Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[gluadys]

For evolutionists to imply creationist uneducated ignorance as the source of their belief is simply a demonstration of evolutionists own denial of the facts. It is simply a fact that many well educated former evolutionists have jumped the fence in light of research they see as favouring creation and falsifying evolution.

You mistake the point. It is not ignorance or lack of education that is problematic, but that any education on evolution shows up as a contradiction between well established facts about the history of life on earth and what people are told by creationists about how to interpret scripture. The creationist interpretation of scripture is the issue. One has to choose between that and what science has learned about natural history. This ought not to be. One should be able to embrace both scripture and natural history without contradiction.

Unfortunately, many think rejecting this particular interpretation of scripture means rejecting the Christian faith altogether, and this is as true of many highly-educated people as of less educated people. And it is a conclusion creationist organizations encourage even though, as noted by another poster, young people are leaving the church in droves these days because the scriptures, so interpreted, seem like a fairy tale to them.

I expect it comes down to the fact that even highly educated people are seldom highly educated in more than one speciality. No matter how much science one learns, one is likely to be weak in theology and so easy prey for the notion that the creationist way of reading scripture is the way scripture is to be read. Therefore, if one is inclined to accept science one is inclined to reject scripture altogether and leave the Christian community (or never join it).

Equally, no matter how well studied a person is in theology, they are likely to be weak in science and so easy prey for the mish-mash of pseudo-science caricatures peddled by anti-evolution organizations. So, if they are inclined to Christianity anyway, and assured (wrongly) that the scientific case for evolution is really weak, they will reject the science.

But perpetuating this unfortunate and needless divide between evolutionary science and Christian faith is hurtful all round.

 

[Papias]

Astrid here wrote:

A list of creation scientists...

But how many of them are named "Steve"?


Papias

 

[Assyrian]

I don't know about getting "hurt" but there are certainly people who lose faith when they believe some particular misinterpretation.. say like meshing Evolution with what the Bible says. Young people are leaving the church in droves these days because the Bible appears to be a fairy tale to them... not getting answers.

Unfortunately young people from creationist churches often hit that problem when learn more about evolution. The answers they were taught in Sunday School don't hold up, especially when they have been taught in church that if evolution is true then the bible is a lie and that you cannot accept evolution and be a real Christian. The answers they need that they weren't taught in church is that if evolution is true, then God created and used it and there is nothing in science to shake their faith in God who created it all.

On the contrary, I think creationism can be an empowerment of faith to show how the Bible is real. Are you suggesting that people don't learn about evolution until college? I have learned about it all my life and up until around middle school, I bought into the whole millions/billions of years and tried to ignore the meaning of Genesis 1. High School was when I was introduced to certain creationist ideas. I did not "buy into" every single idea wholeheartedly but it was interesting to learn about. Thank you to Answers in Genesis a few years ago, we have better resources to look at.

The higher up the educational system you go the better an understanding of evolution you get the more you understand the strength of the scientific evidence, and the harder it is to keep on buying the sort of arguments creationist organisations use. Creationist kids really get their faith shaken as they move up into college and university. What I find troubling is the kind of argument you have mentioned, that claim to show how the bible is real. They claim to prove the bible and can feel so encouraging when you hear them. But you end up finding your faith is in these proofs instead of in Christ and when they are shaken your whole walk with God is rocked.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, I thought the burden of proof was that the person making the affirmative claim has to provide the evidence. Since you are claiming what the Theory of Evolution states and how it is taught, you are the one who needs to bring in the textbooks confirming your straw man of evolution.

So, paraphrased,
You still have to prove that your strawman of evolution is what they teach, point by point.

Metherion

we still need evidence of macroevolution

 

[metherion]

we still need evidence of macroevolution

This statement is not evidence of the straw man of evolution you previously posed being found in classrooms. Do you have such evidence to bring forward?

Also, there is plenty of evidence, and I do believe some of it has been posted in this very thread.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

This statement is not evidence of the straw man of evolution you previously posed being found in classrooms. Do you have such evidence to bring forward?

Also, there is plenty of evidence, and I do believe some of it has been posted in this very thread.

Metherion

what is your definition of macroevolution then?

 

[metherion]

what is your definition of macroevolution then?

At or above the species level. What is yours? Plant the goalposts.

Further, this post ALSO fails to show that the previously presented straw man of evolution is actually taught in schools. Do you have any evidence to back up your previous claim? Or are you just going to try and change the subject and forget you made that claim?

