Despite my age, which you have alluded to, I have a 16-year old daughter.
Well, we are not all young'uns here. I'll be 69 in April so we were probably in high school around the same time. I also taught high school for a while--but language and literature, not science.
Also, like yourself, I have no educational credits in biology. The last biology course I took was in freshman year. So we are not all scientists either, but some posters are either professional scientists or preparing their PhD thesis in some aspect of science.
Last year she took biology. Her textbook was the Prentice-Hall Biology co-authored by Ken Miller, a major current-day champion of evolution.
You may be right about biology teachers not spending that much time on evo; my daughter's teacher did not, in fact. But the doctrine utterly pervades the textbook. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the entire book is structured around the theory, as though the primary objective of the book were not to teach biology, but to inculcate faith in the evolutionary hypothesis.
Well, it really is true that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. I took high-school biology pre-evolution. The word "evolution" did not appear even once in the whole text. I can tell you I was bored out of my skull. It was basically rote learning of oodles of disconnected facts.
The really distressing thing, though, is that, while recent advances in science, particularly in microbiology, which is giving us a picture of the unbelievable complexity of the cell and of the staggering volumes of encoded information which it processes, have secular evolutionists rocking on their heels, my fellow Christians of the TE persuasion seem to be little inclined to reexamine their position in the light of these on-going discoveries.
The first thing that pops into my mind here is that you may be confusing evolution with the origin of life. The information system by which DNA codes for an amino acid and RNA coordinates the building of a protein had to be built as part of the very origin of cellular life.
But evolution assumes the existence of life and deals with how life diversifies.
The second thing I want to know is the definition of "secular evolutionists" Does the term include laypersons like you and me or is it restricted to scientists?
Thirdly, I would want to know what they have actually said about the complexity of a cell, and especially, the complexity of its structures and communication systems being a problem for the theory of evolution.
I fully understand that the complexity can be staggering, mind-blowing, rock-you-on-your-heels amazing. But have any of these "secular evolutionists" identified it as a problem for the theory of evolution, and if so, what do they say the problems are?
So let me ask you:
Let us suppose, hypothetically, that you were suddenly able to see what I see, namely that the evidence for design and creation of every aspect of reality is rapidly mounting, evidence that is increasingly embarrassing to evolutionists, then wouldn't you, as Christians, want to reexamine your positions? Wouldn't you be glad to have more reason to believe that God did exactly what he said he did in the Genesis ? As Christians, wouldn't you place the burden of proof on the exponents of evolution rather than on creationists? And should you not, even now, find creationist believers more kindred in spirit than materialistic evolutionists?
More questions in return. What proportion of evolutionists are materialist? Do you think every evolutionist is a materialist? As pointed out to you, the co-author of your daughter's biology text is a Christian, not a materialist.
Second, why do design and evolution need to be considered as mutually exclusive? One of Darwin's own concerns was design. He proposed natural selection not merely as a way species change over time, but as a source of design.
On another forum I have been discussing the significance of the verb 'formed' in Genesis 2:7. In Hebrew it is 'yatsar' and closely related to the noun 'yotser' which means "a potter". So the image of creation Genesis offers here is of God, the potter, forming a man. (The same image is used extensively in scripture.) I suggest that if we are to think of creation as similar to what a potter does, we can think of natural selection as the potter's wheel, used by the divine potter to form the particular designs of particular species.
Yes, I am an old man. I've seen and read of and heard of a lot of things. And, even as a Christian, I must admit that there are a lot of things I'm unsure of. But there is one thing that I am absolutely certain of: the theory of evolution, of one species developing into another, whether of the classic or neo-Darwinian model, is untenable.
Probably your whole conception of evolution is out of date. Evolution is less about one species developing into another and more about one species dividing itself into two or more species each diversifying in a different direction.
Now, here's the thing. What is your gut response to that proposition? What emotion does it elicit?
No emotion really. Just noting the probability that you don't look at evolution as a biologist does and if you did you might find it a lot less untenable than you do now.
If I were a TE, and were confronted with the news that recent scientific discovery had made the creationist interpretation all the more plausible and convincing, I would rejoice! Praise be to God and his Word, the veracity of which is being vindicated! I would gladly, happily, laughingly be willing to jettison the TE position, as the compromise with the world which it represents, and embrace the fully biblical position.
Well, I don't think the veracity of scripture is in any jeopardy from science. I am quite happy to praise God for creation and his Word for its testimony to creation without feeling any need to jettison TE. I don't find TE to be a compromise.
I'm insulting, when both of these responders say that I'm "unqualified" to have educated views, blithely accusing me of arguing "from incredulity and god-of-the-gaps theology?"
The self-educated amateur certainly has a role to play, but just as the professionals need to provide evidence to convince their peers, the amateur needs to be familiar with the evidence and to be able to cite the evidence for their position.
Simply taking an authoritative stance that science is all wrong or that scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to repress dissent is not going to wash.
So, basically, you guys are saying I have no right to voice an opinion here not to your liking, that I "do not have the expertise or credibility" (whatever that might mean) "to put any weight behind" my opinions.
You can put weight to your opinions by:
1) not misrepresenting what the science of evolution is actually about or what it says,
2) showing you are familiar with the evidence and arguments used to support evolutionary theory ( and not just creationist caricatures of them), and
3) citing relevant evidence to support your opinions.
You don't have to be a professional to do this. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can learn the basics and sometimes more than the basics.
I have just two things to say about that, and then I will excuse myself from your exclusive forum.
1. This is so typical. You are evidently unwilling/unable to deal directly with the myriads of objections to evo, so you cast aspersions on our intelligence, or accuse creationists or IDers of not obeying certain "rules of science" conveniently defined in your own favor.
Many of the "myriads of objections" are dealt with here:
An Index to Creationist Claims
If you don't find those responses satisfactory, feel free to pick one and tell us why. Or tell us of one that doesn't already have a cut-and-paste response.
However often I hear about "myriads of objections" to evolution, I have not really heard even one substantial objection. Usually the objections are irrelevant to the science (e.g. evolution leads to immoral behaviour; evolution rules out God) or based on some misunderstanding of how evolution works and what the theory of evolution actually predicts.
Don't see the point? Okay, it's this: 50 million PhD's may conclude among themselves that man evolved from so much primordial muck, while a child can perceive how preposterous that is. "Out of the mouth of babes."
Should Jesus have said "Unless you become doctors of philosophy, you can in no wise understand the mysteries of creation?"
To be wise about creation has nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution. And a fairly young child can understand the basics of evolution, even though it took a lot of original PhD level research to figure it out in the first place. As I see it, evolution is one of the mysteries of creation and maybe it does take the attitude of a child willing to learn to understand it.
