How to deal with evolution?

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe that it is important to remember that not too long ago the very large majority of scientists were Christians. Charles Darwin was one of those scientists. He entered college to prepare for the Christian ministry but became so fascinated by biology that he began studying more botany than he did theology. When he was invited to join the other naturalists aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he took his Bible with him but we don’t know very much about his Christian experiences during the voyage. However, we do know that during the voyage he made discoveries that led him to draw inescapable conclusions that deeply troubled him, and that he pondered these things for twenty years before he published his discoveries and his conclusions.

For the sake of the truth, in spite of the flak that he knew he would receive, and in spite of the upheaval that he knew would occur if he published his findings, Charles Darwin took courage and published his findings that have done more good for more people than the discoveries of almost any other scientist that has ever lived. Indeed, the principles of natural selection, worked out by Charles Darwin, are absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the world we live in and what we must do to preserve it.

Charles Darwin was castigated by many in the Christian community for sharing with the world the discoveries that he had made. Today, we find far fewer of our scientists in church on Sunday mornings.


Henry Morris, on the other hand, was a Christian hydraulic engineer who became an amateur geologist who was extremely disrespectful of professional geologists and other scientists in general and devoted his life to prove that they were wrong, causing the scientific community and the academic community at large to become increasingly hostile toward the message of the gospel of Christ. He also persuaded tens of thousands of young Christian men and women that one could not believe in both the Bible and evolution, and since these young men and women knew that the scientific data in support of evolution was nearly infinite, and that the scientific data proving that the flood depicted in the story of Noah’s Ark never occurred (and was an absolute impossibility) was conclusive, they chose to believe in evolution and set aside their Bibles—and ultimately their Christian faith.

 

[trinityisunity]

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

I have a book called "In six days-Why scientists choose to believe in creation." This book contains 50 scientists with degrees in biology, geology chemistry, mathematics,physics, zoology, botany and medical reearchers and engineers including university professors. The book is edited by John F Ashton PhD.Published by Strand , Sydney, Australia.2003. Just to name a couple of the scientists:Henry Zuill, Biology professor at Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ariel A Roth, Biology, past professor at Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Even though you believe the evolution theory you are still my brother in Christ, He loves you and so do we.Please give this book a read if you can get a hold of it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well I'm sorry that you and many other brothers have experienced this from people who claim to be fellow Christians. Such behavior is reprehensible. Make no mistake, I do believe that evolution should be refuted on a Scriptural basis. And believers who accept evolution ought to be gently persuaded, if possible. But I do not believe that they should be put out of the church, or treated a second-class Christians. It says,

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)



​

Now what is the doctrine that we have been taught? First and foremost, we have been taught about Christ, who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, and was resurrected by God. We have been taught that the teaching of the Apostles is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Prophets of Israel also spoke by the Holy Spirit. I think that a person who believes this can rightly be called a Christian, and anyone who tries to divide Christians by other means is causing unnecessary division in the church.

There are also creeds that Christians have invented over the centuries to define and the faith. Such things as the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Westminster Confession are all man-made tools that help us define the Christian faith.

So what about evolutionists in the church? I think they should be allowed to live and fellowship with us, so long as they believe in the fundamentals of the faith. On one hand, I do wish that they would abstain from teaching evolutionist doctrine in the church. However, what separates Christians from extremist cults, Islam, and other such things, is that we do not suppress dissenters. I think that discussion on the issue is healthy. And I am confident that if we are all believers in Christ (even the evolutionists), most people will be persuaded to believe that the Mosaic creation account is historically accurate. I am by no means afraid of discussing evolution.

There is one thing that troubles me about evolution. People who believe in it tend to also believe in other, more severe heterodox doctrines. For example, believers in evolution tend to claim that people can be saved apart from Christ, and I believe that such teaching is very dangerous. But even in this case, it is not evolution itself which is dangerous.