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

At or above the species level. What is yours? Plant the goalposts.

Further, this post ALSO fails to show that the previously presented straw man of evolution is actually taught in schools. Do you have any evidence to back up your previous claim? Or are you just going to try and change the subject and forget you made that claim?

Metherion

I just posted a quote I thought was funny that made fun of evolution, I don't have any more evidence. I don't think I need it. It makes plain sense so seek no other sense.

I believe macroevolution is above the species level. Within a species to be micro evolution.

 

[metherion]

Is that not what the textbooks say? That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys. Tell me exactly where I got it so wrong at.

thats what the textbooks say,

I just posted a quote I thought was funny that made fun of evolution, I don't have any more evidence. I don't think I need it. It makes plain sense so seek no other sense.

You made a claim. Claims need evidence to back them up, ESPECIALLY when you try to use your claim, as you did here:

you still have to prove that it's not what they teach point for point.

Apparently, it was not just a funny quote about evolution, it was what you claimed textbooks taught and actively tried to shift the burden of proof on. You do need more evidence, because it IS a strawman, it IS wrong, and it does NOT make plain sense. You actually tried to tell someone they had to prove you wrong, that they had to provide the evidence that your 'silly statement' was in fact NOT what schools taught. Doesn't sound like a silly statement to me.

Or is calling it silly acknowledging just how wrong it is?

I believe macroevolution is above the species level. Within a species to be micro evolution.

So, just to be clear, you believe macroevolution is a new species emerging? Or a new genus emerging? Or a new family? Or what? What something new needs to emerge to be macroevolution?

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

So, just to be clear, you believe macroevolution is a new species emerging? Or a new genus emerging? Or a new family? Or what? What something new needs to emerge to be macroevolution?

Metherion

new genus need to emerge

 

[gluadys]

new genus need to emerge

Then you have identified "macro-evolution" in a way that cannot work using the process of evolution. This is not a real denial that macro-evolution occurs, since it relies on definition rather than evidence.


Genera do not exist except as a collectivity of species. The only way to get a new genus is via the route of new species.



That is why the text-book definition of macro-evolution includes speciation as the principal macro-evolutionary event. Emergence of a new species is, by the text-book definition, macro-evolution, and all higher taxa come about as an effect of prior speciations.

 

[Papias]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own made-up definitions, just as everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own made up "facts".

Macroevolution is a real term defined as "evolution at the species level or higher".

Papias

 

[Mr.Waffles]

This statement is not evidence of the straw man of evolution you previously posed being found in classrooms. Do you have such evidence to bring forward?

Also, there is plenty of evidence, and I do believe some of it has been posted in this very thread.

Metherion

I fail to understand why such things are said. By definition, macro-evolution is change above the level of a species. This is an absolutely required component if we are to assume universal common descent to be tenable. Yet it is clearly understood such evolutionary processes take place over too much time to be empirically verifiable, so what is this about there being evidence for this type of "occurrence"?

It is evident what the real macro-evolution is. What is it that you are talking about? Speaking of straw men

 

[Papias]

From the dictionary:

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion

   /ˌmæk

roʊˌɛv

əˈlu

ʃən or, especially Brit., -ˌi

və-/ Show Spelled[mak-roh-ev-uh-loo-shuh

n or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-] Show IPA
noun Biology . major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

 

[metherion]

I fail to understand why such things are said. By definition, macro-evolution is change above the level of a species. This is an absolutely required component if we are to assume universal common descent to be tenable. Yet it is clearly understood such evolutionary processes take place over too much time to be empirically verifiable, so what is this about there being evidence for this type of "occurrence"?

It is evident what the real macro-evolution is. What is it that you are talking about? Speaking of straw men

Speciation is above the species level. It is new species emerging. And it has been observed, many times over the last 150 years, in plants, insects, worms, bacteria, etc. It can take MUCH MUCH LONGER in animals with longer lifespans. Compare a fly, which can have many generations a year, with a whale, where the gestation period alone can be up to 18 months, if I remember rightly. Which are you more likely to see speciate in a lifetime?

So, no, I am not bringing forth straw men. The idea that speciation can only be observed over vast periods of time is only partly right. It requires many generations, and so the longer the generation, the longer the time. On the other hand, beings with shorter generations evolve much more quickly, relatively, and can be observed.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

if one species can evolve into another then one genus should be able to evolve into another genus no problem so show me where this happens.

