Evolution and Christianity?

[vossler]

Why would we accept Lee Strobels analysis of evolution? He is neither a biologist or scientist, and has no education, experience, or qualifications that would make him any type of sound or objective evaluator of the science involved. If he tells you otherwise, he is the one telling myths.

For me he makes a lot of sense. His arguments speak plainly and simply. If one has to be a scientist in order to assess a scientific theory then how can most people believe anything a scientist will tell us?

 

[SavedSoul86]

was science written only for scientists to understand

 

[notto]

For me he makes a lot of sense. His arguments speak plainly and simply. If one has to be a scientist in order to assess a scientific theory then how can most people believe anything a scientist will tell us?

It is his objectiveness that you should question. Do you think that he would tell you anything that wasn't in the favor of his viewpoint?


You don't need to be a scientists to assess a scientific theory. In Lee's case, he didn't assess it objectively. Did he present both sides of the argument in an objective way?

As far as an argument being delivered plainly and simply, that really has no bearing on the validity of the argument and often times, expecially with scientific theories, a plan and simple explanation or argument often glosses over the important details.

I would love to see what those who support Lee think his most valuable and supported argument is, what scientific research he used to support it, and how he has assured his reader that his argument is objective and should be accepted. He is a popular writer who writes with no other intention other than to pursuade. To use his book as an example of something someone should read to help them understand the scientific theory of evolution is almost laughable. When one wants to understand science, even if one is not a scientist, you would usually want to read a book written by someone who actually works in the field or line of study.

Why wouldn't you read books by biologists to understand evolution?

 

[vossler]

It is his objectiveness that you should question. Do you think that he would tell you anything that wasn't in the favor of his viewpoint?

Couldn't you make that claim about anyone who writes a book?

You don't need to be a scientists to assess a scientific theory. In Lee's case, he didn't assess it objectively. Did he present both sides of the argument in an objective way?

Lee took the position of someone who, like me, investigated the facts and developed a conclusion. He went into the exercise to disprove Christianity and its tenets, he was for evolution, so yes he wasn't objective, but not because of a bias for creationism.

As far as an argument being delivered plainly and simply, that really has no bearing on the validity of the argument and often times, expecially with scientific theories, a plan and simple explanation or argument often glosses over the important details.

This may not have a bearing for you, but I need plain and simple when it comes to scientific theory.

He is a popular writer who writes with no other intention other than to pursuade. To use his book as an example of something someone should read to help them understand the scientific theory of evolution is almost laughable.

I would never recommend his book as a means of understanding the mechanics or science behind evolution, but it is a great resource for understanding the basics to it.

Why wouldn't you read books by biologists to understand evolution?

If one ever wrote a book that plainly and simply presented the evidence of evolution then yes I'd read it in a heartbeat.

 

[notto]

Couldn't you make that claim about anyone who writes a book?

Not if the book is peer reviewed through a process that is designed to eliminate bias and provides references to research to support it and not simply anectodal stories and interviews.

Not if the book actually saught to represent arguments from both sides. Did Lee's book do that? How was the overwheling acceptance and support by the scientific community for the validy of evolution represented in the book? Who was interviewed that presented that side? What it equally represented?

 

[PaladinValer]

Relying on a book on a subject whose author isn't an expert on that subject is a Fallacy of Authority. The author isn't a valid authority on the subject and therefore the author's claims cannot be used as evidence.

That is why Strobel cannot be used. He isn't an authority, and to treat him as one is always wrong.

 

[cougtpt1]

It is his objectiveness that you should question. Do you think that he would tell you anything that wasn't in the favor of his viewpoint?


I think this is a big problem with this topic especially, because there are scientific research that disagree on this topic. Few people really consider both arguements before making a conclusion. either they come in being a evolutionist or they come in being anti evolutionist.

Something else to remember is that Creation and evolution are not opposites, Creation and biogenesis are.

 

[chaoschristian]

Oops! lol Sorry! Yes, inerrant.

Well, in that case I do disagree with you.

The Bible is indeed a source of God's truth. I also know that it contains errors, not to mention that we should read any English translation with a certain amount of skepticism since that an English tranlsation is one group's interpretation of what language should say in another based on copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the lost originals.