Is evolution wrong? Yes. But we ought to accept people who believe in it as brothers, because there are real heresies from which we must defend the church. Such things as sexual immorality, religious pluralism, and homosexuality threaten the modern church. And compared to such things, evolution is not by itself of much concern. Therefore I wish that Christians would persuade evolutionists to believe in Biblical creation, not out of hatred or contempt, but out of love. Those who believe in evolution, but who hold to the fundamentals of the faith, are genuinely brothers in Christ. So let us treat them as brothers, and not as Gentiles.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. From my perspective, the number one threat that the Church is facing today is creationism, especially creationism that is antagonistic toward the natural sciences. I was one of countless young people who grew up believing that the Christian faith was absolutely nothing but mindless stupidity for the precise reason that the Christians with whom I came in contact were creationists who knew little or nothing about science but fiercely opposed it.

By the grace of God, He made Himself real to me but creationist teachings were a very serious stumbling block to me. My Christian friends, thinking that they were doing me a favor, asked me to read books by the likes of Henry Morris and his gang and their disrespect for both an academic view of science and an academic view of the Bible deeply troubled me and I wanted no part of them or their ridiculous religious beliefs. Indeed, I frequently found it necessary to separate in my mind their ridiculous religious beliefs from the Bible itself.

My academic pursuit of Biblical knowledge has greatly helped me to have a firm conviction of Biblical truths, but even today I occasionally find it necessary to remind myself that there is a very sharp distinction between creationism and Biblical truth, and that creationism is nothing but an archaic and very naïve interpretation of the Bible.

The worst of it, however, is that I am surrounded by young people who do not believe the Bible largely due to the fact that creationists have made the Bible appear to them to be nothing but a silly old book that is of no relevance today. Creationists need to take a closer, more objective look at both science and the Bible and the highly destructive impact that their theology is having on young people today. Teaching creationism does absolutely nothing to further the gospel of Christ, but it does an immense amount of harm to it. Young people need to understand that they have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the wages of sin is death, and that Jesus paid the penalty of death for each and every one of them, but that they must personally receive that redemption through faith in Christ. Adding to that message a ridiculously archaic interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis makes a mockery of that message and destroys its influence.

 

[Dmckay]

Regarding my mathematical biology class, I seem to have found myself in a possible dilemma. As a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrent words of God, I obviously do not believe in evolution. Unfortunately, I may have to write a final paper on a topic regarding evolution. Now, I'm not one to preach creationism, since such discussions often cause the Gospel to take a back seat. But by no means does this mean that I actually believe in any form of evolution. Since Jesus must be the Lord of our lives in all areas, I obviously cannot compartmentalize religion and science, and ignore the words of God while in the classroom.

Fortunately, it happens to be the case that I could easily choose a topic which doesn't involve evolution, so this dilemma isn't too significant of an issue. But it has raised the question in my mind: how is a Christian to deal with this?

I have found that arguing against evolution with someone who is puffed up with their "worldly wisdom" of Science and Math by using Scripture usually gets you no where fast. Since they reject the source and argument of Scripture they usually dismiss you out of hand without even considering your arguments. This same has proven true many times for people I know trying to prove the existence of G-d in Philosophy classes.

The best way I know is to approach them from their own point of view and show them the illogical fallacies of their position. A great source for doing this is a terrific little book entitled The Illustrated ORIGINS Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor . This is a 128 page book that is jampacked with scientific arguments against evolution. The best part is that more than half the book consists of detailed reference notes, sources and quotations which support Creation and point out the inconsistencies of evolution.

The book is available from Eden Publications P.O. Box 41644
Mesa, Arizona 85274-1644. Cancel that, I tried to find a phone number for them and can't find a listing for them in Arizona. However, the book, now in its 5th edition is available at this URL:
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-or.html

I was going to type out the Chapter contents and some samples of the available information in this book, but you can check it out at the URL above. I have placed copies of this book in the library of every church I have been affiliated with in any capacity.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I was brought up to believe evolution all my life, and while I am beginning to refute it, I still cannot get over the fact that Chimps have 99% of the exact same DNA that we do. Maybe God just made them very similiar to us for a reason unknown to man. I can speculate all day long, I will never know while on this earth.

