Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Critias]

I would say it isn't history. But that doesn't mean I can't learn something from it. To me calling it history represents a high factual quality of the information. The particular piece of info could change my life and still not be qualitatively accurate enough to be called history.

Is not history, simply put, events that have transpired within the past? Is it your position that if it is not recorded, with the specifics you previsously stated, that I was born, then I wasn't born?

If I didn't record my past, did it not happen?

I think you have a very strict view of history that needs to be met in order for you to accept that an event took place within the past. How is it that you can then accept a single celled organism evolved into a multicellular organism that over time evolved into a man? There is no record of this ever happening. It is has never been observed. How is it that you accept this to be true?

Okay you bolded "order" right? So basically what matters is the sequence in which things happened? And not the amount of time in which they happened? So why is "a lot of time" in contradiction to Genesis?

Genesis says six days. In my belief, that is a real six days. We can either start to argue about how we don't agree on this, or we can realize that we don't change anyone and just accept that I believe it was a six day creation and you don't.

PRECISELY! Saying that evolution happened is NOT theology. It is science precisely because God has been taken out of it. It is not bad theology because it isn't theology because it doesn't say anything about God. What is bad theology is people saying evolution proves that God is cruel, evolution proves that there is no God, ad infinitum ad nauseam. We try our best to repel such notions. And to be candid, all that posturing by parties like AiG with "Evolutionism is a bloody atheist invention!" doesn't help at all.

And of course, that's why I believe that Adam and Eve were very real and literal progenitors of the human race, evolution notwithstanding.

And thank you for extending my point. Theistic evolution is a nonsensical phrase. You call evolution God's method, yet you also state God has been taken out of evolution. Either God is apart of it or not. And if He isn't, it isn't His method of creation.

As I have said before, it isn't evolution that I see a problem with, it is Theistic Evolution that is the problem. This leads to the changing of what the Bible intended to say. You admit that God isn't in evolution, it isn't theology and yet TEs approach it as if is by adding theist infront of evolution.

The problem isn't evolution, the problem is what theists do with the Bible when they have accept evolution. Instead of putting their academic mind to work and seeing how the Bible can remain to be understood as the authors intended and accepting evolution, they take the lazy approach and just change the Bible to suit their new found belief.

I hope I don't sound like I'm boasting but yeah. Reading science fiction helps. I find it not too hard (though still somewhat) to imagine the entire universe, galaxy-scale physics, solar systems and all. Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything helped loads. You should read it too! before tearing out the one-third of the book about the age of the earth and the discovery of evolution.

For me what I find hard to wrap my head around is the idea of the very small - the fact that some enzymes complete a few million reactions in seconds, the idea of cells so small millions of 'em fit into the next comma, atoms, electrons et al. Which is why I also believe that it's more probable that God started the whole "life" thing going.

Well, you are the first person I have met that believes they can comprehend everything that happens in the world, within a 1 minute span. Let's see if you still agree if you understand what this entails:

1. You are able to make sense of the thoughts, spoken words, actions of over 6 billion people, all at once. You are able to understand why people do the things that they do, all 6 billion plus, all at once.

2. You are able to comprehend what thoughts exists, if any, of all animals that are living, as well as their actions, instincts and motives.

3. You are able to understand all laws of nature perfectly and why they exist and how they are used. You are able to comprehend the vastness of the universe, planets, stars, solar systems.

Those are 3 brief points where more than 1000 others exist. And you say you can comprehend all of that within 1 minute. You must be some sort of superman or something to feel confident that you can understand 6 billion peoples thoughts, words, actions, motives, emotions, knowledge, wants, desires, fears, etc. Let alone everything else in the world, every piece from large to small. Basically, you have said you can comprehend what God does when He looks upon the whole world and knows everything.

No I don't have any of the Church Fathers, physically or literally but it would be interesting. Not much access now frankly.

Reading the pupils of the Apostles really helps to get a fuller understand of what the Apostles believed and taught. It is strong evidence that the Apostles believed and taught a young earth and a real historical Genesis 1-11.

What was good for the Apostles is good enough for me.

 

[gluadys]

And thank you for extending my point. Theistic evolution is a nonsensical phrase. You call evolution God's method, yet you also state God has been taken out of evolution. Either God is apart of it or not. And if He isn't, it isn't His method of creation.