That said, I believe that certain aspects of God's truth, will and intent are revealed in the Bible. I also believe that we are lead astray if we rely on the Bible alone, as I said, it is only one of the source's of God's truth. Another source is God's Creation. If we use our minds and our reason, both blessings to us from God, then we can discern aspects of God's truth that the Bible is not intended to reveal. And just as we are lead astray if we use only the Bible, we can also be lead astray if we rely soley on our reason as well. That's why God blessed us with the Holy Spirit, the Indwelling, so that we might have a guide. It is when we use the Holy Spirit, the Bible and Reason together that the full miracle of God's Creation is revealed to us.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Well, in that case I do disagree with you.

The Bible is indeed a source of God's truth. I also know that it contains errors, not to mention that we should read any English translation with a certain amount of skepticism since that an English tranlsation is one group's interpretation of what language should say in another based on copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of the lost originals.

That said, I believe that certain aspects of God's truth, will and intent are revealed in the Bible. I also believe that we are lead astray if we rely on the Bible alone, as I said, it is only one of the source's of God's truth. Another source is God's Creation. If we use our minds and our reason, both blessings to us from God, then we can discern aspects of God's truth that the Bible is not intended to reveal. And just as we are lead astray if we use only the Bible, we can also be lead astray if we rely soley on our reason as well. That's why God blessed us with the Holy Spirit, the Indwelling, so that we might have a guide. It is when we use the Holy Spirit, the Bible and Reason together that the full miracle of God's Creation is revealed to us.

Sorry I had responded to this, but decided to erase it since I would only be a waste of time. I'm done wasting truth!

 

[chaoschristian]

1 Timothy 1:3-4

In this passage Paul is admonishing Timothy to correct false teaching by some of the people in the Ephesian Church.

Exactly, false theological teaching. Paul says nothing in this verse about science or its nature.

I admit that I have let myself to continue in an arguement against a myth which some people are willing to accept over Scripture.

The theory of evolution is a matter of science and reason. There is nothing about it that you legitimately call a myth.

So here is the truth and the end of the matter.

I take this to mean that you are ending the discussion.

The book of Genesis is a part of God's Word, which is without error.

While I will not disparage your faith, I will let you know that I strongly disagree with your statement as you have written it.

Therefore Genesis is truth,

Fortunately, despite your misconceptions about the Bible, Genesis does indeed convey certain aspect of God's truth.

we must accept it or we believe a myth.

I reject being offered a false choice, especially one riddled with error. I can do both. I can believe in the truth that Genesis has to offer about Creation. And I can also accept the truth that the theory of evolution in particular and science in general have to offer about Creation.

Lee Strobel has done research and interviewed experts on the subject of evolution and points out that it has no scientific merit. I recommend reading this book as it will answer some of the questions for some of you who are holding fast to the evolutionary myth.

Strobel is a good writer who writes in a popular and easy to read manner. If he's written a book on evolution/Creation, I haven't read it. But I have read The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. Both are riddled with fallacious logic, and I am thankful that I don't have to depend upon those books or Strobel for my faith. I will make an honest committment to read this book to which you refer. Regardless you are appealling to the wrong authority. I am already convinced by God's own actions that the sciences behind the theory of evolution reveal to us truth about Creation. Why would I lay that aside?

I encourage you all to seek the truth of God's word. God didn't say it would be easy to accept, but we must accept Him because He loves us and would never lie to us. God bless you all as you seek Him.

I interpret this as meaning that you do not believe that a Christian can accept evolution, or if one does accept evolution, then one does not have true faith in God. I guess you had the answer to your initial question all along.

 

[chaoschristian]

Sorry I had responded to this, but decided to erase it since I would only be a waste of time. I'm done wasting truth!

I am sad, and I feel as if a great disrespect has been done to me.

Basically you are saying that I am a waste of your time, at least that's how I read it. If I am wrong, then I apologize. But if I am wrong, then demonstrate to me that I am wrong.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I am sad, and I feel as if a great disrespect has been done to me.