Actually they don't share 99% of the exact DNA. If you want to read more I wrote an article on this a while back. You can read it here.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The biggest mistake Christians mistake is thinking that Science is "bad". Fact is..Science is a tool like any other. It helps us to KNOW God more through his creations.
I do believe (as it is PROVEN) that our bodies do change to our enviroments. That's a fact. It's science. And it's how God made it to be. Science and God work hand in hand...science is merely the "HOW" to God's creations.

I totally agree with you. This coming from a man that denies goo to man evolution and the idea of billions of years. Think about that one for a bit.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

In my professional opinion, Answers in Genesis is a fraudulent, pseudo-Christian cult that has done immeasurable damage to both the Christian faith and the natural sciences by making Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia and by making scientists appear to be high school dropouts. Their handling the Holy Scriptures demonstrates a most severe disrespect for them and the God who inspired them. Their handing of science belittles the life time of learning of hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world and exalts a pack of fools who have been so severely blinded by the devil himself that they cannot see the significance of the data staring them in the face. Their so-called scientific papers demonstrate a most pathetic ignorance of the natural sciences and should most definitely not be confused with the real thing.

I respect the right of everyone to believe what they choose to believe, but to willfully and deliberately distort the facts in order to defend one’s personal and grossly ignorant interpretation of Genesis 1-11, as is the habit of the people behind organizations like Answers in Genesis, is a sin of a most horrendous magnitude.

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has. There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have a book called "In six days-Why scientists choose to believe in creation." This book contains 50 scientists with degrees in biology, geology chemistry, mathematics,physics, zoology, botany and medical reearchers and engineers including university professors. The book is edited by John F Ashton PhD.Published by Strand , Sydney, Australia.2003. Just to name a couple of the scientists:Henry Zuill, Biology professor at UnionCollege, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ariel A Roth, Biology, past professor at Loma Linda University, CA USA.

I wrote,

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, is a very small Seventh-day Adventist college that has neither a biology department nor a geology department and it is NOT a university.

Loma Linda University is a health sciences university and is part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's system of higher education. This university has neither a biology department nor a geology department, but it does have a VERY small Department of Earth and Biological Sciences with only eight professors, and Ariel A. Roth is NOT one of them today.

Even though you believe the evolution theory you are still my brother in Christ, He loves you and so do we.Please give this book a read if you can get a hold of it.

The actual title of the book is, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Dr. Colin Groves, a paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University, wrote a review in which he exposes this book for what it really is. You can read his lengthy and very detailed review at,

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm

For your convenience, here are three of the paragraphs from that review,

“Science is a process of finding out. Pseudoscience is a process of collecting evidence to support a prior belief. Science tests a hypothesis by seeing if it fits the available data; if it doesn’t the hypothesis will be discarded or modified. Pseudoscience tests data by seeing if they fit the favoured hypothesis; if they don’t, it is the data (not the hypothesis) that will be discarded or modified. As creationism is the most pervasive (and, arguably, the most blatant and most harmful) example of a pseudoscience, it is difficult to see how any scientist could be a creationist.”

“But now, it seems, our challenge has been answered, our bluff has been called. Here are 50 scientists - sorry, 50 people with scientific training and often working as professional scientists - who have been discovered by John F.Ashton, PhD, to be creationists, and persuaded by him to tell us why. So let us learn from the experience: who are they, what is their expertise and training, and why indeed are they creationists?

“Most of the fifty are Australians or Americans; there is also the odd Brit, Canadian, South African or German. Their testimonials, which vary from two to twenty pages long, are divided into two groups, "Science and origins" and "Religion and origins", but there is not really very much difference between the two. There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science. One might well ask what precisely an inorganic chemist or a hydrometallurgist might know about the evolution of life that would qualify them to speak about it with knowledge and wisdom, and one of the engineers, Stanley A.Mumma, quite unashamedly admits that his profession is unusually prone to creationism: "Engineers quite often need confidence in the literal accuracy of the Genesis account, while people educated in many other disciplines are quite satisfied to take it as allegory" (pp.300-1). But about a biologist or a geologist one can have no doubts: in theory, at least, they have the training and experience to know what they are talking about.”

