Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nice....except that again...this theory is incredibly flawed....
http://creation.com/rodhocetus

Dr. Werner is a physician. He does not hold a doctorate in biology or paleontology (since he wants to talk about fossils).
This is like taking your car to get looked at by your dentist.
Why is he not willing to put his claims through peer review in the relevant field of study? Even if there was no fossil record at all, DNA and genetics is the slam dunk as far as evidence for evolution goes.
Here is a list of some of the transitional fossils in the record: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Again, I ask you, why do you reference a site that is open about their bias? Creation sites are notorious for committing the dishonest fallacy of quote mining and intentionally misrepresenting terms (For example, the second law of thermodynamics, although I think some creation sites list this one as "arguments to avoid" since it's so easy to discredit).

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

May I ask why you are copy/pasting from a creationist site without citing it?
Could you attempt to address my post in your own words?

Also creationist sites are openly bias.
From their site:

1. Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Is it fair for me to say I will not accept information from a site that openly admits their bias and will not accept any evidence that contradicts their beliefs? Why will they not subject their claims to peer review in relevant fields of study?

Do you share their same bias? That you cannot accept any evidence that contradict your beliefs?

No I won't. Because I cannot, in my own words, speak intelligently on all scientific things. It appears, however, that you're doing the same thing. Just because it comes from a peer-reviewed article does not add validation. Do you want to know why Christian scientists aren't getting published, or working in prestigious universities, or not getting peer-reviews? Because you have to first be recognized by your "peers" as an expert in your field. Secondly, the article then has to go through the scrutiny of the community before getting published. So by the time a Christian scientist's work has gone through the ringer, there's nothing left to publish. No publications, no credibility. Thus, why Christians like myself, have to go through sites that collect the great Christian minds like Creation.com to get sourcing and information that counters the big establishment of academia and how biased IT is. Higher education is a joke because many in academia have an agenda which is to indoctrinate k-12 and higher education students with evolution as fact...yet my video and creation.com have their specialists and Christian professors that refute the various theories around evolution. These professors and doctors have the same level of education and study as your peer-reviewed doctors...the only difference is your side has a voice. I'm just trying to voice the intelligent, well-thought out objections of the other side.

So no...it's not fair for you to say that you're not going to accept what the site says simply because they voice their stance on evolution and their firmness on the issue of ID and Creation shakes your faith in science. Right now, it's just what's trendy in the science community or what idea is floating around that's getting some big-shot professor media attention and press. Challenge yourself to at least entertain the counter-arguments. I watched your video. You should watch mine!

You put so much faith and emphasis on academics like the professors and doctors that have studied academics their whole life that it's all they know! Tell me, why did a prison debate team beat a Harvard debate team if it's all about the prestige and higher-education? Think outside the box!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your statement was that Science evolves but Religion does not evolve. According to the theory of evolution: "everything evolves or else it perishes".

Evolution is a theory about biology. "everything" in that sentence means "physical, biological, living things".

At least try to understand the theories you insist on arguing against.

Religion is alive and well and growing here on planet earth. If it was not evolving then according to the theory of evolution it would have perished a long time ago.

Again, evolution theory is about living things. Not about ideas or stories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection" wiki

Emphasis mine.

 

[DogmaHunter]

False, since the Star we call the Sun wasn't formed until some 9 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. Adam's Earth was made BEFORE the Big Bang. Gen 1:3 Amen?

As I said: Regardless of what you think your scripture tells you

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

Dr. Werner is a physician. He does not hold a doctorate in biology or paleontology (since he wants to talk about fossils).
This is like taking your car to get looked at by your dentist.

No it's more like a journalist doing his investigation on what's wrong with academia today... He quoted adequately and used the very words spoken by Dr Gingerich in an interview. So tell me. What exactly was biased or flawed in his argument? The fact that he's a Christian? The fact that, apparently, a physician cannot speak to a high level decorum like a PhD in biology or paleontology can? I mean...the guy is a doctor and DID have to take biology courses to get to where he's at and earn the title of "doctor." I'm sure if I put you and him in a room together he could speak more intelligently about biology than you can. Just saying.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No I won't. Because I cannot, in my own words, speak intelligently on all scientific things.

Fair enough. Although it would be helpful if you could use some of your own words to demonstrate that you understand what you are citing.

Just because it comes from a peer-reviewed article does not add validation.

