A discussion on Evolution, The Big Bang and Theology.

[coolname123]

K, so I know I'm new here and there's probably another thread here with very similar goals, But 500+ replies is a pretty daunting thread to try and catch up on… especially when the posts keep racking up every day. Since my last thread didn't really help clarify anything other than that some people still aren't too stoked about evolution, I thought I'd frame my question slightly differently.

The problem is, I don't just want to ask a question with a simple answer… I'm a discussion kind of guy and would love to have a discussion with anyone willing to talk through their ideas (as I firmly believe this is the best way to grow on our spiritual journey). So don't feel compelled to be limited by the scope of my question… it's more of a jump off point than anything.

Now Evolution, The Big Bang, and all those other theories that join together to explain the workings and mechanisms of our known universe are such beautiful ideas I find it baffling that people are still against them. When you hear ID supporters like Frank Turek talk about probabilities it just gets even more spectacular. I've always felt science drawing me closer to the notion of a God and have never understood the hatred directed towards it (still don't as no one really explained in any sort of detail the 'why' in my last thread).

So here's the jumping point… Why is it so important to believe in creationism? Why not just embrace Evolution in light of overwhelming evidence and alter your world view slightly like those who had to make the shift from an earth centered universe to what we know today... I mean do you really think you're going to hit the pearly gates, a perfect christian who believes in Evolution, to hear God say "Well, you did many good things in your life… helped many people and lived faithfully in a way that encouraged others to do the same…… But you though we shared ancestry with lesser animals, so off to hell you go!" That seems like a pretty vindictive God and not at all on par with the God that Christ spoke of.

I don't care if you want to talk about the bible and theology in relation to evolution, or why you don't agree with evolution (convince me I'm wrong, I love it when that happens). But that is where most of my confusion stems from, just to give you some frame of mind. So let the discussion begin!

 

[Awesome_Frog]

From my own understanding, its a position of fear and survival that keeps some individuals from excepting more up to date scientific theories about the working of biology, our universe, Geology, and chemistry.


Changing their position on how one interprets reality is a daunting task if the person already thinks they know hows it works. Many denominations demand that the Creation story in Genesis and the Flood Story be completely true and accurate. When Evolutionary Biology and Genetics shows that animals adapt and "evolve" to their surrounding, it messes up the order of creation. Same with how geology explains in its theories how the earth formed and how cosmology explains the age and nature of Space. Some people just wont allow themselves to accept anything that would significantly make them consider their position. When this happens Anger, Hate, and dishonesty tends to sprout up.



I believe most creationists/ ID people are just uninformed of the current theories and hypothesis and just follow their faith because it makes sense. I don't blame them and was one for a long time. The proponents though tend to be what I mentioned above. Angry, dishonest, and afraid.

 

[Resha Caner]

I've had this conversation many times, so I've actually gotten tired of the topic. But, for some reason, I continue to hope for something new ... always a possibility when a fresh face comes along.

So, get ready for a long conversation.

I mean do you really think you're going to hit the pearly gates, a perfect christian who believes in Evolution, to hear God say "Well, you did many good things in your life… helped many people and lived faithfully in a way that encouraged others to do the same…… But you though we shared ancestry with lesser animals, so off to hell you go!"

Salvation is by grace because of Christ's sacrifice. It has nothing to do with works. So, I fully expect there will be many in heaven who believed in evolution as well as a host of other fallacious beliefs ... rooting for the Yankees for example.

With that said, evolution is also a stumbling block for some. It can, for example, open the door to questioning scripture.

So here's the jumping point… Why is it so important to believe in creationism?

Based on what I said above, I suppose it's not as important to me as it might be to others. Also, my understanding of God's creative role in the world seems to be very different than most Christians.

With that said, there is a host of scientific, philosophical, and theological questions surrounding creation that I find interesting.

Why not just embrace Evolution in light of overwhelming evidence and alter your world view slightly like those who had to make the shift from an earth centered universe to what we know today.

I don't embrace it because I honestly don't find the case convincing.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

I don't embrace it because I honestly don't find the case convincing.

May I ask what you don't find convincing? As in, is it the mechanism of natural selection, Retro viruses, Phylogeny, genetics, homologous structures, Genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, etc.?

