What would happen to the creation/evolution debate...

[klutedavid]

... if everyone was required to pass an introductory Biology (university-level Biology 101) course first?

My prediction: the debate mostly disappear for two reasons.

1) I suspect a lot of creationists wouldn't have the inclination to pass such a course. Most creationists in my experience little genuine interest in science.

2) Those who did pass would likely have a lot of misconceptions about basic biology and evolution cleared up in the first place. Given there is a correlation between understanding of evolution and acceptance, I suspect increased understanding would lead to a decrease in the numbers of creationists.

Well one day, we will all know the answer to this debate and I hope on that day. That this debate has some relevant importance, otherwise we may be be in for the shock of our lives.

 

[pitabread]

I find this post insulting, insisting that creationists are against science and have little-to-no knowledge of a single field of study. There are Christian biologist, I hate to break that to you. There are Christian archaeologists too.

I didn't say Christians in my OP. I specifically referred to creationists.

Not all Christians are creationists. And not all creationists are Christians.

We are discredited because we disagree with the modern-day majority view, and so whatever we say isn't considered "real" science, so we aren't heard loud enough and the work we do isn't appreciated by any.

Creationism isn't real science; there really isn't any debate about this. Professional creationist organizations for example are religious ministries, not scientific organizations.

Your idea that all creationist should take certain classes, leaning toward another bias, should clear up our "misunderstandings" and turn us against what we believe. How about studying from our end? Read up on the best our leading men in the field of biology. Let's see who really has the closed mind.

In my experience in these discussions I find I usually have a better grasp on various forms of creationism than most creationists.

 

[JohnAshton]

Do any of you really think this is a salvation issue. Really?

Then dial it back.

 

[pitabread]

According to the official site of Gallup polls concerning JUST the USA, as of July 26, 2019, 40% believe in strictly creation (up from 38% in 2017) & 33% believe God God guided the evolutionary process & only 22% believe God had no involvement whatsoever. mmmm

78% vs 22% believe God is involved and active vs no god active. Even during the 37 years of the Gallup poll, the highest on creation was 47%, so over that length of time there has been a drop of only 7%. The growth of the 22% comes because those in this category have increasingly stated they have no religious identification at all.

Personally, I'm not really a fan of the "god guiding evolution" part of their question since it's highly interpretive as to what exactly that is supposed to mean. But in terms of strict creationist beliefs (e.g. humans created out of thin air as opposed to evolving from prior ancestors), the 40% is where things sit.

I also wouldn't get too excited about the uptick from 2017, since their 2019 poll has a +/- 4% margin of error.

Overall, belief in creationism has been steadily trending downward for the last decade+.

The real story is in the demographic breakdown. If you look at the supplementary data, they list the following:

By age (God created humans pretty much in their present form):

18-34 - 34%
34-54 - 40%
55+ - 44%

And by education (God created humans pretty much in their present form):

HS Grad or less - 51%
Some College - 45%
College Grad - 23%

The trends are apparent. As the population ages and becomes more educated, we can expect beliefs in creationism to decline. And given that creationist beliefs in the U.S. are trending downward, this already appears to be occurring.

 

[pitabread]

My prediction: If such a required course was still made-up of captive (graded) audiences, probably no change from what's happening today. However, if they weren't graded, and all evolutionary speculation had to be well-emphasized, a lot of instructors would probably retire or request another subject to teach.

It would have to be graded because otherwise how would you determine comprehension of the material?

And that's the real salient point of the OP: it's not about the course per-say. It's about the fact that creationists had to demonstrate an understanding of biology prior to engaging in these debates, there would be a lot less creationists in these debates.

Your own post just reinforced that.

 

[pitabread]

Do any of you really think this is a salvation issue. Really?

There are creationists on this forum do believe that one cannot be a real Christian unless one is also a creationist.