The reason there is peer review is to identify errors in the research. It is to weed out frauds. It is an attempt to prove new discovery wrong. It's a fact checking process. All science is subject to this process. Scientists are judged on their contributions to their field and not their degree. Creation sites try to build themselves up with so called "experts" but how many times have these so called experts been published? How many times have their publications been cited in other studies? (A good way to measure the impact someone has had on their field).

Do you want to know why Christian scientists aren't getting published, or working in prestigious universities, or not getting peer-reviews?

There are many scientists that are also Christians. Many of them well respected among their peers. Francis Collins comes to mind. He is a devout Christian and a well respected scientist, especially for his work on the human genome project. I would highly recommend his book "The Language of God".

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." - Francis Collins.

- This is coming from a highly respected geneticist.

Higher education is a joke because many in academia have an agenda which is to indoctrinate k-12 and higher education students with evolution as fact

Why does creationism lose in the court of law every single time? Evolution is established science and one of the most robust, well substantiated theory in all of science.

You can read the transcripts from some of these cases. Kenneth Miller was actually a witness in this case. He is also devout Christian and well respected scientist. Here are a couple of quotes and I will link you to the rest of the transcript.

Q. Do you have an opinion about whether intelligent design is a testable theory that is accepted by the scientific community?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. My opinion is that intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense, and that as such, it is not generally accepted by the scientific community.

Q. Do you have an opinion about whether intelligent design is or even can be properly considered a scientific theory?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that opinion?

A. My opinion is that intelligent design is not science, and therefore it cannot be construed as a scientific theory in any sense whatsoever.


A. I teach courses in molecular and cellular biology, and I also teach what is, in many years, the largest course that a university gives freshmen, an introductory to general biology course.

Q. Does that freshman-level course include a section on evolution?

A. Yes, it does. No course in biology would be complete without it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_annotated_transcript/P004

So no...it's not fair for you to say that you're not going to accept what the site says simply because they voice their stance on evolution and their firmness on the issue of ID and Creation shakes your faith in science.

Evolution or any science at all is not a faith based position. It is supported by verifiable and testable evidence that is followed to a logical conclusion. I do not accept sources that openly state their bias and that no evidence will change their minds. That makes it a one sided conversation and completely pointless. Why should I take anything they have to say seriously when they openly admit they are not willing to consider anything presented by their opposition?

Challenge yourself to at least entertain the counter-arguments.

I have. What I have found from reading creationist sites is that they intentionally quote out of context (The fallacy of quote mining), misrepresent what evolution actually states, misuse of scientific terms (2nd law of thermodynamics). They continue to use these arguments even when it has been demonstrated to them being wrong. That is being intellectually dishonest. Their statement of faith that says they are unwilling to accept any evidence if it contradicts their beliefs.

 

[Rattus58]

Does the theory of evolution discuss where everything came from?

Does germ theory discuss where everything came from?

Does the theory of gravity discuss where everything came from?

You keep showing just how little knowledge you have of evolution, yet you are certain, that it is a lie.

Does educating yourself on these topics frighten you?

Lastly, when I was still a Christian, I did study the NT quite intensely, from a scholarly and historical standpoint. Acquiring new knowledge about the historicity of the same, is why simply couldn't believe the story any longer.

No... nor does evolution explain in any rational manner how life started, how life evolved, and how species came to be.. without Intelligent Design to put the pieces effectively together for change to happen. This random mutation idea doesn't quite hold it all together neatly ... and in fact leaves almost everything to speculation, where Intelligent Design, which assumes the marshaling of intelligent features and explanations to make things function.

Science already seems to be leaning towards the fact that cells are intelligent or work intelligently, that change, adaptations, and species are driven by the environment and opportunity or need. This can only happen with Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design, in my opinion, couldn't happen without God kicking it off in the first place.

One thing that also seems to illustrate this is reproductive organs of man and woman. Explain this development without intelligence...

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No... nor does evolution explain in any rational manner how life started

Correct, it doesn't. Evolution explains the process of how we got the diversity of life we see today. It does not concern itself with how life began. That is a separate study called abiogenesis.

how life evolved, and how species came to be

Evolution does explain this. It is supported by mountains of evidence.

This random mutation idea doesn't quite hold it all together neatly ... and in fact leaves almost everything to speculation

Mutations and natural selection are well understood. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. Evolution takes place in population, not individuals. A population of species that has beneficial mutations according to the environment, survive and reproduce, the others either split off or die. This process is repeated over and over and over again, generation after generation.

where Intelligent Design, which assumes the marshaling of intelligent features and explanations to make things function.

