Your church and your views on evolution

AV1611VET said:

Did you just get up too?

Click to expand...

Did you not read my whole post? I said the Church of Christ viewed other denominations that way, not me personally. I'll repost the whole quote just so we're on the same page.

They are fundamental on much more than just evolution; point of fact, as I was raised, the Church of Christ are the only correct denomination. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutheran -- anything that's not Church of Christ is on its way to Hell. So if you're a proponent of Pascal's Wager, they are the way to go. The only way to go.

It depends on your view, I suppose -- though I was never comfortable with what they taught. I did attend other churches later that were no less zealous but much more open and welcoming. Not so much "our way or the highway."

Click to expand...

If I was at all vague, I apologize.

AV1611VET said:

Imperials Russ Taff sings "Oh Buddha" on Ross Bagley Show - YouTube

Click to expand...

I used to have all the imperial's stuff. I have a lot of Russ Taff's solo work. I'll have to give that a listen when I get home.

CabVet said:

Creation and evolution are not the same. Talking about creation should be done in churches (and churches only). Evolution should be discussed in the science classroom (and internet forums ).

Click to expand...

A false dichotomy. You're not a NOMA guy are you?

hollyda said:

If I was at all vague, I apologize.

Click to expand...

Sorry -- my mistake.

-- I apologize.

AV1611VET said:

Sorry -- my mistake.

-- I apologize.

Click to expand...

It's okay.

Resha Caner said:

A false dichotomy. You're not a NOMA guy are you?

Click to expand...

How is this a false dichotomy?

Creation: The action or process of bringing something into existence

Evolution: Descent with modification.

How are the two the same? Could you please define NOMA? Sorry, I am new here. But since I don't like labels I will go ahead and tell you I am not one.

CabVet said:

How is this a false dichotomy?

Creation: The action or process of bringing something into existence

Evolution: Descent with modification.

How are the two the same? Could you please define NOMA? Sorry, I am new here. But since I don't like labels I will go ahead and tell you I am not one.

Click to expand...

NOMA: Non-Overlapping MAgesteria. It's a term started by Stephen Jay Gould that, at it's essence, means: science to the scientists and theology to the theologians.

You must be well aware of the colloquial use of the word "evolution." Claim what you will about the "technical" definition of the word, to separate it from abiogenesis ... and then to add the further euphimism of "creation" so that it can be discussed in church is just an attempt to cover over.

I might disagree with evolution, but the biologists I respect are the ones who have made public statements to the effect of: Come on guys, call a spade a spade.

I've been through this "how do you define evolution?" game in many other threads where I've quoted from multiple respected biologists who use different definitions. No matter what you say, biology is yet to come up with a good definition for much of anything.

CabVet said:

Creation and evolution are not the same. Talking about creation should be done in churches (and churches only). Evolution should be discussed in the science classroom (and internet forums ).

Click to expand...

In your view, does the the church have no role in helping its members develop an integrated, coherent faith? When a high school student hears about creation in church and about evolution in science class, what is he supposed to think about how they relate? And if she asks leaders in the church about it, what are they supposed to say?

sfs said:

In your view, does the the church have no role in helping its members develop an integrated, coherent faith? When a high school student hears about creation in church and about evolution in science class, what is he supposed to think about how they relate? And if she asks leaders in the church about it, what are they supposed to say?

Click to expand...

Ok, let's assume for a minute I agree with you (which I don't), so what version of creation should we teach in school?

Resha Caner said:

NOMA: Non-Overlapping MAgesteria. It's a term started by Stephen Jay Gould that, at it's essence, means: science to the scientists and theology to the theologians.

You must be well aware of the colloquial use of the word "evolution." Claim what you will about the "technical" definition of the word, to separate it from abiogenesis ... and then to add the further euphimism of "creation" so that it can be discussed in church is just an attempt to cover over.

I might disagree with evolution, but the biologists I respect are the ones who have made public statements to the effect of: Come on guys, call a spade a spade.

I've been through this "how do you define evolution?" game in many other threads where I've quoted from multiple respected biologists who use different definitions. No matter what you say, biology is yet to come up with a good definition for much of anything.

Click to expand...

So, just to make it crystal clear, by evolution you mean the origin of life. And your question really is, did life start by a natural process or was it created by a supernatural entity?

CabVet said:

Ok, let's assume for a minute I agree with you (which I don't), so what version of creation should we teach in school?

Click to expand...

Public schools? None. In principle, schools could teach about some of the ways that religions (and those with non-religious views) have integrated science into their worldviews, but that would be difficult in practice for several reasons.

It's not clear what exactly you're disagreeing with, by the way, since I made no statements at all about my views. All I did was ask you several questions about your view, none of which you answered.

So it seems like we agree that creation should not be taught in the science classroom. Alright, so answering the questions:

sfs said:

In your view, does the the church have no role in helping its members develop an integrated, coherent faith? When a high school student hears about creation in church and about evolution in science class, what is he supposed to think about how they relate? And if she asks leaders in the church about it, what are they supposed to say?

Click to expand...

1) Yes, church has a role in developing it's members faith.

2) The student will be conflicted, but a high school student is a critical thinker, he or she should pick one.

3) If the student asks the church about evolution they should refer him to a science teacher (and vice-versa). Trying to bend the Bible to fit evolutionary theory (or vice-versa) is what I don't agree with.