“Put them in perspective a bit. Of those nine biologists, five were trained at least in part at religious foundation universities or colleges of one kind or another: one at Loma Linda, one at Pacific Union College, one at both Andrews University and George Mason University, two at Wheaton College (and one of them at Houghton College in addition); only four received their entire training at what I’d call "proper universities", and some of them specify that their classes in evolution were poor in some way - a hectoring or poorly prepared lecturer, for instance. Of the 12 (excluding Hosken) others connected with the life sciences, four were trained at religious institutions (Loma Linda and Andrews again, Dordt College, and Loyola University), and eight at "proper universities". Of the other 28, only three trained at religious institutions (Loyola again, Loma Linda yet again, and Phillips University), and all the rest went to mainline universities, polytechnics and so on. Could there be some significance here? Might it be that a biologist is much less inclined than others to be a creationist unless actually trained at an institution with a creationist tendency?”

Some of the other paragraphs are full of highly relevant and very juicy facts that every Christian should know about this book.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has.

I am not attacking you or anyone else—I am only posting the truth about the deliberately dishonest tactics employed by some organizations that are willing to commit any sin necessary to defend their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. I fully realize that the typical layman does not know enough about biology or geology to see that Answers in Genesis regularly makes a practice of deliberately and willfully distorting the significance and reasonable interpretation of scientific data and that their articles make a mockery of the natural sciences. I also fully realize that the typical layman does not have enough knowledge of ancient Hebrew literature to see how Answers in Genesis not only makes a mockery of Biblical hermeneutics, but a mockery of the Book of Genesis. Most people believe what they want to believe and they are not willing to invest many years and $150,000 in getting a good education in both biology and Biblical exegesis in order to have the background and the tools necessary to evaluate for themselves the relevant data. However, nothing that I have posted on this message board in any way reflects the kind of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. That is an entirely different subject, a subject that cannot be coherently debated with laymen who lack the necessary background in the natural sciences to understand the issues involved.

There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

Some people who make a mockery of the natural sciences and the degrees earned by more than 99.9% of scientists turn right around and call to the witness stand a handful of quacks with Ph.D.’s who are academic failures for whom the academic world holds nothing but contempt.

As a biologist who specialized in evolutionary biology, I know first hand the character of men of science, and with very few exceptions they have a very deep appreciation of and respect for the truth. As a Christian who specialized in Biblical exegesis and translation theory I know first hand the character of many Christian creationists and I have found them, for the most part, to be so obsessed with their archaic and ill-informed interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that they have allowed that obsession to cause them to deliberately and willfully misrepresent the facts to defend their interpretation that they most woefully mistake for the “Word of God.”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

In an earlier post I quoted from a book review of In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. This book review was written by Dr. Colin Groves, a paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University. I would like, in this post, to present to you a list of recent publications by this scientist:

RECENT PUBLICATIONS BY DR. COLIN GROVES

1995 Microtaxonomy and its implications for captive breeding. Pp 24-28 in U.Ganslosser, J.K.Hodges & W.Kaumanns (eds.), Research and Captive Propagation. Fürth: Filander Verlag.

1996 (with J.Shoshani, E.L.Simons & G.F.Gunnell). Primate phylogeny: morphological vs molecular results. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 5:102-154.

1996 Taxonomic diversity in Arabian gazelles: the state of the art. Pp. 8-39 in A.Greth, C.Magin & M.Ancrenaz (eds.), Conservation of Arabian Gazelles. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

1996 Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation of the specific name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53:24-7.

1996 (with A.Gentry & J.Clutton-Brock). Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic anaimals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 53:28-37.

1996 (with P.M.Goonan & R.D.Smith). Karyotype polymorphism in the Slender Loris (Loris tardigradus). Folia primatologica, 65:100-9.