 

[pitabread]

You don't need a PhD to understand Genesis, since it was originally written to an audience that likely had an education less than that of an 8th grader. You must consider the historical context of the inspired work, it wasn't solely written for the Information Era that we currently live in today. It was written in the common speech and understanding of those who lived 3,500 years ago.

Sounds like all the more reason to not treat it as literal history of the Earth.

 

[Jonaitis]

Sounds like all the more reason to not treat it as literal history of the Earth.

It is up to you if you want to disbelief the text altogether or take them non-literally, since you are agnostic it really doesn't matter.

It may well be that the hermeneutical interpretation of the Scriptures that I and my forefathers in the faith have held to will continue to be compromised by some in this post-christian era, but I have confidence in my God that there will be yet again another reforming that will shift the church to return to her foundational truths. As it was in time past, and we look back to those men of God who fought for truth in such turbulent times, and when the whole world stood against them, they will look upon this generation (if God permits). It won't be just for doctrinal positions, but moral one too from abortion to the LGBT. They justified slavery, they now justify abortion. In regards to doctrine, they allowed pagan philosophy to corrupt many in the early church, they are now trying to corrupt science and the biblical truths regarding our origins in the modern day church. As they called us fools then, they call us fools now. Who will stand as our John the Baptist? Where is Athanasius? Who will stand as our Martin Luther? Who will stand as our John Knox? Who will stand up in this wicked and rebellious generation to contend for the truth?

 

[pitabread]

It may well be that the hermeneutical interpretation of the Scriptures that I and my forefathers in the faith have held to will continue to be compromised by some in this post-christian era, but I have confidence in my God that there will be yet again another reforming that will shift the church to return to her foundational truths.

I see this a lot in these debates. Fundamentalists cling to the the idea that if we just wait, things will turn around (or more commonly, the world will end and all us non-believers will be sorry).

I don't put a whole lot of stock in such "future promises" especially given the reality of things.

They justified slavery, they now justify abortion.

Odd choice of juxtaposition, since there is a history of Christians using the Bible to justify slavery.

 

[Jonaitis]

I see this a lot in these debates. Fundamentalists cling to the the idea that if we just wait, things will turn around (or more commonly, the world will end and all us non-believers will be sorry).

I don't put a whole lot of stock in such "future promises" especially given the reality of things.

Oh, history is stuck on repeat. We will not see nothing new than has not already happened before.

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be among those who come after" (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11).

Odd choice of juxtaposition, since there is a history of Christians using the Bible to justify slavery.

...that's exactly what I said.

They justified slavery, now they are justifying abortion.

There were few Christians who did not compromise in those days, and there are some today. The abolition movement was led by those who were Christian by their convictions.

 

[pitabread]

Oh, history is stuck on repeat. We will not see nothing new than has not already happened before.

I wouldn't expect a revival of creationist belief. Trends are stacked firmly against that.

...that's exactly what I said.

They justified slavery, now they are justifying abortion.

Thought you were talking about non-Christians with respect to abortion. I should read more carefully.

There were few Christians who did not compromise in those days, nor are there any today. The abolition movement was led by those who were Christian by their convictions.

So what is the argument here? That one can use the Bible to justify anything? Seems to me this isn't about the Bible nor Christianity at all if that's the case.

Societies change over time. Social mores change with them.

 

[Jonaitis]

Thought you were talking about non-Christians with respect to abortion. I should read more carefully.

"Christians" are compromising on so many fundamental issues these days, from LGBT to abortion. The arguments are painful to listen to, going as far as to distort Scripture to align it with their preferences and political agenda. I've heard well-known and respected teachers defend theistic evolution to their own harm and that of others.

So what is the argument here? That one can use the Bible to justify anything? Seems to me this isn't about the Bible nor Christianity at all if that's the case.

Societies change over time. Social mores change with them.

If morals are based on societal norms or what is socially acceptable, then your worldview is self-defeating. All that you stated on this forum has no substance of truth, if that is true.