Is God a part of meiosis?

If not, how can you perceive yourself to be created by God?

If meiosis is a process God designed to create unique human beings (and other creatures which reproduce sexually), why can evolution not be a process God designed to create unique species?

Yet we do not reference God when we describe meiosis scientifically.

 

[stumpjumper]

Critias

Evolution is a theory of bio-diversification and can be articulated without invoking God. However, you can have a theology of evolution from which theistic-evolution beliefs are based upon. I follow John Haught's theology of evolution and find it to be the most complete. A theology of evolution will incorporate God into the flow of life and movement towards the future. What is the most striking thing about evolution but the emergence of novel life. We as living things are constantly in a state of change. As Karl Rahner put it, The best evidence for God and His relationship with the world is that man moves ever into mystery without ever abandoning the world. God is not imposing a plan but providing a vision for the universe in which we are a part.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Do you have historical evidence that show your assertion about the people who believed in God believed the sun rotated around the earth?

Read the letters and writtings of Cardinal Bellarmine.
There is no doubt in my mind that he was a devout Christian, or that he believed that Sun rotated about the Earth.

Of course we have the folks over at Catholic Apologetics Intl who still believe in geocentrism.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

In general there is plenty of evidence that all but a literal handful of people before the late 1500s believed in geocentrism and no evidence that any Jews or Christians held the revolutionary and, for the time, counter-intuitive theory of heliocentrism in all those centuries.

All in all if you want to claim otherwise you need to come up with the evidence.

 

[Critias]

Is God a part of meiosis?

If not, how can you perceive yourself to be created by God?

If meiosis is a process God designed to create unique human beings (and other creatures which reproduce sexually), why can evolution not be a process God designed to create unique species?

Yet we do not reference God when we describe meiosis scientifically.

I don't know if you read what shernren said, but he stated that God is not part of evolution He is taken out of it.

So, it is not I who is stating God isn't part of evolution. I did state that if God isn't part of it, then evolution isn't God's method of creation because God is involved in His creating.

 

[Critias]

Read the letters and writtings of Cardinal Bellarmine.
There is no doubt in my mind that he was a devout Christian, or that he believed that Sun rotated about the Earth.

Of course we have the folks over at Catholic Apologetics Intl who still believe in geocentrism.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

In general there is plenty of evidence that all but a literal handful of people before the late 1500s believed in geocentrism and no evidence that any Jews or Christians held the revolutionary and, for the time, counter-intuitive theory of heliocentrism in all those centuries.

All in all if you want to claim otherwise you need to come up with the evidence.

Any evidence in the first century A.D?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Any evidence in the first century A.D?

St. Augustine in his discussion of whether or not the world may be a sphere makes no mention of anything like heliocentrism, which would be the obvious topic to address.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You need to demonstrate there is the least bit of evidence that any Jew or Christian even thought of the possibility of heliocentrism.

There is no writing in support of heliocentrism between 270 B.C. and Copernicus except for one Arabic tretise in the 5th century A.D that was unknown in the west.
AFAIK heliocentrism doesn't even get mentioned beyond two criticisms by Archimedes and Plutarch.

 

[Critias]

So there is only assumptions that not one Christians thought differently, right? Basically an argument from silence.

I don't know off the top of my head if any Early Church Fathers discussed it or not. I know there are many who discussed the earth being a sphere, but I cannot recollect anything about geocentrism or heliocentrism.

My intial comment was not about this particular subject, but about history being recorded. So, I don't know if you drifted here to make a point that history wasn't recorded or what.

How much evidence do you know of where Christians professed geocentrism in the first century AD?

I don't remember you answering my question on where in the Hebrew Scriptures does intend to teach geocentrism. Did I miss that?

 

[shernren]

Is not history, simply put, events that have transpired within the past? Is it your position that if it is not recorded, with the specifics you previsously stated, that I was born, then I wasn't born?

If I didn't record my past, did it not happen?

I think we're getting lost. To me history is the record of events that happened in the past. Not the events themselves. The events themselves can be quite conveniently called, um, the past.

I think you have a very strict view of history that needs to be met in order for you to accept that an event took place within the past. How is it that you can then accept a single celled organism evolved into a multicellular organism that over time evolved into a man? There is no record of this ever happening. It is has never been observed. How is it that you accept this to be true?