1996 The nomenclature of the Tanzanian Mangabey and the Siberut Macaque. Australian Primatology, 10, 4:2-5.

1996 Great Apes: the conflict of gene-pools, conservation and personhood. Perspectives in Human Biology 2:31-36.

1996 Hovering on the brink: nearly but not quite getting to Australia. Perspectives in Human Biology, 2:83-7.

1996 From Ussher to Slusher; from Archbish to Gish; or, not in a million years... Archaeology in Oceania 31:145-151.

1996 The taxonomy of the Asian Wild Buffalo from the Asian mainland. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 61:327-338.

1997 Major biogeographic regions of the world. Section of article "Biosphere". Pp 1160-1167 (vol.14) in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 15th edition.

1997 Rediscovery of the wild pig Sus bucculentus. Nature, 386:335.

1997 Taxonomy of wild pigs (Sus) of the Philippines. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 120:163-191.

1997 Taxonomy and phylogeny of Primates. In A.Blancher, J.Klein & W.W.Socha (eds.), Molecular Biology and Evolution of Blood Group and MHC Antigens in Primates. Berlin: Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg and New York, pp.3-23. [ISBN 3-540-61636-5. 3 Parts in book; Part 1 has 1 chapter (the one by me, Part 2 has 9 chapters, Part 3 has 9 chapters. Chapters are numbered sequentially by Part].

1997 The taxonomy of Arabian Gazelles. In K.Habibi, A.H.Abuzinada & I.A.Nader (eds.), The Gazelles of Arabia, Riyadh: National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Publication No.29, English Series, pp.24-51 [ISBN 9960-614-06-9. 12 chapters in book].

1997 Thinking about evolutionary change: the polarity of our ancestors. In G.A.Clark and C.M.Willermet (eds), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins. Aldine de Gruyter, N.Y., 1997, pp 319-326. [ISBN 0-2-1-02040-1. 29 chapters in book].

1997 Species concept in palaeoanthropology. Perspectives in Human Biology, 3:13-20.

1997 Leopard-cats, Prionailurus bengalensis (Carnivora: Felidae) from Indonesia and the Philippines, with the description of two new subspecies. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 62:330-338.

1998 The proximal ulna from Klasies River. Journal of Human Evolution, 34:119-121.
1997 Taxonomy and phylogeny of Primates. In A.Blancher, J.Klein & W.W.Socha (eds.), Molecular Biology and Evolution of Blood Group and MHC Antigens in Primates. Berlin: Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg and New York, pp.3-23. [ISBN 3-540-61636-5. 3 Parts in book; Part 1 has 1 chapter (the one by me, Part 2 has 9 chapters, Part 3 has 9 chapters. Chapters are numbered sequentially by Part].

1997 The taxonomy of Arabian Gazelles. In K.Habibi, A.H.Abuzinada & I.A.Nader (eds.), The Gazelles of Arabia, Riyadh: National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development, Publication No.29, English Series, pp.24-51 [ISBN 9960-614-06-9. 12 chapters in book].

1997 Thinking about evolutionary change: the polarity of our ancestors. In G.A.Clark and C.M.Willermet (eds), Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins. Aldine de Gruyter, N.Y., 1997, pp 319-326. [ISBN 0-2-1-02040-1. 29 chapters in book].

1997 Species concept in palaeoanthropology. Perspectives in Human Biology, 3:13-20.

1997 Leopard-cats, Prionailurus bengalensis (Carnivora: Felidae) from Indonesia and the Philippines, with the description of two new subspecies. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, 62:330-338.

1998 The proximal ulna from Klasies River. Journal of Human Evolution, 34:119-121.

1998 Systematics of Tarsiers and Lorises. Primates, 39:13-27.

1988 (with M.Goodman, C.A.Porter, J.Czelusniak, S.L.Page, H.Schneider, J.Shoshani and G.Gunnell). Toward a phylogenetic classification of Primates based on DNA evidence complemented by fossil evidence. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 9:585-598.

