If evolution is true...

[Speedwell]

Staff Edit
I don't know about that. I have never made a secret of my faith in Christ and in all the years I have spent in forums like this it has never been impugned or criticized by any atheist, only by creationists.

I don't care. My salvation is not at risk from any fundamentalist. But such behavior makes the faith look bad.

 

[Astrophile]

Staff Edit

It depends. If you think that the Genesis narrative trumps everything else and that, in the immortal words of AV1611VET, 'Science can take a hike', you probably don't need any expertise in evolutionary biology to reject it; there is no way in which you can be proved wrong.

If, on the other hand, you wish to assert that the scientific evidence is against evolution, you need to know a great deal about the subject. You need to have at least a first degree in a biological subject, and probably a research degree, in order to understand both the specialised language of biology and what the theory of evolution actually says, and to be able to evaluate the scientific evidence. Secondary school biology and creationist books and websites are not enough.

Staff Edit

It seems to me that the problem is that creationists cannot decide what approach they are going to adopt. Many of them shift between asserting the truth of the Genesis narrative (which can't be taught as scientific fact in American schools) and saying that the scientific evidence is against evolution and in favour of creationism (which could be taught in schools if it were true).

Perhaps creationists argue that because the Genesis narrative is true the scientific evidence must be against evolution (begging the question), or perhaps they imagine that a combination of high-school biology and creationist books and websites is enough for them to understand the theory of evolution and to evaluate the relevant evidence.

I hope that you will think carefully about this post, and in particular will consider whether your rejection of evolution is based on belief in the Genesis narrative or on advanced education in biology.

 

[klutedavid]

You believe that you can, theoretically, predict how much force I will use in a coin toss? That sort of determinism is an interesting philosophical choice. It's not a choice I'd expect a Christian to make.

You can design a machine to toss a coin. Then precisely control the initial input to the coin toss itself, the rate of spin, height, e.t.c. Resulting in predictable coin toss outcomes.

Predicting the outcome of a coin toss was never a random event because the coin toss outcome, is physically related to the initial input variables in the coin toss.

The philosophical idea of a random event, an imaginary event where the input of the event is not related to the output of the event. That is, the outcome of the event is not a predictable outcome, even though the input variables are known. Will always remain just an idea, a concept in Philosophy.

Determinism also is an idea, a Philosophical imaginary construct. Where the input variables to all events are directly related to the output of all events.

Both Determinism and Randomness are two ideas in Philosophy that are not related to events in space time.

In order to prove that all events are configured from previous events would require an absolute knowledge of all events.

To prove that random events even exist would require that all previous variables can be known, and obviously even hidden variables.

Christianity and Philosophy are two separate worlds, one is a revelation and the other does not exist.

 

[durangodawood]

I say it was Paul Simon who wrote it. According to you it was Neil Simon, hence my post. Do you pay any attention to what you write?

I thought it was Simon Garfunkle.

 

[Speedwell]

Staff Edit
Whether to understand evolution or not isn't one of the basic decisions of life. But where I went to high school, biology was a "pass" class designed to meet the science requirement for those not going on to college. It was usually taught by a PE coach who didn't know any more about the subject than what was found in the poorly written text book. I understand that such circumstances are not unusual. How much do you suppose kids in those classes learned and retained from a two-week unit on evolution?

 

[pitabread]

Staff Edit

School is about exposing students to a range of subjects so they can better choose what to focus on later. Teaching the basic sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) seems prudent, especially given the era in which we live.

 

[pitabread]

Staff Edit

I'm speaking of the fact that STEM related fields are major economic drivers in our modern world. Having an educated workforce is a requirement to remain globally economically competitive.

This is one of the major reasons creationism is in trouble.

 

[klutedavid]

Whether to understand evolution or not isn't one of the basic decisions of life. But where I went to high school, biology was a "pass" class designed to meet the science requirement for those not going on to college. It was usually taught by a PE coach who didn't know any more about the subject than what was found in the poorly written text book. I understand that such circumstances are not unusual. How much do you suppose kids in those classes learned and retained from a two-week unit on evolution?

New species appear to arise from sudden changes

Folmer Bokma, researcher at Umea University, explains that living species have a limited ability to adapt to the environment. His results suggest that species do not change gradually, as the modern evolutionary theory assumes, but suddenly when a new species arises.

Evolutionary stasis is an alternative scientific interpretation to the widely accepted Neo-Darwinism. It means that most species show little evolutionary change through history, instead, evolution occurs more abruptly and it can result in one species becoming two different species. The theory originated among paleontologists who study fossils. They found that no intermediate forms of fossils exist. However, it is relatively difficult to determine the species of fossil organisms.

"I have developed algorithms to discover how evolution stasis occurs among contemporary, existing species' characteristics, in groups of species that do not leave fossils," says Folmer Bokma, researcher at the Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, who was a guest speaker at the 2013 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston on February 17th.
(phys.org)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You can design a machine to toss a coin. Then precisely control the initial input to the coin toss itself, the rate of spin, height, e.t.c. Resulting in predictable coin toss outcomes.