 

[coolname123]

I've had this conversation many times, so I've actually gotten tired of the topic. But, for some reason, I continue to hope for something new

To save time you could always let me know what is old so if I choose to tread those waters I can do it aware of past conversations. But I tend to be pretty unique in my views, partially because I'm still piecing them together so I haven't worked out all the kinks yet (but hey, that's all part of the developmental process)

Salvation is by grace because of Christ's sacrifice. It has nothing to do with works.

The book of James would disagree pretty hard with you there… that entire book essentially echo's the mantra "faith without works is dead"

So, I fully expect there will be many in heaven who believed in evolution as well as a host of other fallacious beliefs ... rooting for the Yankees for example.

So you believe in the golden ticket confession then… is that what I understand? All you got to do is utter the words "I believe" and you're in?

With that said, evolution is also a stumbling block for some. It can, for example, open the door to questioning scripture.

True, but that can also be a good thing… If I had never questioned the scripture I read and went to a secular university instead of making a conscious effort to study the texts and gain a better understanding of how and why they were written, I would have very easily lost my faith due to an uninformed perspective… The questions go both ways my friend.

And if the scripture was not taught as such a set in stone sort of thing, evolution may never have become that stumbling block for those as without the concrete understanding of "This is how it must be! or else" there's a bit of give for those who see problems to work through them instead of having an Ture or False choice to make with no multiple choice options.

Also, my understanding of God's creative role in the world seems to be very different than most Christians.

With that said, there is a host of scientific, philosophical, and theological questions surrounding creation that I find interesting.

Mine too, and Those questions are intensely fascinating to me as well (which is why I continue trying to spark these discussions is to better my knowledge and create a more complete understanding of things)

I don't embrace it because I honestly don't find the case convincing.

Precisely what is giving your hang ups? Because I've found most people I see that aren't convinced either don't understand the theory or don't understand how the scientific community actually functions.

 

[Resha Caner]

The book of James would disagree pretty hard with you there… that entire book essentially echo's the mantra "faith without works is dead"

This is a bit off topic. My only point was that evolution is not a litmus test. Still, since you brought it up, James must be read in context just like anything else. My statement was a paraphrase of Eph 2:8-9, which you'll need to explain if you think God keeps a list like St. Nick's naughty/nice tally. We don't pick the scripture we like and discard the rest. It all has to fit together. So, yes, James has a place, but not the one you give it. Consider John 15.

So you believe in the golden ticket confession then… is that what I understand? All you got to do is utter the words "I believe" and you're in?

No, I don't believe in the cheap grace that you make this out to be.

True, but that can also be a good thing… If I had never questioned the scripture I read and went to a secular university instead of making a conscious effort to study the texts and gain a better understanding of how and why they were written, I would have very easily lost my faith due to an uninformed perspective… The questions go both ways my friend.

I don't understand your defensiveness, friend.

I choose my words carefully, so note that I said some. I don't know you, and I don't know how God reached you. What some intend for evil, God can use for good (Gen 50:20). So sure, God could use your studies of evolution to grow your faith in some way. But it is also a stumbling block for some. Some have told me they lost their faith because they couldn't reconcile evolution with scripture.

Precisely what is giving your hang ups?

An interesting choice of words.

Because I've found most people I see that aren't convinced either don't understand the theory or don't understand how the scientific community actually functions.

I think I understand it quite well. If it helps to give you my background, I have an MSME along with a 20+ year career as well as a BA HIST with a focus on the history and philosophy of science.

It will probably take quite a bit of back and forth for you to understand why I don't find evolution convincing. It would also make it easier if you'd give me your definition of evolution so I know what is in scope.

But, a few things I can throw out to get us started are: the qualitative nature of the evolutionary model in comparison to the claimed explanatory power, the way in which that model (which is somewhat a singular claim about random past events) is inductively connected to all life, and the total lack of research related to falsification tests that match the broadness of the claim.

 

[coolname123]

which you'll need to explain if you think God keeps a list like St. Nick's naughty/nice tally

I don't think this necessarily… But I don't think those who go through the motions to be saved but change their lives in no way even when they were living terrible lives before may not be as set on the path to salvation as they believe. It's more of a if you becomes a Christian but then make no steps towards living a Christian lifestyle… have you really accepted Christ and his message into your heart? Or is this just your 'just in case' form of safety… One of those doesn't seem like the hypothetical person actually has accepted Jesus into his heart with anything more than the motion that they think is their golden ticket. So I think we're probably on the same page with what you call cheap grace… perhaps we just have different standards as to what legit grace is.