1998 (with H.Mendelssohn and B.Shalmon). A new subspecies of Gazella gazella from the southern Negev. Isreal Journal of Zoology, 43:209-215.

1999 Die Nashörner - Stammesgeschichte und Verwandtschaft. In Anonymous (ed.), Die Nashörner: Begegnung mit urzeitlichen Kolossen, 14-32. Furth: Filander Verlag. [ISBN 3-930831-06-6. 19 chapters in book].

1999 (with T.F.Flannery). A revision of the genus Zaglossus (Monotremata, Tachyglossidae), with description of new species and subspecies. Mammalia, 62:367-396.

1999 The advantages and disadvantages of being domesticated (A Keynote Address). Perspectives in Human Biology, 4:1-12.

1999 Australopithecus garhi: a new-found link? Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 19, 3:10-13.

1999 Nomenclature of African Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 37:869-872.

1999 (with A.Thorne). The terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene populations of northern Africa. Homo, 50, 3:249-262. [ISSN 0018-442X].

2000 (with P.Grubb, J.P.Dudley & J.Shoshani). Living African elephants belong to two species: Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach, 1797) and Loxodonta cyclotis (Matschie, 1900). Elephant, 2, 4:1-4. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 (with P.Grubb), Do Loxodonta cyclotis and L.africana interbreed? Elephant, 2, 4:4-7. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 What are the elephants of West Africa? Elephant, 2, 4:7-8. [ISSN 0737-108X]

2000 (with P.Grubb). Are there Pygmy Elephants? Elephant, 2, 4:8-10. [ISSN 0737-108X].

2000 Phylogenetic relationships within recent Antilopini (Bovidae). In E.S.Vrba and G.B.Schaller (eds.), Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives, 223-233. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. [ISBN 0-300-08142-1. 23 chapters in book].

2000 (with G.B.Schaller). The phylogeny and biogeography of the newly discovered Annamite artiodactyls. In E.S.Vrba and G.B.Schaller (eds.), Antelopes, Deer, and Relatives, 261-282. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. [ISBN 0-300-08142-1. 23 chapters in book].

2000 Phylogeny of the Cercopithecoidea. In P.Whitehead and C.J.Jolly, eds., Old World Monkeys, 77-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ISBN: 0 521 57124 3. 27 chapters in book].

2000 (with O.A.Ryder). Systematics and phylogeny of the horse. In A.T.Bowling and A.Ruvinsky (eds.), The Genetics of the Horse, 1-24. Wallingford (Oxon., U.K.) & New York: CABI Publishing. [ISBN 0 85199 429 6. 18 chapters in book].

2000 (with A.Thorne). The affinities of the Klasies River Mouth remains. In J.S.Chisholm (ed.), Towards Consilience: Perspectives in Human Biology, 5:43-53. [ISBN 1 7405 2 028 9. 6 chapters in book].

2000 (with M.Chech, A.Thorne & E.Trinkaus). A new reconstruction of the Shanidar 5 cranium. Paléorient, 25:143-146. [ISSN 0513-9345]

2000 The genus Cheirogaleus: unrecognised biodiversity in Dwarf Lemurs. International Journal of Primatology, 21:943-962.

I am sorry, but this is the most recent list that I have.

 

[tamtam92]

I know a retired professor of biology who was a professor ("maître de conférences") in a french small university (but all our universities are small compared to the americans). He wasn't allowed to have a better job because of his beliefs. I also know a christian genetics research worker at CNRS, which is the biggest french national lab.
I just say that because you asked, i don't believe it proves anything - but that one can be a creationist and a real scientist.

You don't have to worry, french scientists are very closed to creationism. Whenever you read about the debate they criticize the idea of 'intelligent design', and even i've read they thought evolution wasn't taught enough in our schools. Yet i've never read any argument that deeply shaked my belief and literal understanding of the Bible.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I know a retired professor of biology who was a professor ("maître de conférences") in a french small university (but all our universities are small compared to the americans). He wasn't allowed to have a better job because of his beliefs. I also know a christian genetics research worker at CNRS, which is the biggest french national lab.
I just say that because you asked, i don't believe it proves anything - but that one can be a creationist and a real scientist.