Basically you are saying that I am a waste of your time, at least that's how I read it. If I am wrong, then I apologize. But if I am wrong, then demonstrate to me that I am wrong.

My apoligize to you for how my last post sounded. I did not intend for it to sound as if you are a waste of time. I do not believe any person to be a waste of time, especially since God says that he loves each of us and wants a relationship. Will you forgive me for how my last post sounded?

What I did mean was that this discussion is a waste of time since this discussion is at a point that will only go around in circles. Those of believe opposite of what I do seem set in what they believe to be true. I too are unwilling to accept arguements that oppose God's Word. So we are at a stalemate. Also by continuing to argue and go in circles we are not edifying the body of CHrist. This is why I believe that this discussion is a waste of time.

Again, I am sorry for offending you in my last post. Please forgive me!

 

[chaoschristian]

My apoligize to you for how my last post sounded. I did not intend for it to sound as if you are a waste of time. I do not believe any person to be a waste of time, especially since God says that he loves each of us and wants a relationship. Will you forgive me for how my last post sounded?

What I did mean was that this discussion is a waste of time since this discussion is at a point that will only go around in circles. Those of believe opposite of what I do seem set in what they believe to be true. I too are unwilling to accept arguements that oppose God's Word. So we are at a stalemate. Also by continuing to argue and go in circles we are not edifying the body of CHrist. This is why I believe that this discussion is a waste of time.

Again, I am sorry for offending you in my last post. Please forgive me!

Apology accepted without condition.

And now that you've articulated your position I can understand why you no longer desire to participate in this discussion.

 

[vossler]

Not if the book is peer reviewed through a process that is designed to eliminate bias and provides references to research to support it and not simply anectodal stories and interviews.

I don't know about too many books that are published for the masses which are peer reviewed.

Not if the book actually saught to represent arguments from both sides. Did Lee's book do that? How was the overwheling acceptance and support by the scientific community for the validy of evolution represented in the book? Who was interviewed that presented that side? What it equally represented?

I don't think his book was meant to "fairly" represent arguments from both sides. This is just one man's testimony on how he searched out the truth.

 

[notto]

I don't think his book was meant to "fairly" represent arguments from both sides. This is just one man's testimony on how he searched out the truth.

Exactly, and that is why I suggested that to pitch it here as some objective and definitive guide to evolution wouldn't really be pursuasive. The poster seemed to imply that it would give answers that those that accept evolution haven't seen elsewhere. It won't.

 

[gluadys]

Something else to remember is that Creation and evolution are not opposites, Creation and biogenesis are.

Actually, until Pasteur proved it couldn't happen, Christians often pointed to spontaneous generation (such as the production of live rats from non-living straw) as evidence of Creation.

And how is biogenesis (the production of living things from other living things) opposite to Creation?

 

[shernren]

Pastor, I'm sure you've heard quite enough of what we have to say so maybe we could hear you out and understand what your concerns are.

1. What exactly do you find questionable about evolution that would cause you, as a Christian, to reject it and to wonder how other Christians can believe it? (Do try to be specific and to use your own words.)

2. What exactly do you believe as an alternative to evolution? In particular, do you believe that there is scientific evidence for what you believe, or is it more of a "faith, evidence or not!" belief?

3. What do you think would happen to your faith if God were to tell you that the evolutionists were/are right?

4. Do you personally know any Christians who believe in evolution? How do you think evolutionism has affected their faith?

I'm in no rush to hear your replies ... I'm not out to make you believe what I believe, but to understand it. I don't want to jump to conclusions and start making knee-jerk statements just to cut you up.

Also, is this more of a personal issue ("I'm not sure what to believe about this") or a pastoral issue ("I'm sure what I believe, but I mix with others who disagree and I don't know what to do with them")?

 

[On the Narrow Road]

Interesting discussion, but seems to go the same way as any evolution/creation debate. It is quite wearisome really.

I guess I personally see a lot of speculation in the theory of evolution with very little evidence to back it up. We hear how this neanderthal or some other find is one of our ancestors, but then DNA prove this wrong. At that point the proponants of evolution claim this is not a problem and just rearrange the dates. Now instead of being our ancestor, we branched off the evolutionary tree earlier and while they are not OUR ancestors we now share a common ancestor. How can I rely on a theory that can never be invalidated by the evidence. The predictions turn out to be wrong, but the theory is still here...