I don't understand your defensiveness, friend.

I wasn't trying to get defensive, just stating that the other side of the coin is true too… For all those who loose their faith to evolution, there are also those being drawn closer as they venture into the beautiful complexity of God's world.

Some have told me they lost their faith because they couldn't reconcile evolution with scripture.

I guess what I meant to say with this is that while evolution may have been the straw that broke the camels back, I'll bet that in most cases the internal conflict was not as clear cut as evolution or bible… Generally the struggle is much more complicated and when a breaking point needs to be determined, it's generally the last straw that does it.

An interesting choice of words.

What can I say, I'm a interesting guy.

It would also make it easier if you'd give me your definition of evolution so I know what is in scope

I see evolution simply as an attempt at explaining the diversity of life we see on this planet as well as how those species develop and change over time.

Though I will admit, your response is much more thought out than most I encounter. But since grammar and words have never been my strong suit (I can comprehend things, but the dyslexic in me has always struggled with the printed word) I'm gonna try and re-word it… tell me if I got the gist of it.
'The amount of information backing evolution doesn't fit the amount of credibility they are giving the theory, how the model of evolution makes connections to more than what if has direct evidence for, and falsification tests (that last one I know nothing about).'

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think those who go through the motions to be saved but change their lives in no way even when they were living terrible lives before may not be as set on the path to salvation as they believe.

Maybe. Shrug. That's not for me to judge. You'll find we Lutherans are very picky about the issue of "works." Preach the gospel, set an example, and let God be the judge ... but never imply someone's salvation depends upon their own actions.

I wasn't trying to get defensive

Maybe it was the way I read it. I'm traveling this weekend, it was late, and my wife was looking over my shoulder telling me to go to sleep.

But since grammar and words have never been my strong suit (I can comprehend things, but the dyslexic in me has always struggled with the printed word) I'm gonna try and re-word it… tell me if I got the gist of it.

This will be interesting, then. Words are my hobby. I can get very picky about how someone says something ... the devil is in the details and all that. As such, your definition of evolution might be a bit too vague for me. For example, does it include or exclude abiogenesis?

The amount of information backing evolution doesn't fit the amount of credibility they are giving the theory,

No, not the amount. I suspect that is part of what intimidates people when they discuss evolution - the way they get buried in information. Another thing that I suspect intimidates people is the supposed mantle of authority worn by "scientists."

So, it's not the amount, but more the type of data and the methods used to put that data together into a story.

how the model of evolution makes connections to more than what if has direct evidence for,

Yeah, that's pretty close.

and falsification tests (that last one I know nothing about).

If you want to look into it more, it's an idea that was aggressively promoted by Karl Popper. He became very prominent among scientists during what is often called "the science wars." I call it the crisis of confidence.

What most kids are (still) taught in school about science is largely the view of people like Peirce who promoted a positivist idea of proof through "scientific method" - maybe you've heard someone use the phrase "that is proof positive."

Popper pushed an alternative view of science - that no theory is ever proven. Rather, we use what is most effective until we find something better. Further, he said no theory deserved to hold that "most effective" position unless it could devise a test that, if successful, would falsify the theory. IOW, if nothing can ever convince you a theory is wrong, then it's not a theory, it's a dogma.

 

[coolname123]

set an example, and let God be the judge ... but never imply someone's salvation depends upon their own actions.

Ya, I do agree God will have the last word, and once you get to know me you'll find I'm more lenient than most when thinking of the faces I might run into in heaven... But I also take pretty seriously the idea that Christ was more than a symbol of our faith and he had this crazy hope that his disciples would listen to his words and change their lives for the kingdom of God.

As such, your definition of evolution might be a bit too vague for me. For example, does it include or exclude abiogenesis?

It's not that I don't understand words, its just that too many dense words together screws with my head... (I work with children and just came back from a year abroad dealing with broken english, so I'm still building my vocabulary back to where it used to be).
My definition of evolution excludes the theory of abiogenesis (if in doubt you can usually assume that I'm pretty on board with the prevailing sentiment of the current scientific community). That being said I still see abiogenesis as a perfectly viable explanation for what might have happened... but when i talk about evolution it does not include abiogenesis.

