of "no investor is really looking for higher returns".

It's the bread and butter of scientists to look for evidence against other theories, and the more supported they are, then the more valuable evidence against them is. But just like returns, the evidence has to be real.

If a biologist ran an experiment that even hinted that part of UCA was even just a little off, he would be elated and hurry to publish it. In fact, we've see that time and time again. Gould pushed hard to publish a lot of stuff in support of punc eek, which, though it wasn't evidence against UCA, did show that a purely gradualistic view was not always correct. Granted, this is only a slight tweak to Darwin's description, but even a slight tweak is worth a lot.

Similarly, the research into epigenetics has been trumpeted by those who found it because it shows that the a part of UCA theory (that phenotype is determined by genotype, which is affected by mutations). Granted, this is only a slight tweak to Darwin's description, but even a slight tweak is worth a lot.

Just as a slight tweak is worth a lot, a bigger tweak, (like, say, the discovery of the K-T asteroid impact) is huge deal, and that's why Alvarez was so eager to find it, back it up, and publish it. It's made his career. An even bigger change would have been even more huge. "Disproving evolution" is practically a holy grail by comparison.

So yes - biologists (including those I know) are intent on finding evidence that doesn't fit with our current model of evolution. They would love to find something that "disproves" evolution - they'd be more famous than Einstein, and they know it.

Blessings-

Papias

Papias said:

So yes - (#1) biologists (including those I know) are intent on finding evidence that doesn't fit with our current model of evolution. (#2) They would love to find something that "disproves" evolution - they'd be more famous than Einstein, and they know it.

Click to expand...

I added the numbers in bold for clarification, as I see those two statements as very different. I can believe #1, but I am skeptical of #2.

How many biologists participate in this forum? A survey along these lines (I have a few questions in mind) would be very interesting, but I wonder if there would be more participation here or in the forum open to non-believers.

Resha wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I added the numbers in bold for clarification, as I see those two statements as very different. I can believe #1, but I am skeptical of #2.

Click to expand...

I think that it's interesting that they can be seen as different. To me, #2 is simply a larger case of #1. (because enough evidence agaist a theory eventually "disproves" it.).

Perhaps this points to emotional attachement to one theory or another. The scientific ideal is to be dispassionate - to simply support whatever theory makes confirm predictions. To the degree that is followed, then there would be no reason to be skeptical of #2. With that in mind, I would guess that some biologists (who are people, after all), would deviate from that dispassion to a greater or lesser degree.

So perhaps some biologists would favor or disfavor evolution (UCA), and that might influence how much they would like to find evidence against it.

However - if that's a significant number, then it's quite possible that there are more who would like to see a different finding (than UCA) than those who would not like that. After all, millions of scientists are Christian, and even in the wider group of those with "no religion", further polling shows that they often do support ideas of "God".

Either way - from a realistic standpoint, I think that for most people, the huge rewards outweigh any slight philosphical leaning one way or another.

How many biologists participate in this forum? A survey along these lines (I have a few questions in mind) would be very interesting, but I wonder if there would be more participation here or in the forum open to non-believers.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find many in either place, and so a question like that wouldn't give useful survey data. Here, the numbers seem just too small, and even in the forum open to non-believers, I see a lot of fundamentalists and a lot of militant atheists (fighting each other).

In the wider society, it seems that many more people fall into a softer position. Either way, there are very few actual biologists (maybe ask sfs?). I know about a dozen biologists that I could ask when I see them - but even that is too small a number to draw any conclusions from.


Anyway, have a fun day-

Papias

Papias said:

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find many in either place, and so a question like that wouldn't give useful survey data.

Click to expand...

Maybe so.

I go with theistic evolution as well. Of course you know in this community you're going to face a lot of insults for daring to stand with Christ.

WanderingBloom said:

I go with theistic evolution as well. Of course you know in this community you're going to face a lot of insults for daring to stand with Christ.

Click to expand...

I think all Christians try to stand with Christ, regardless of their view of evolution and creationism.

Ryukil said:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Click to expand...

The problem is that would require them to accept that they Might be wrong in their interpretation. And any crack no matter how small some feel must be avoided at all cost.

Ryukil said:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field.

Click to expand...

Every one of them? Wow

1 Natural science
1.1 Physical science
1.1.1 Physics
1.1.2 Chemistry
1.2 Earth science
1.2.1 Ecology
1.2.1.1 Oceanography
1.2.1.2 Geology
1.2.1.3 Meteorology
1.3 Life science
1.3.1 Biology
1.3.1.1 Zoology
1.3.1.2 Human Biology
1.3.1.3 Botany
2 Social sciences
3 Formal sciences
3.1 Decision theory
3.2 Logic
3.3 Mathematics
3.4 Statistics
3.5 Systems theory
3.6 Theoretical computer science
4 Applied science

The realities of evolutionary change in our current world do
not require that we accept it as a source of Origins for life.