Yes, I have strict standards as to how historical a record is. Not the event itself. An event can happen and go unrecorded. No history. And yet it happened.

Genesis says six days. In my belief, that is a real six days. We can either start to argue about how we don't agree on this, or we can realize that we don't change anyone and just accept that I believe it was a six day creation and you don't.

Fine.

And thank you for extending my point. Theistic evolution is a nonsensical phrase. You call evolution God's method, yet you also state God has been taken out of evolution. Either God is apart of it or not. And if He isn't, it isn't His method of creation.

Is God a part of famine? No. Were famines God's method of punishment? Yes. So I don't get how it is nonsensical for me to say that evolution is separate from God and yet used by God. I'm most definitely separate from God and that doesn't make any difference to Him using me.

As I have said before, it isn't evolution that I see a problem with, it is Theistic Evolution that is the problem. This leads to the changing of what the Bible intended to say. You admit that God isn't in evolution, it isn't theology and yet TEs approach it as if is by adding theist infront of evolution.

Evolution isn't theology, but there is a proper theology of evolution. Disasters aren't theology either, but there are proper theologies of disaster. We don't put God into evolution and make it theology by adding "theist". We investigate God's relationship to evolution and the proper theology of evolution by doing so. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

Well, you are the first person I have met that believes they can comprehend everything that happens in the world, within a 1 minute span. Let's see if you still agree if you understand what this entails:

1. You are able to make sense of the thoughts, spoken words, actions of over 6 billion people, all at once. You are able to understand why people do the things that they do, all 6 billion plus, all at once.

2. You are able to comprehend what thoughts exists, if any, of all animals that are living, as well as their actions, instincts and motives.

3. You are able to understand all laws of nature perfectly and why they exist and how they are used. You are able to comprehend the vastness of the universe, planets, stars, solar systems.

Those are 3 brief points where more than 1000 others exist. And you say you can comprehend all of that within 1 minute. You must be some sort of superman or something to feel confident that you can understand 6 billion peoples thoughts, words, actions, motives, emotions, knowledge, wants, desires, fears, etc. Let alone everything else in the world, every piece from large to small. Basically, you have said you can comprehend what God does when He looks upon the whole world and knows everything.

Well, I don't really understand people and I don't really like animals that aren't cooked. But actually ... why are we pressing this? I'm not sure what value I'd get out of being right and how you'd definitively prove me wrong. So unless you have a point to make or a personal attack up your sleeve I don't really see why we should pursue this line.

Having said that, the science part of it is easy. At the crux of it there are only four forces and three main families of subatomic particles. So yeah, it's not really all that hard, especially through reading pop-science books. Though one sometimes wonders whether the authors are really being accurate or not.

I don't know if you read what shernren said, but he stated that God is not part of evolution He is taken out of it.

So, it is not I who is stating God isn't part of evolution. I did state that if God isn't part of it, then evolution isn't God's method of creation because God is involved in His creating.

Okay. Let's analyze this clearly. You are taking two statements:

1. God is involved in His creating. (Agree completely!)
2. God isn't a part of creation. (Depends on what you mean by that but I think I'd agree)

And getting this conclusion:

3. Evolution isn't God's method of creation. (Hmm?)

I don't agree with your method of reaching this conclusion. What I meant by "God isn't a part of evolution" is that the method is supportable independent of the Creator. Let me give an analogy. I copy a text from paper to computer by typing it into Word. I can say that "I am not a part of my method" because any Tom, Dick and Harry can type. But just because:

1. I am not a part of my typing, and
2. I am involved in copying, doesn't logically lead to

3. Typing isn't my method of copying.

 

[Critias]

I think we're getting lost. To me history is the record of events that happened in the past. Not the events themselves. The events themselves can be quite conveniently called, um, the past.

Then you have a much more formal usage of history than I do. I believe we can learn history from written events even if they don't have every requirement that you require for it to be history.

Yes, I have strict standards as to how historical a record is. Not the event itself. An event can happen and go unrecorded. No history. And yet it happened.

History is our past. As I said, my view of it is obviously less formal and doesn't require all of the requirements you require in order for it to be history.

I would suppose, though, that your view would require you to reject some writings that were intended to be historical because they do not have every requirement that you previously stated within them.

Fine.