You're starting at the conclusion and working backwards. This is going to make you go in circles.

Science already seems to be leaning towards the fact that cells are intelligent or work intelligently

Source?

that change, adaptations, and species are driven by the environment and opportunity or need. This can only happen with Intelligent Design.

Natural selection. It is well understood and has been observed in nature. There is no need for an intelligent designer to drive this process.

in my opinion, couldn't happen without God kicking it off in the first place.

Argument from personal incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine a natural process does not automatically make it false.

One thing that also seems to illustrate this is reproductive organs of man and woman. Explain this development without intelligence...

Points for creativity. Usually the argument from the ID crowd is irreducible complexity. The answer is the same though. Evolution by natural selection. This was an interesting topic to bring up. As you now have me reading about the evolution of reproductive organs. If you'd like to read it as well....

Abstract for the peer reviewed study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7531/full/nature13819.html
Article:http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...s-discover-origins-of-reproductive-organs.htm

 

[Ada Lovelace]

No I won't. Because I cannot, in my own words, speak intelligently on all scientific things.

Why not simply put in the effort to gain an education for yourself on the subject so you can speak intelligently about it in your own voice if this is a passion of yours? It's significantly harder to assess credibility if you lack proficient knowledge on the subject yourself. This increases your chance of not only accepting false information as correct, but regurgitating it to others and reducing your own credibility.

Recently a Creationist here proudly posted a quote from a respected professor who is retired from my university (Stanford) to try to cite him as a scientist who rejected "evilution." The problem was that the decades-old quote was butchered from its context and was misrepresentative of the scientist. He simply copied and pasted it from a Creationist site without the effort of any investigation, which to me demonstrates intellectual laziness and a lack of integrity. I read the entire post to one of my current professors who was here at the same time as the retired one to gain insight. Not only was that professor a Christian who was renowned as a theistic evolution scholar, but for years he'd taught a popular course about issues regarding Christianity and science in which he repudiated the faulty logic of narrow YEC exegesis. As my professor said, it's unfortunately very characteristic of Creationists to quote mine. Many nonreligious people think Creationists are representative of all of us, so this undermines the perception of trustworthiness for Christians as a whole.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Asians are infraspecific, Neanderthals are not. Neanderthals are a separate species, as is is H. erectus.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. In biology creatures being part of the same species is defined by whether they can breed and have fertile offspring. The fact that humans of European and Asian descent have some Neanderthal DNA means that there must have been cross-breeding which resulted in fertile offspring, meaning that Neaderthals must have been the same species as modern humans. There is also evidence that our ancestors interbred with homo erectus and homo habilis, although the evidence isn't as strong.

Of course, the concept of "species" is a nebulous one that's very fuzzy around the edges, and this is certainly not to give Justatruthseeker's points any validity, but technically speaking we must be the same species as Neaderthals and homo erectus.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I said: "The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. "

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

In which case, if what you mean by "the random theorys" is that there is a random process involved, the claim I'm going to have to ask you to support is the claim that it's only a minority of evolutionary scientists that believe that random mutation plays a role in evolution. Quote me a published, scientific paper by an evolutionary biologist which cites, uses or attempts to establish a model of evolution which does not involve random mutation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Always have and always will exist. He is timeless.

If you can logically accept an uncaused God, then you can logically accept an uncaused universe.

Again, the atheist would love to separate evolution from the origins of the universe. Why is that? Why must there be a separation?

Because one is particle physics and the other is evolutionary biology. We have no evidence of life existing in the universe until roughly 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Knowledge of the one theory tells us nothing whatsoever about the other.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Lets go there, you'll be surprised, I think.

Fair enough.

It seems to me that if the thinking is "something as complicated as life could not have arisen without a designer" (and please tell me if that is not a fair summation of your thinking), then the insertion of a designer doesn't actually solve the problem, but instead just pushes it back one step. Because that designer must be at least as complicated as the life that it creates and, therefore, that means you're left with exactly the same question about the designer.

The usual answer to this is that God created himself, or that God is eternal or outside of time, but are these arguments not just special pleading? A request to apply a certain rigidity of logic to the question of abiogenesis that you then exempt the existence of God from?

Yeah, but I have an answer that satisfies me quite well, and evolution has never really been convincing to me, even before I became a Christian.