Further, he said no theory deserved to hold that "most effective" position unless it could devise a test that, if successful, would falsify the theory. IOW, if nothing can ever convince you a theory is wrong, then it's not a theory, it's a dogma.

See this is what I was talking about with the mis-understanding science... only you actually understand how it functions... you just disagree with the functionality, correct?

So here's a question, why is that such a terrible method for compiling theories? If it cannot be disproven then that is a pretty firm foundation the theory has built. And the idea that anyone could re-do the tests and come up with the same conclusions speaks volumes to how stable the methodology of science is.

 

[Jazer]

Now Evolution, The Big Bang, and all those other theories that join together to explain the workings and mechanisms of our known universe are such beautiful ideas I find it baffling that people are still against them.

Sounds like you get your science from TV. More exact Michio Kaku who says we should believe it because it is all so beautiful. I remember someone telling me about bar girls. How they get themselves all fixed up at night and look beautiful. But the next day when they wake up it is a whole different story. So they say if your looking for a wife you may want someone with some substance and not just an attractive outward appearance.

Solomon talks about: "The Way of a Fool Is Right in His Own Eyes." This is a lot of what lead up to the flood of Noah and the world being destoryed at that time. People were doing what seemed right to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember someone telling me about bar girls. How they get themselves all fixed up at night and look beautiful.

Proverbs 7:6 For at the window of my house I looked through my casement,
7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
8 Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
9 In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:
10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,
14 I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.
19 For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey:
20 He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
22 He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
23 Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.

Verse 23 is probably talking about some type of venereal disease.

 

[coolname123]

Sounds like you get your science from TV

While I will admit I do love science and nature documentaries... The beauty I see in these scientific theories was firmly rooted there during my university bio courses I had to take. (and for the record, I did not attend a secular university). Also have never heard of Michio Kaku.

So they say if your looking for a wife you may want someone with some substance and not just an attractive outward appearance.

Are you saying a lady with substance can't also be beautiful? That's a little closed minded to only assume the uggo's have any form of substance.

Solomon talks about: "The Way of a Fool Is Right in His Own Eyes." This is a lot of what lead up to the flood of Noah and the world being destoryed at that time.

I also don't actually think there was a world-wide destructive flood... but we can get into that later if you're more into science and less the theology. (As you may soon find it is how my theology developed that has allowed for me to embrace science as opposed to science forcing a reconsideration on my part).

 

[Resha Caner]

My definition of evolution excludes the theory of abiogenesis (if in doubt you can usually assume that I'm pretty on board with the prevailing sentiment of the current scientific community).

OK. But it's sometimes hard to determine what the "prevailing sentiment" is. Don't take that as a slam against science. My job as an engineer is often a muddy mixture of unclear data and strong opposing opinions. Science is not as clean as people seem to think it is, so they often take me as a severe critic when all I'm doing is relating my experiences with science.

So, next question. Do you see evolution as actually random, or is "random" a substitute for a complex process we don't yet fully understand?

See this is what I was talking about with the mis-understanding science... only you actually understand how it functions... you just disagree with the functionality, correct?

Not in the general sense, but in some of the specific details. Do you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative?

So here's a question, why is that such a terrible method for compiling theories? If it cannot be disproven then that is a pretty firm foundation the theory has built. And the idea that anyone could re-do the tests and come up with the same conclusions speaks volumes to how stable the methodology of science is.

I'm not sure you got my meaning. No problem. These may be new ideas to you. I assure you they are not new to the "experts" of science. So, if everything was as solid as you take it to be, there wouldn't really be anything to prove.

But all science begins with an assumption.

 

[Jazer]

Verse 23 is probably talking about some type of venereal disease.

Could be, there is a STD that is caused by a virus that can cause liver damage.

 

[Jazer]

Are you saying a lady with substance can't also be beautiful?

No, I did not say that. I attended a church once where there were women that really covered themselves up. They had long hair so when they went to the alter to pray they covered themselves with their hair. Also they had long skirts or dresses that even covered their ankles. The Bible clearly talks about a women's inner beauty.

1 Pet 3 1 "1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful."

 

[NGC 6712]

Could be, there is a STD that is caused by a virus that can cause liver damage.

But since it isn't a dart then that verse does not imply STD.

 

[Jazer]

(As you may soon find it is how my theology developed that has allowed for me to embrace science as opposed to science forcing a reconsideration on my part).

According to your theology just who was destoryed in Noah's Flood?