Is God a part of famine? No. Were famines God's method of punishment? Yes. So I don't get how it is nonsensical for me to say that evolution is separate from God and yet used by God. I'm most definitely separate from God and that doesn't make any difference to Him using me.



Evolution isn't theology, but there is a proper theology of evolution. Disasters aren't theology either, but there are proper theologies of disaster. We don't put God into evolution and make it theology by adding "theist". We investigate God's relationship to evolution and the proper theology of evolution by doing so. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

Well, what you previously said is that God is not part of evolution. If God created using evolution, God would have to be part of it, how else would He set it in motion, if He had nothing to do with it?

Well, I don't really understand people and I don't really like animals that aren't cooked. But actually ... why are we pressing this? I'm not sure what value I'd get out of being right and how you'd definitively prove me wrong. So unless you have a point to make or a personal attack up your sleeve I don't really see why we should pursue this line.

Having said that, the science part of it is easy. At the crux of it there are only four forces and three main families of subatomic particles. So yeah, it's not really all that hard, especially through reading pop-science books. Though one sometimes wonders whether the authors are really being accurate or not.

I don't have a personal attack, shernren. I was just amazed that you felt you can comprehend everything within the world, leaving nothing out, big and small, happening all at once, within a minute time.

I have a hard time hearing 40 kids all talk at once and understanding what each of them are saying, let alone 6 billion people speaking and their thoughts all at once.

Okay. Let's analyze this clearly. You are taking two statements:

1. God is involved in His creating. (Agree completely!)
2. God isn't a part of creation. (Depends on what you mean by that but I think I'd agree)

And getting this conclusion:

3. Evolution isn't God's method of creation. (Hmm?)

I don't agree with your method of reaching this conclusion. What I meant by "God isn't a part of evolution" is that the method is supportable independent of the Creator. Let me give an analogy. I copy a text from paper to computer by typing it into Word. I can say that "I am not a part of my method" because any Tom, Dick and Harry can type. But just because:

1. I am not a part of my typing, and
2. I am involved in copying, doesn't logically lead to

3. Typing isn't my method of copying.

If God didn't create evolution and set it into motion, then it isn't His method. God is active in creation. If you were stating that within evolution God is not active, then evolution is not God's process.

Unless of course you don't think God set evolution into motion and evolution and life happened purely by chance?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So there is only assumptions that not one Christians thought differently, right? Basically an argument from silence.

Somewhere between 30 and 70% of Christians believe in an ancient earth and that evolution is the cause of biodiversity we know today. If 1/10th that number had held the belief that the Earth revolved about the Sun it almost certainly would have been recorded somewhere by somebody, if only to poke fun at them.

I don't know off the top of my head if any Early Church Fathers discussed it or not.

I do, if it had been written about by the church fathers it would have been cited by Galileo or, assuming it was only found later, by those discussing the matter in later centuries.

My intial comment was not about this particular subject, but about history being recorded. So, I don't know if you drifted here to make a point that history wasn't recorded or what.

History was recorded in Joshua, but it was interpreted through the eyes of a scribe who thought the Sun went around the earth.

How much evidence do you know of where Christians professed geocentrism in the first century AD?

How much evidence do you of Christians professing that when you drop something it falls?

I don't remember you answering my question on where in the Hebrew Scriptures does intend to teach geocentrism. Did I miss that?

Yes.

 

[Critias]

Somewhere between 30 and 70% of Christians believe in an ancient earth and that evolution is the cause of biodiversity we know today. If 1/10th that number had held the belief that the Earth revolved about the Sun it almost certainly would have been recorded somewhere by somebody, if only to poke fun at them.

I do, if it had been written about by the church fathers it would have been cited by Galileo or, assuming it was only found later, by those discussing the matter in later centuries.

That is if Galileo had read it. I am not stating that it was written, but your conclusion is based on the assertion that Galileo had read all the Church Fathers writings.

History was recorded in Joshua, but it was interpreted through the eyes of a scribe who thought the Sun went around the earth.

Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit moved holy men to write what they did. I believe Joshua was moved by the Holy Spirit to say what he did when God stopped the movement.

Since, I follow the belief that the Holy Spirit has moved men to record the Bible and specifically this account, I think that many people have used this and turned it around to either show the Bible in error or to make a point. I don't accept that the Holy Spirit would be in error.

After all, if you have said sunrise or sunset, does this make you a geocentrist?