I wrote,

I challenge you to name even one professor of geology or biology teaching in a university anywhere in the world today that believes that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

There is a huge difference between a retired lecturer and a current professor of biology teaching in a university today. There many Christians who are professors of biology teaching in universities today or working in other jobs but they do NOT that believe that the earth is less than millions years old and that the tectonic plates forming our continents today pulled apart from each other in the last ten thousand years.

You don't have to worry, french scientists are very closed to creationism. Whenever you read about the debate they criticize the idea of 'intelligent design', and even i've read they thought evolution wasn't taught enough in our schools. Yet i've never read any argument that deeply shaked my belief and literal understanding of the Bible.

The Biblical hermeneutic applied by creationists to Genesis 1-11 and the other relevant passages in the Bible have been absolutely proven, when applied to other historical passages in the Bible, to yield a VERY WRONG interpretation. Indeed, when the exact same hermeneutic is applied to other historical passages in the Bible, we find that the earth is relatively small, very flat, and covered by a dome inside of which are the sun, the moon, several planets, and the stars—all of which are revolving around the earth. The early scientists who challenged this “literal understanding of the Bible” were severely persecuted, some of them unto death. And even today there are many flat-earthers who are persecuting those Christians who have dared to pray and believe God for a more accurate understanding of the Bible and His creation.


I believe that God, according to His sovereign will, has chosen to progressively bless us with a knowledge of the earth and its place in His creation. When I am out collecting rocks for my garden and pick up an interesting rock I look at it and ponder the fact that it is many millions of years old and I marvel at the fact that God has blessed me with the ability to pick up something so very old and hold it in my hand and enjoy it and then take it home and set it in my garden. When I go out to my garden at night and gaze up into the heavens that God created and realize that I am standing on a creation of His that He created 4.5 billion years ago and partake of the fantastic beauty of the sky that is even very much older, I can not help but marvel at the indescribable majesty and glory of God.

Why did God create our solar system? What was he doing before He created it, and what else has He created? I do not know the answers, but I know that we have a great big wonderful God!


Thank you for sharing with us your view on this matter and the Christian spirit in which you shared it.

 

[tamtam92]

Well i mentioned it because he's not been retired for a long time so i thought it was the same... but it's OK if you don't care.

I don't want to debate here. I've taken part in this debate in the origins forum (i don't remember the exact name, it was the christian one).Yet for months i haven't had time enough to go back there.

I'm pleased if you want to serve God, but alas, good will doesn't always mean you're right.

 

[catch21wide]

Hey Princetonguy. Yeah I'm calling you out. By what you just wrote, I am shocked that a fellow believer in Christ would write that. God didn't give us evolution. Evolution was founded by a man who at first was a christian, but later became an athiest after the death of one of his daughters. Like I said in an earlier post, God created everything in HIS image. There are some things in this world that He just don't want us to know. I don't believe that the Earth has been here billions of years. I will find out the true answer to that when I get to Heaven. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am just saying what looks to be evident at this time. Princetonguy, you are just one of those liberal baptists who is compromising the Word of God. By believing in evolution one is compromising the Word of God and saying the Bible contains errors. In conclusion, I have just one thing to say. When Jesus returns to the Earth that His Father CREATED, the evolution believers will know once and for all that evolution is wrong and right now I have a feeling that Darwin himself is paying the price for what he did.

 

[catch21wide]

Hey Princetonguy. If I said anything to in my last post to offend you, I do apologize. You just have to see where some people like me are coming from when we try our best to defend God's Word. We try and not get agitated, but sometimes we do. It is true that liberals compromise the Word of God and I don't believe in doing that. I hope you accept my apology.