 

[gluadys]

if one species can evolve into another then one genus should be able to evolve into another genus no problem so show me where this happens.

Indeed, it can, but only through the mediation of speciation.

Put it this way.

Start with a species A (We can call it A0) This is our root species. It is one species.

Over time, as the species spreads out, it divides in local populations of A0. This makes it more difficult to maintain gene flow between populations and keep a single gene pool. So some local populations develop unique adaptations to local conditions that don't get distributed to other populations because of limited gene flow among them.

Eventually, one or more such populations become detached from the parent species. Of course, as descendants of A0, they are various forms of A. Lets call them A1, A2, A3 etc. Each of these, along with A0 if it still exists, is a species.

But what now will you call the whole group of A since there are now 3-4 A species? Why you call it a genus. Genus A.

So, by multipying one species into many, a new genus has also emerged.

Can we get more genera? Sure, but again we have to use the mediation of new species. Take each of the species in genus A (A0, A1, A2, A3). Each of them, as they spread out into local populations can also subdivide into new species. We can label them A1a, A1b, A1c, A2a, A2b, A3c, etc. In each case the species with a name in the X#x format is now part of a genus with a name in the X# format. So we have three new genera emerging. And what of the whole group of A species? Well, we can raise that from a genus to a family.

So now we have new family A which contains 3 new genera (A1, A2, A3) and each of these contain 1 or more new species (A1a, A1b, A2b, A3a, etc.)

 

[Hentenza]

Indeed, it can, but only through the mediation of speciation.

Put it this way.

Start with a species A (We can call it A0) This is our root species. It is one species.

Over time, as the species spreads out, it divides in local populations of A0. This makes it more difficult to maintain gene flow between populations and keep a single gene pool. So some local populations develop unique adaptations to local conditions that don't get distributed to other populations because of limited gene flow among them.

Eventually, one or more such populations become detached from the parent species. Of course, as descendants of A0, they are various forms of A. Lets call them A1, A2, A3 etc. Each of these, along with A0 if it still exists, is a species.

But what now will you call the whole group of A since there are now 3-4 A species? Why you call it a genus. Genus A.

So, by multipying one species into many, a new genus has also emerged.

Can we get more genera? Sure, but again we have to use the mediation of new species. Take each of the species in genus A (A0, A1, A2, A3). Each of them, as they spread out into local populations can also subdivide into new species. We can label them A1a, A1b, A1c, A2a, A2b, A3c, etc. In each case the species with a name in the X#x format is now part of a genus with a name in the X# format. So we have three new genera emerging. And what of the whole group of A species? Well, we can raise that from a genus to a family.

So now we have new family A which contains 3 new genera (A1, A2, A3) and each of these contain 1 or more new species (A1a, A1b, A2b, A3a, etc.)

Could you kindly please point out where this "new" genetical information comes from?

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed, it can, but only through the mediation of speciation.

Put it this way.

Start with a species A (We can call it A0) This is our root species. It is one species.

Over time, as the species spreads out, it divides in local populations of A0. This makes it more difficult to maintain gene flow between populations and keep a single gene pool. So some local populations develop unique adaptations to local conditions that don't get distributed to other populations because of limited gene flow among them.

Eventually, one or more such populations become detached from the parent species. Of course, as descendants of A0, they are various forms of A. Lets call them A1, A2, A3 etc. Each of these, along with A0 if it still exists, is a species.

But what now will you call the whole group of A since there are now 3-4 A species? Why you call it a genus. Genus A.

So, by multipying one species into many, a new genus has also emerged.

Can we get more genera? Sure, but again we have to use the mediation of new species. Take each of the species in genus A (A0, A1, A2, A3). Each of them, as they spread out into local populations can also subdivide into new species. We can label them A1a, A1b, A1c, A2a, A2b, A3c, etc. In each case the species with a name in the X#x format is now part of a genus with a name in the X# format. So we have three new genera emerging. And what of the whole group of A species? Well, we can raise that from a genus to a family.

So now we have new family A which contains 3 new genera (A1, A2, A3) and each of these contain 1 or more new species (A1a, A1b, A2b, A3a, etc.)

indeed it can happen it just hasn't is this what you are saying?

 

[metherion]

Could you kindly please point out where this "new" genetical information comes from?

How are you defining information, so that a proper response can be made?

Metherion