 

[Jazer]

But since it isn't a dart then that verse does not imply STD.

Actually the disease I was talking about was Hepatitis that is both a STD and spread though a needle or a dart.

 

[coolname123]

No, I did not say that.

I think you missed my little 'wink' following my 'beautiful' statement... I know what you were saying I was just trying to make a point.

According to your theology just who was destoryed in Noah's Flood?

Well, this is a hard question to answer as literally speaking I'd have to say no-one. I see Genesis as poetic, it is stylistically written in a poetic fashion it is the same style as poetic literature written in the same time period is shares stylistic patterns with parables and other story-telling methods common to the Isrealites and early jewish people... and as such I've come to understand it in such a way. I really see Noah's Flood as the peak of the second creation myth. Original sin has been described through generations not as something everyone is born with but much more of a thing passed on from generation to generation... A cycle that can be broken but is increasingly difficult as the sin being passed down snowballs to a point of chaos... It is a cautionary tale of what happens we settle into the sin of the past instead of breaking free in favour of a more God centered life... Which is essentially a long way to say that, no one really was destroyed, it's just a literary mechanism used by ancient story-tellers to explain their beliefs to others. Now I've been out of University for a few years and haven't been writing as many essays as I used to, so if that was a confusing explanation I apologize and will try to explain better any point I made up there.

Though the book "God and World in the Old Testament" by Terence Fretheim explains it far better than I could ever hope.

But it's sometimes hard to determine what the "prevailing sentiment" is

Not really, I mean I suppose it depends on what you consider prevailing... But as a description of a majority, while multiple theories are always floating around there is generally a pretty sizable majority in favour of a specific theory out of the however many exist... Not to say the others couldn't be right instead, just that the majority is generally pretty easy to pinpoint.

Do you see evolution as actually random, or is "random" a substitute for a complex process we don't yet fully understand?

That depends how we are talking about evolution. I think that to the objective eye, yes evolution is random... If one is truly trying to be objective about something then they cannot assume a higher power into a theory unless there is no other explanation. Philosophically however I do think there was a guiding hand behind evolution, I think the probability of all this creation coming out of nothing truly being a chance event is simply unbelievable... But that's not science, that is not a scientific belief... that is a philosophical proof and one I believe pretty firmly.

Do you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative?

I think so... one refers to the quality of something while the other refers to the quantity (amount). I wasn't referring to the qualitative/quantitative statement you made with that response, I was referring to your explanation of falsification (being able to disprove you theory) that you seemed to be bothered by.

So, if everything was as solid as you take it to be, there wouldn't really be anything to prove.

I never said anything was solid in a sense of 'set in stone'... I've always loved the idea that anyone with a better explanation is welcome to throw their hat into the ring and see what happens. We are constantly re-working and re-thinking science as new data surfaces. Nothing is set in stone and that is part of what makes science such an exciting and vibrant field to pay attention to.

But all science begins with an assumption.

And if you've go the data and evidence to challenge that assumption, science will be thrilled with your findings.

 

[Resha Caner]

That depends how we are talking about evolution.

Well, it's just you and me, so I'd prefer to know what you think about it. I asked if evolution was random or highly complex. You've now introduced God's will as yet a 3rd possible cause. And it seems you would choose #3. Is that right?

We can avoid the term ID since that is a political hot potato. But I think that if you're going to posit God as part of the formula, there are some valid questions that go along with that. For example, if God is involved, does that make the result different than if he wasn't involved?

I was referring to your explanation of falsification (being able to disprove you theory) that you seemed to be bothered by.

My explanation, yes, but only to help you understand. Falsification is not my idea, nor is it on the fringes of science. Neither am I bothered by anything. I'm quite content with my interpretation of science.

I'm trying to introduce you to the fact that "science" is not monolithic. It is divided into quite distinct camps with starkly different views. At the same time, I'm trying to make it clear that I don't see that as some kind of downfall. It's just the way it is ... the way it is for any human endeavor.

Whether you agree or not, I hope to help you understand the camp to which I belong. I tend to hang out with what are called the "instrumentalists." The other major views are the "realists" and the "empiricists", though there are also a host of other minor views.

And if you've go the data and evidence to challenge that assumption, science will be thrilled with your findings.

A common misunderstanding. But I don't know whether you want this to just be a casual conversation or whether you're willing to do a little reading should I recommend something.