 

[JPPT1974]

Here my friends is your typical ad hominem attack on people that disagree with goo to man evolution. I don't know why they resort to these unchristian like tatics but I think it shows you what kind of evidence evolution really has. There are plenty of Ph. D scientists in fields like chemistry, geology and biology that deny goo to man evolution and even deny billions of years. Some are not even Christians. I might add there are many great theologians that support the ideas of Answers In Genesis. From John MacArthur of today to Martin Luther and John Calvin in times old.

Sometimes science is good
But as long as it doesnt' compromise
The ways and truth of what the Lord is
And does!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hey Princetonguy. If I said anything to in my last post to offend you, I do apologize. You just have to see where some people like me are coming from when we try our best to defend God's Word. We try and not get agitated, but sometimes we do. It is true that liberals compromise the Word of God and I don't believe in doing that. I hope you accept my apology.

Like all too many other Christian fundamentalists, you are confusing your own very archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible with what is actually taught in the Bible. As I have posted above in another post, the Bible makes no claim whatsoever of inerrancy from the modern, human perspective of accuracy. If believing the Bible over the doctrines of fundamentalist radicals makes me a liberal, I give all the glory to God that I am a liberal. However, from the point of view of liberal theologians I am an ultra-conservative who has his head in the sand and who refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of contemporary Biblical scholarship that denies the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, and His resurrection!

One fact, however, is undeniable. And that fact is that the teaching of creationism does absolutely nothing to further the gospel and it is the very cause why every year hundreds of thousands of Christian young people raised in the homes of Christian fundamentalists are turning away from their faith upon encountering the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of evolution. The answer to this problem is a very simple and proven answer that really works—and that answer is to teach our young people what the Bible actually teaches and leave out the nonsense that it does not teach. No one needs to believe in Noah’s Ark to be saved—but EVERYONE needs to believe in the cross of Christ to be saved. And when the story of Noah’s Ark is added to the gospel, the consequence is the rejection of Christ and His atoning death on the cross for our sins. This is not the fault of the evolutionists because the theory of evolution, true or false, is absolutely irrelevant to the truth of the gospel. It is exclusively the fault of Christian fundamentalists who are teaching our young people the lie that they need to choose to believe in either evolution or the Bible, and who destroy their credibility as both parents and Christians by believing foolish nonsense rather than an academically sound interpretation of the Bible.

I am vigorously defending the Bible and its teaching and vigorously opposing an archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible that is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of people rejecting the gospel of Christ and consequently being damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hey Princetonguy. Yeah I'm calling you out. By what you just wrote, I am shocked that a fellow believer in Christ would write that. God didn't give us evolution. Evolution was founded by a man who at first was a christian, but later became an athiest after the death of one of his daughters.

You are absolutely right! God did NOT give us evolution! Evolution is a theory of science that is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and over 99.9% of biologists and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. in biology or geology and an even greater percentage of biologists and geologists who currently hold professorships in our universities today. If there was just one chance in a billion that the theory is nothing but a lie, as taught by fundamentalists, we would have hundreds if not thousands of biologists and geologists who have earned a Ph.D. in biology or geology trying to be the first to expose the theory of evolution as a lie.

Most unfortunately a handful of very naïve but highly influential people have brainwashed millions of fundamentalists into believing that the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible when in fact it merely contradicts an archaic, naïve, and indefensible interpretation of the Bible that is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of people rejecting the gospel of Christ and consequently being damned to the fires of hell for eternity.

 

[Joykins]

Also, recently a Christian friend at work and myself were talking about evolution (I was explaining how I didn't believe in it, and something I add with non-Christians in addition to God is that all science has to be PROVEN. We can't recreate evolution in a lab, now can we?)

Sure we can. Unless when you say "evolution" you really mean something more specific.

and she said her thirteen year old daughter said something about evolution that was wonderful. She said, "Mom, if some believe that we are evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The theory of evolution does not claim we are evolved from monkeys.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The theory of evolution does not claim we are evolved from monkeys.

It says we evolved from ape like creatures.