The Bible is also clear that this natural world is flawed and
destined to be replaced by it's Creator.

Ryukil said:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Click to expand...

It's only a big deal in America. In Europe theistic evolution is the view held by about 97% of Christians. Yes, fundamentalists will drive people away from Christianity, as at least some conservatives, such as Tim Keller, seem to realise.

lesliedellow said:

It's only a big deal in America. In Europe theistic evolution is the view held by about 97% of Christians. Yes, fundamentalists will drive people away from Christianity, as at least some conservatives, such as Tim Keller, seem to realise.

Click to expand...

I've been posting in a thread in which someone accused me of holding the beliefs I do so that I could "hold my head high as a Christian." This, of course, is a totally foreign concept to me since my part of the U.S. doesn't work that way. It's probably a pretty strange-sounding accusation to you too. But it was a natural thing for him to think because presumably that's how things work where he lives. He's a respected member of his congregation and that gives him social standing.

In large parts of the U.S. your social identity is tied up in which church you attend. There's a lot of xenophobia, and homogeneity of belief is crucial to bolstering "our church" versus "that other church." The "other church" is likely backsliding and unfaithful in some crucial way. It sometimes becomes a race to the bottom of, "who can believe the weirdest thing," and people call it unwavering faith, but really it's just tribalism with Christian decor and science is often a casualty.

Ryukil said:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Click to expand...

It's been distressing and frustrating to me to read through some of the posts on here radiating with anguish that are written by sincere young Christians who feel like they are in a tug of war between their faith and science. I want to simply say - drop the rope. There is no need for conflict. >.< Science can enable us to see the glory of God's magnificently complex and sublime creations, and it's a shame for outdated theology to cause blinders and limitations. I expressed some of my thoughts on it, and my deep gratitude for my parents never once making evolution or other aspect of science an impediment for me in this post the other day:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7862120-3/#post67200028

In my personal life I've only ever encountered a handful of Christians who believe in creationism and don't "believe" in evolution, so being on here has been unsettling. I see it as a systematic tilting at the windmills. I know it has been for several other Christians in their teens and 20s as well. I've since learned that one of the leading reasons young Christians are leaving their faith is because of the perceived feud between religion and science. I don't think those who propagate creationism and anti-evolutionism are aware of how destructive it is, both to faith and science education. Fortunately progress is being made. I read an article last week about how 70% of evangelical Christians believe religion and science are compatible. I'll try to add the link the next time I pop on here from my laptop where I've saved it.

You're right that it's anachronistic and completely unnecessary. It's also history repeating itself. Copernicus, Interrupted (Part 1) | The BioLogos Forum

I've heard creationists make the claim that "science changes all the time" and is thus not as dependable as the Bible, but the thing is, hermeneutics of the scriptures have also changed. Literalism has historically been problematic and caused fractures and rifts. Feuds about geocentricism persisted for centuries, but now are viewed as preposterously archaic. Creationists have claimed that Darwin compromised the foundation of the church, but the irony is that Darwin's contemporaries, those who actually knew him, bestowed upon him the tremendous honor of burying him literally in the foundation of the church. He's buried in Westminster Abbey near Isaac Newton. It's mainly been a bruised ego reaction to the ridicule during the Scopes Trial and a desire to push back from literalism that fueled the growth of creationism and evolution denial in the 20th century. It's unreal that we still deal with it today. It never ceases to stun me. But I do have hope that we will continue to move forward with reason in one hand and our faith in the other. I hope by the time I have grandchildren anti-evolution rhetoric will be regarded as geocentricism finally is now.

Ryukil said:

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is corroborated by research in every field. Scientists are basically unanimous these days. The only ones who won't give in, after 150 years, are the fundamentalists.

So for me, and many others I'm sure, it's either theistic evolution or we simply can not believe in Christianity.
This is why Christians should stop telling people they can't believe in evolution. Is a person's belief in evolution going to send them to Hell, as long as they believe that Jesus has saved them and they have accepted him? No! As long as the central belief is there, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about the origin of the earth. It's like whether a person believes in post-Trib or pre-Trib. Who the hell cares?

If Christians keep pushing the view that people can't believe in both Christianity and evolution, many potential Christians will be lost. They will be pushed away from the church as it becomes increasingly anachronistic. The will say, "I believe in evolution; of course I can't be a Christian." But that's only because Christians themselves have promoted this view. They have a damn grudge match with evolution. Christianity and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.

I believe in evolution, and in my view, if God was involved, it is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon. It is the work of a master artist, a supremely brilliant engineer. A single-celled organism gave way to all of the life we see on earth around us. It's amazing! Praise be to God for this glorious master work that shows us his incredible ingenuity.

Click to expand...

I, personally, came from the combination of two single cells
so cells are "not no small feat." I'm pretty complicated.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of evolution.