Evolution is not about how life STARTED or was CREATED. It is about how life evolved and is evolving. It is a PROCESS and nothing more. I sincerely fail to understand how some perceive this process to be a threat to their faith? Unless of course their faith is not strong enough and one fears one will loose it were one to accept this process which is a natural phenomenon of the physical world.

Ease up on the Turkey at Christmas there; Leave some room for the Pudding, and that goes for you too AV

CabVet said:

So, just to make it crystal clear, by evolution you mean the origin of life.

Click to expand...

I tend to lead discussions like these with the more colloquial definition because I never know how others view the word. In that sense, the usage tends to be all-encompassing.

CabVet said:

And your question really is, did life start by a natural process or was it created by a supernatural entity?

Click to expand...

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement. Attempts to separate origins from the discussion of evolution create artificial boundaries. If all you mean by the word is a bit of biochemistry, then I don't see that churches would have any interest in discussing the issue. But there is more to it than that, and I think most people are aware of it. Rather than trying to fix the problem by moving the goal posts, why don't we just discuss the problem.

mzungu said:

Evolution is not about how life STARTED or was CREATED. It is about how life evolved and is evolving. It is a PROCESS and nothing more. I sincerely fail to understand how some perceive this process to be a threat to their faith? Unless of course their faith is not strong enough and one fears one will loose it were one to accept this process which is a natural phenomenon of the physical world.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw post #27 or not. I think you're taking the same route as CabVet.

You can define the issue to be simple if you choose, but then you're also choosing not to see what the issue really is. Science sometimes challenges philosophical positions. Personally, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the challenge as a "threat," but rather as an opportunity.

What one must first accept is that there is nothing which demands that science trumps philosophy (or theology). IMO, those who can explain their philosophy of science and who have contemplated how it affects their views are better for it (insert pithy Einstein quote to that effect).

Resha Caner said:

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement. Attempts to separate origins from the discussion of evolution create artificial boundaries. If all you mean by the word is a bit of biochemistry, then I don't see that churches would have any interest in discussing the issue. But there is more to it than that, and I think most people are aware of it. Rather than trying to fix the problem by moving the goal posts, why don't we just discuss the problem.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't get it. If evolution is the process by which species change, how does it explain the origin of life? Frankly, I think they are two different and separate processes. Evolution is not a bit of biochemistry, far from it. The origin of life on the other hand just might be.

Not being picky here, but I think you are trying to lump two separate things. So, lets use a human body analogy. Imagine that we had no knowledge about how humans reproduce (gametes, etc), but we had a pretty good idea of how a baby develops from being one cell to an embryo, to an adult by explaining processes like stem cell function, cell division, skeletal growth, etc. Say we call it "development theory". Would this "development theory" tell us anything about human reproduction, or in other words, how babies are actually formed? Or would we need a completely separate "reproduction theory" to explain how reproduction happens?

That is the exact same thing that we are talking about here, evolution has nothing to say about how the first cell originated or where it came from (biochemistry does, but let's not go there yet). Therefore, separating origins from evolution makes complete sense.

CabVet said:

Hmm, I don't get it.

Click to expand...

I can tell. Let me try my own little story:

Jane meets Dick on the street, who is walking his Irish Wolfhound.

Dick: Do you like him? His name is Rex.
Jane: Wolves scare me.
Dick: No, he's not a wolf, he's a dog.
Jane: Isn't he an Irish Wolfhound?
Dick: Well, yes, but ...
Jane: I don't like wolves.
Dick: He's not a wolf. He's a dog. I'm sorry, Jane, I just don't get it.

Does the fact that Jane incorrectly identified the dog as a wolf mean she isn't afraid of wolves? Suppose they finally manage to clear up the misunderstanding. Will that alleviate her fear of wolves?

IOW, this is just word games, CabVet.

CabVet said:

... evolution is the process by which species change ...

Click to expand...

But maybe it's not necessary for you to understand what I was trying to say. There's enough in just this statement to chew on.

SPB1987 said:

I am currently attending a Church of Christ with my wife and this church is heavily anti-evolution. We have actually watched the Expelled movie which in my opinion was poorly put together and appealed strongly to the emotions. The fact that evolution has spurred many evil activities makes it no less true than Christianity for the Crusades. About 2 weeks a go before the sermon, someone gave a presentation that refers to evolution as being false. He is trying to persuade everyone to get behind bringing the Apologetics Press people here. I tend to lean towards a non literal interpretation of Genesis and viewing evolution as fact. How would everyone else feel about being in the same situation? Is a church's stance on evolution a deal breaker?

Click to expand...

Evolution spurred everything that humans have ever done, including christianity

It's definitely a deal breaker. I'd feel the same about any group that professes things I believe are absolutely wrong. If I couldn't affect change in a group like that, it would seem mutually beneficial to not be associated with it.

Resha Caner said:

There's enough in just this statement to chew on.

Click to expand...

Chew away...

CabVet said:

Chew away...

Click to expand...

I do believe that, amongst the various definitions of evolution, some reject the term "species." They insist, rather that it is a chain of organisms that evolves (hopefully I represent that adequately), and that "species" is an outdated concept from taxonomy.

To me that indicates the struggle biology has had to define the word "species." But, have at it. Can you give me a measure of "species" such that if I do a blind test amongst biologists with a set of organisms they have never seen before, it is guaranteed they will agree (within a given confidence interval) which among that set are of the same species and which are different species?