How much evidence do you of Christians professing that when you drop something it falls?

Yes.

So, you believe the author of Joshua intended to convey geocentrism; that the Holy Spirit intended to teach a false teaching? Some how I just don't think you believe this, but you said yes to my above question of the author intending to teach geocentrism.

 

[shernren]

I would suppose, though, that your view would require you to reject some writings that were intended to be historical because they do not have every requirement that you previously stated within them.

Yeah. But they'd still be true, in a non-historical way.

Well, what you previously said is that God is not part of evolution. If God created using evolution, God would have to be part of it, how else would He set it in motion, if He had nothing to do with it?

I didn't say He had nothing to do with it. And I didn't say He didn't set it in motion. A process can be completely natural and yet instigated by God and seen to be His working. For example, when Jesus died on the cross, did God start it? Did God miraculously create the wood of the cross out of thin air? Did a crown of thorns suddenly appear around Jesus's head? Was He levitated up into the air? From a human perspective Jesus's crucifixion was no different from any other. Jesus died the same natural way any other crucified man dies, albeit a little quicker because He'd already been half beaten to death. So did God set it in motion? The non-Christian would say no - but the Christian would say yes.

I view evolution the same way. It is a completely natural process for which the non-Christian can look at it and say "It's completely meaningless, it's futile and random" but the Christian can look at it and say "It's God's wonderful natural way of creating life". In the same way, the day after the crucifixion the disciples must have thought Jesus's death was completely meaningless and futile. But the next day when Jesus rose and showed them from the Scriptures why it happened, they suddenly saw that it wasn't meaningless, it was God's powerful work. Had the detail or method of Jesus's crucifixion changed? No...but all the same its significance had.

 

[Smidlee]

I didn't say He had nothing to do with it. And I didn't say He didn't set it in motion. A process can be completely natural and yet instigated by God and seen to be His working. For example, when Jesus died on the cross, did God start it? Did God miraculously create the wood of the cross out of thin air? Did a crown of thorns suddenly appear around Jesus's head? Was He levitated up into the air? From a human perspective Jesus's crucifixion was no different from any other. Jesus died the same natural way any other crucified man dies, albeit a little quicker because He'd already been half beaten to death. So did God set it in motion? The non-Christian would say no - but the Christian would say yes.

I view evolution the same way. It is a completely natural process for which the non-Christian can look at it and say "It's completely meaningless, it's futile and random" but the Christian can look at it and say "It's God's wonderful natural way of creating life". In the same way, the day after the crucifixion the disciples must have thought Jesus's death was completely meaningless and futile. But the next day when Jesus rose and showed them from the Scriptures why it happened, they suddenly saw that it wasn't meaningless, it was God's powerful work. Had the detail or method of Jesus's crucifixion changed? No...but all the same its significance had.

You just pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead which can't be explaiin by natural causes. So obviously not everything God does can be explained away with human reasoning. The same with life. To say what we know today about the living cell is "completely meanless,futile and random" it being totally blind to the facts we faxce today.
So evolutionist now has to talk out both sides of their mouths. Out of one side they will claim "life" is just a natual process which will put life on the same level as nonliving things. Yet when we found out it's true that living cells has a lot in common with not just nonliving things but designed nonliving things such as machines,factories, and motors then evolutionist had to speak out of the other side of thier mouths say "life" is different from "nonliving" machines which mades "life" supernatural.
While out of their mouths, evolutionists claim that flagellum isn't a product of intelligent design yet at the same time scientist are sending a lot of research trying to learn from the flagellum so we can someday made our own nanomachines. Obviously flagellum is far from being "completely meanless,futile and random". This is why not just christians is starting to dismiss evolution/ Darwinism but nonchristians as well.

 

[stumpjumper]

While out of their mouths, evolutionists claim that flagellum isn't a product of intelligent design yet at the same time scientist are sending a lot of research trying to learn from the flagellum so we can someday made our own nanomachines. Obviously flagellum is far from being "completely meanless,futile and random". This is why not just christians is starting to dismiss evolution/ Darwinism but nonchristians as well.