That's moving the goalposts. You would have done better to say nothing.

 

[Astrophile]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if it were omitted entirely, especially since, as you say, "Whether to understand evolution or not isn't one of the basic decisions of life."

When one is at school, one can't predict how one's interests will change and develop in later life.

For example, one might say 'Whether to enjoy reading Shakespeare's plays or not isn't one of the basic decisions of life.' Although I was a complete failure at English Literature at school, and wouldn't have minded if the subject had been omitted entirely, as an adult I have come to enjoy Shakespeare and to appreciate having been taught his plays. Who knows, perhaps eventually you will come to understand evolution and how the scientific evidence supports it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have no burden to question anyone's faith in Christ. All are free to interpret Scripture allegorically as they see fit. I believe that it is unwise and dangerous to do so unless the evidence supporting such an interpretation comes from within Scripture itself,

Other than the instances where the bible specifically says "this is a parable" (eg Matthew 13:3) and a few others (eg Ephesians 5:32, Galatians 4:24), where does Scripture ever indicate that it is allegorical? What evidence do you use to decide which parts are open to a non-literal interpretation? Is Isaiah 11 full of allegory or is it to be taken literally?

 

[Speedwell]

I have no burden to question anyone's faith in Christ. All are free to interpret Scripture allegorically as they see fit. I believe that it is unwise and dangerous to do so unless the evidence supporting such an interpretation comes from within Scripture itself, and that expressing that belief does not amount to condemnation. If you choose to continue to be offended by this, I respect your freedom to do so. But don't expect me to concede that I'm behaving unkindly. This is a discussion/debate forum. Kitchens get hot.

I don't expect you to concede anything and I don't consider you to have behaved particularly unkindly especially compared to other recent posters but there has been a rash of it here lately and it is a constant feature of creationist rhetoric in any case.

Where does it come from? Growing up a Traditional Christian I wasn't much exposed to Fundamentalism until I was older and started to interact with creationists during the Whitcomb & Morris revival. My reaction then was, "You believe what about the Bible??? Why???" I still don't know why, but I see that belief being defended ever more desperately and it makes no sense to me whatever.

 

[SLP]

I meant the body of beliefs and doctrines of Christianity generally.

Me too.

 

[Speedwell]

I hold many views in common with "creationists" and "fundamentalists," but I find labels very discomforting, especially the ones that end in "ism" or "ist." I have observed that they are usually formed and used largely due to the objectionable traits associated with them. If I had to call myself by a label, it would probably be something like "Biblist," although it would doubtless carry a negative connotation in short order.

I was 23 years old when I first became serious about adopting the Bible as a rule of life. My children were very young and I felt compelled to provide them with a foundation for certainty amidst the chaos I witnessed growing increasingly accepted around me. After some research I was forced by my conscience to relinquish the faith held by my fathers and subscribe to another. It was not easy (my father finds great sport in mentioning that I belong to a "cult" to this day). But it was the best decision I have ever made (with the choice of my bride being a close 2nd) because it has made it possible for me to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, to an extent that I'm quite certain I could never have otherwise. If I had joined the fellowship of my upbringing, I would never have remained interested for long.

Sorry for the digression.

No, I appreciate hearing your story. Clearly you have found what is for you the right place to be. But I wonder if you know why the particular denomination you have chosen regards belief in a literal and inerrant Genesis as essential.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Me too.

So there's no proof that having a job skill and income before marriage is a good thing? This is one of the teachings of the church, found in the Proverbs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I appreciate hearing your story. Clearly you have found what is for you the right place to be. But I wonder if you know why the particular denomination you have chosen regards belief in a literal and inerrant Genesis as essential.

Genesis has many literal metaphors.

 

[Speedwell]

In all sincerity and Christian charity, let me assure you that I know exactly why they do so. Although I am not naive enough to have missed the inroads theistic evolution has already made into my own church, worldwide.

Well, don't keep me in suspense. I have been waiting years for this.

 

[Speedwell]

While I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, I don't have anything that would satisfy an empirical expectation. And there are just as many theological hobby horsemen "creationists" within my denomination as any other.

I'm not looking for an empirical explanation, I'm not looking to be convinced, I want to know why you are convinced. King's X. I may ask you questions, but there will be no condemnation. Right now it's just a puzzle to me, like talking to someone with a profound and unshakable belief in Santa Claus even though he never gets any presents.

 

[Speedwell]

And you will seek Me and find Me,when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

Now you've got me baffled for sure. I always thought that passage was about coming to God, not about the genre determination of biblical texts.

 

[Speedwell]

The "coming to God" never ends, but eternal life begins now—today. (Luke 17:21), (John 10:10), (Ephesians 2:6)

It is impossible to know God without embracing the paradoxical nature of His Word. The apparent contradictions are ultimately the proof of divine power. How can a man be God? How can The Word become flesh and dwell among us? How can this God Who says "How canst thou, by searching, find out God? " indeed be found, if searched for with the whole heart? I fear I am guilty of derailing this thread.

No, keep going. Just tie that all back in with why the creation stories of Genesis must be 100% accurate literal history rather than some other narrative form.