I wonder if this means that you don't believe slavery was at one point wrong, because it was a norm for quite a while. It would also mean that the emancipation was morally wrong, led by the minority who believed differently. Is this correct?

 

[Jonaitis]

=
Societies change over time. Social mores change with them.

Let me ask you if you believe morality is subjective to societal norms, was segregation of blacks in the United States at one point good? How about the Holocaust and the Jewish Gettos, was that good at one point? I want your answer.

 

[Speedwell]

"Christians" are compromising on so many fundamental issues these days, from LGBT to abortion. The arguments are painful to listen to, going as far as to distort Scripture to align it with their preferences and political agenda. I've heard well-known and respected teachers defend theistic evolution to their own harm and that of others.



If morals are based on societal norms or what is socially acceptable, then your worldview is self-defeating. All that you stated on this forum has no substance of truth, if that is true.

I wonder if this means that you don't believe slavery was at one point wrong, because it was a norm for quite a while. It would also mean that the emancipation was morally wrong, led by the minority who believed differently. Is this correct?

How can you tell? The Southern Baptist Convention, still the largest Evangelical Protestant denomination in the US, was formed in 1845 to give Christian Biblical support to preserving the institution of slavery. They were, and are, ardent supporters of the literal inerrancy of scripture just like you.

 

[pitabread]

"Christians" are compromising on so many fundamental issues these days, from LGBT to abortion. The arguments are painful to listen to, going as far as to distort Scripture to align it with their preferences and political agenda. I've heard well-known and respected teachers defend theistic evolution to their own harm and that of others.

Sounds like you were born a hundred years too late. I imagine that must be very difficult for you.

If morals are based on societal norms or what is socially acceptable, then your worldview is self-defeating. All that you stated on this forum has no substance of truth, if that is true.

I wonder if this means that you don't believe slavery was at one point wrong, because it was a norm for quite a while. It would also mean that the emancipation was morally wrong, led by the minority who believed differently. Is this correct?

I don't really plan in getting into a debate over specific morality here. I'm simply pointing out that societies change over time and social mores change with them. I don't see that as being an overly controversial idea.

That seems to be the real crux of the issue you are raising; it seems to have little to do with Christianity per se.

 

[Jonaitis]

How can you tell? The Southern Baptist Convention, still the largest Evangelical Protestant denomination in the US, was formed in 1845 to give Christian Biblical support to preserving the institution of slavery. They were, and are, ardent supporters of the literal inerrancy of scripture just like you.

Yeah yeah, and Stalin, who murder over 20 million of his own people, wasn't a Christian just like you. Does this correlate to something? I think your own argument is self-defeating.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah yeah, and Stalin, who murder over 20 million of his own people, wasn't a Christian just like you. Does this correlate to something? I think your own argument is self-defeating.

If anything, you've kinda just proved his point; one's professed religious beliefs or lack thereof doesn't seem to matter much does it?

 

[Jonaitis]

Sounds like you were born a hundred years too late. I imagine that must be very difficult for you.

I feel like it, thank you for acknowledging that.

I don't really plan in getting into a debate over specific morality here. I'm simply pointing out that societies change over time and social mores change with them. I don't see that as being an overly controversial idea.

That seems to be the real crux of the issue you are raising; it seems to have little to do with Christianity per se.

I'm confused on what you are talking about. I'm just stating that Christians have compromised on many issues, not just the idea of human evolution.

 

[JohnAshton]

Yeah, yeah, Jonaitis, Speedwell has the right of it. The SBC in 1845 supported segregation. All of the SBC. Now when did Stalin get converted and baptized?

 

[Jonaitis]

Yeah, yeah, Jonaitis, Speedwell has the right of it. The SBC in 1845 supported segregation. All of the SBC. Now when did Stalin get converted and baptized?

How does Speedwell have the "right of it." I clearly said, before he responded, that there were professing Christians that justified slavery, they likely supported segregation too. He only proved what I already said...