I just don't understand this dichotomy that Creationist's have created. You have cited the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum. But do you realize that Behe accepts universal common descent, an ancient universe and world, and obviously macro-evolution. Now, Behe may have a point about IC but even if he's correct (and honestly what he is doing is arguing a God-in-the-gaps) it does not defeat the positive evidence for evolution. All he is really arguing in that God is behind evolution. Well I and any other theistic evolutionist would agree. I believe in evolution and I also believe that we are a product of intelligent design. We just do not know all the details and most likely never will.

Kenneth Miller (another Roman Catholic) has listed a mechanism that accounts for Behe's flagellum and you can read it online on his evolution page.

 

[stumpjumper]

Let me clarify what I mean by God-in-the-gaps and why I don't really like the argument. What it really states is that because we can not find a natural mechanism for a certain thing it must have been done by God. Well what happens when we uncover that natural mechanism does God's will behind that process evaporate? No, a theist would say that God is responsible for every contingency in the universe. Just because we find the natural mechanism does not mean that God is not Sovereign. It just means that we have learned a little more about our natural world.

By arguing a God in the gaps you really just embolden non-theists to find the natural mechanism and disprove the existence of God (which is just as ridicuous).

 

[gluadys]

Let me clarify what I mean by God-in-the-gaps and why I don't really like the argument. What it really states is that because we can not find a natural mechanism for a certain thing it must have been done by God. Well what happens when we uncover that natural mechanism does God's will behind that process evaporate? No, a theist would say that God is responsible for every contingency in the universe. Just because we find the natural mechanism does not mean that God is not Sovereign. It just means that we have learned a little more about our natural world.

By arguing a God in the gaps you really just embolden non-theists to find the natural mechanism and disprove the existence of God (which is just as ridicuous).

In other words, discovering a natural explanation is explaining what God did. It is not, as creationists often contend, "explaining away" God.

 

[Smidlee]

I just don't understand this dichotomy that Creationist's have created. You have cited the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum. But do you realize that Behe accepts universal common descent,

AFAIK Behe doesn't hold the monopoly on bacterial flagellum so I accept it just because Behe says so. This still has nothing to do with my statement about most evolutionist talking out of both sides of their mouths. It's true Behe isn't guilty of using this double standard even though he is an evolutionist.
I have made it clear before here that I saw this double standard in biology science long before I knew anything about ID, Behe,AIG or ICR. So DI didn't convince me, it was evolutionist themselves who convince me of intelligent design in nature.

an ancient universe and world, and obviously macro-evolution. Now, Behe may have a point about IC but even if he's correct (and honestly what he is doing is arguing a God-in-the-gaps) it does not defeat the positive evidence for evolution. All he is really arguing in that God is behind evolution. Well I and any other theistic evolutionist would agree. I believe in evolution and I also believe that we are a product of intelligent design. We just do not know all the details and most likely never will.

In another words you see Behe is just replace "evolution-in-the-gaps" to "God-in-the-gaps". All evolutionist got is make-believe story of how evolution did it with it's supernatural-selection powers.
The gaps you are referring to isn't gaps about science knowledge but gaps of how can we make evolution dogma fit into science.

 

[shernren]

You just pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead which can't be explaiin by natural causes. So obviously not everything God does can be explained away with human reasoning. The same with life. To say what we know today about the living cell is "completely meanless,futile and random" it being totally blind to the facts we faxce today.

Of course it couldn't. Personally I lean more towards a "no abiogenesis" stance. But I wouldn't be too surprised (though maybe a tad disappointed ) if scientists really do manage to create life in the lab.

But of course evolutionists talk out of both sides of their mouths. I don't know any prominent paraplegic evolutionists.

While out of their mouths, evolutionists claim that flagellum isn't a product of intelligent design yet at the same time scientist are sending a lot of research trying to learn from the flagellum so we can someday made our own nanomachines. Obviously flagellum is far from being "completely meanless,futile and random". This is why not just christians is starting to dismiss evolution/ Darwinism but nonchristians as well.

So let me get you right. Because nature created life, scientists shouldn't bother with research. Instead they should just stick around, make observations for another 5 billion years and watch the re-evolution of flagella and wings and whatever else they want to study. ... that's nonsense. Science is concerned with gaining information about the universe around us, whether or not that particular component of the universe is IDed or NSed.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

But of course evolutionists talk out of both sides of their mouths. I don't know any prominent paraplegic evolutionists.

By some definitions of "evolutionist" Stephen Hawking qualifies and strictly speaking <cough> he doesn't speak out of his mouth at all these days.