OK, so here's where you all tell me I'm no scientist, I don't have the education, I'm not smart enough, or haven't been peer reviewed. We've all heard all the arguments before and the attacks by both sides, so what's the point? No point here and no attempt to start any debate because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I'm simply adding my two cents worth. Just in case anyone's keeping score, there were a lot of great discoveries made by scientists who had no formal education and little to no peer review. An educated idiot is still an idiot and we need to look at what they are saying, not at how many degrees they have.

By the way, anyone else here think plasma cosmology better explains our universe than the current scientific model? Seems to me science has helped us tremdously over the years, but it's current culture certainly doesn't encourage thinking outside the box.

 

[notto]

Just in case anyone's keeping score, there were a lot of great discoveries made by scientists who had no formal education and little to no peer review. An educated idiot is still an idiot and we need to look at what they are saying, not at how many degrees they have.

Theories and ideas are accpted based on the evidence that supports them and the observations they explain. When Darwin proposed evolution he would probably fit in your category of no formal education yet his ideas were evaluated and the entire scientific world at the time had to take notice and accept them because of the evidence. Peer review and falsification are how any science gains momentum and the current scientific culture certainly has no problem with people looking outside the box as long as they present their evidence, publish their results so their work can be repeated and don't rely on ad-hoc reasoning and supernatural changes to the universe every time they need an out. Creationism and ID fail to do this and they start with the conclusion and don't change.

Science develops theories to explain evidence, it doesn't explain the evidence to support its theory. An example, creationists can only claim a young earth if they explain the evidence through things like changing decay rates and changing speeds of light instead of changing their theory to match the observed constant speed of light and observed constant decay rates. They change the nature of the evidence instead of letting the observation of the evidene change their theory.

Changing theories is a strength of science, not a weakness.

 

[shernren]

OnTheNarrowRoad, I understand your predicament entirely. But one important thing to remember about what you said: Just in case anyone's keeping score, there were a lot of great discoveries made by scientists who had no formal education and little to no peer review. ... I agree. But in every case, these scientists went on to receive formal education and to accept peer review for their discoveries.

From the outside it looks like scientists get together, do some sort of mystical ceremony and then go out to greet the public with "Voila! I've discovered something!" When we tell the story of Archimedes and his "Eureka" upon discovering Archimedes' principle of buoyancy the idea that gets left behind in our heads is that his theory was right because it was Archimedes saying it or because Archimedes said "Eureka!"

The whole problem is that when we, the public, look at science, we're seeing the results without seeing the process. The process is there, mind you, it's just incredibly shy. Come on. If you wanted to make a movie about a scientist, would you make a five-year-long film of him and his assistants sitting in front of test-tubes, twiddling knobs, checking computer numbers, or some other boring stuff? The only exciting part of science is when a scientist tells the world something and so that's the only part you see. You don't see the hard work, the experimentation, the peer reviews - imagine what it must feel like, as if you're a student and the people responsible for marking your term paper are all your classmates! - and all that. Yes, there are educated fools, but more likely than not they're not the ones discovering things and rewriting science texts.

For a good recent example, look at the case of Hwang Woo-Suk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk ... this is a good example of the scientific process in motion, and how it generally deals with people who make mistakes. At the beginning, the media make a great deal about a certain discovery (despite the fact that the peer review process often is incomplete). If the peer review process succeeds, that happens quietly without anybody being told. But as scientists begin to try to duplicate the results, strange things start appearing. The theory being put forward isn't exactly predicting what's actually happening. At first scientists attribute this to experimental error or perhaps more subtle effects, but in the end the whole thing blows. Again, the media only emphasizes the result of the scientific process - that such-and-such is false - and often we forget that it is good science which destroys bad science.

I'm not too sure about plasma cosmology, but from my first reaction to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology I would say that it is next to impossible for a Christian to believe this. By nature of Christian theology the universe has to have a temporal beginning ... or else it could not have been created.