The question you asked was why do you need a theory to explain life when you have one that satisfies you. The answer is - because your theory might not be true. Whether you find having the right answer to be more important than having just any answer is entirely up to you. On a personal level, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you filling in any blanks with whatever you choose - be that answer the Christian God, Vishnu, Ra, hyperintelligent aliens, or whatever. But if you're interested in what actually is true, rather than what you'd like to think is true, then more rigorous questioning is required.

As for evolution vs. abiogenesis, it's been said a few times on this thread, but there really is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it. It can perhaps seem a little more nebulous than some other thories. Relativity has some far more far-out concepts than evolution does, but you can test it. They've taken synchronised atomic clocks and flown one around the world at fast speeds and have shown that when that gets back to Earth it shows a different time to the one on the ground. Sat-navs have to take both special and general relativity into account in order to be accurate. So, even though relativity has some very counter-intuitive parts to it, you can hold things in your hands which make use of it, and you can practically test it.

Evolutionary theory is somewhat more nebulous. The kinds of predictions is makes are what sequences we should expect to see in the DNA of bonobos, or where and in what strata of rock we should find a certain kind of fossil. It doesn't have the immediacy or the tangibility of something like relativity.

But what it does have is masses and masses of evidence supporting it. If you were to do some research with an open mind, looking at non-Apologetic sources, and took the time to really understand why the evidence points where it does, I think you might surprise yourself with how credible you find it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

His memory (Post #240) is absolutely complete and accurate. I will confirm it.

You've actually provided a link that shows that his recollection was flawed on two accounts - that it was two separate documentaries, and that we were said to be the descendants of a "sand-worm".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Evidence supported Thalidomide as a prenatal wonder drug.

I explained exactly why this example of yours doesn't support the interpretation you're giving it yesterday. What you've posted here is a lie - the evidence did not support thalidomide as a safe drug to take during pregnancy.

As you seemingly have no problem lying, I can only suggest you read what the Bible says about liars and in which direction they're headed when they die.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My college physics professor was one of the best teachers I ever had. He was an avowed evolutionist. Somewhere right in that timeframe, I came across the 2nd Law (not theory) of Thermodynamics. So, I went into his office one day and asked him how it could possibly be that a spark of lightning or something in a great chemical soup that hypothetically created life in some simple little strand of protoplasm could, left to itself, differentiate into the vast organization that we now observe. Left to itself (in the sunshine - OK) it got more organized? That's Macroevolution, right? How could that possibly happen?

My professor said that they had to assume that somewhere in the universe things were becoming less organized faster than we were getting organized so that the Law of Entropy held true.

Characterising entropy as "disorganisation" is an over-simplification that's used to present the physics to the layman, rather than something that's properly true. Leaving that aside, though, I wonder why your physics professor didn't provide you with the obvious answer - the place where entropy is increasing in the system you're describing is the centre of the sun. By many orders of magnitude more than evolution on Earth is making it decrease.

And even that's not necessary. I can link to where a physics professor (who is obviously not the same one as the one you describe) has done the maths: http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

The theory of evolution is not even slightly in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. Anybody who tells you that it is either doesn't understand the theories they're discussing, or is deliberately lying to further an agenda of their own.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Do you want to know why Christian scientists aren't getting published, or working in prestigious universities, or not getting peer-reviews? Because you have to first be recognized by your "peers" as an expert in your field. Secondly, the article then has to go through the scrutiny of the community before getting published. So by the time a Christian scientist's work has gone through the ringer, there's nothing left to publish. No publications, no credibility.

In 1996, a 9 year old girl called Emily Rosa conducted an experiment investigating the validity of the medical treatment known as "thereputic touch". The experiment was written up and submitted to the respected Journal Of The American Medical Association where it was peer-reviewed and published. She was a 9 year old girl, not someone regarded as an expert in her field. Do you know why her paper was published? Because it was good science.

In 2010 a class of 25 8 to 10 year olds devised and conducted an experiment to determine what role colour and patterns played in the feeding habits of bees. This was written up, submitted for peer review, and published in the respected journal Biology Letters. This was a class of 8 to 10 year-olds, not people regarded as experts in their fields. Do you know why their paper was published? Because it was good science.

If Christian scientists are finding that they cannot get their papers through the peer-review process and then published, then that's not because they're not considered experts in their fields, or because the peer-review process is inherently dishonest - it's because the papers they're trying to get published are not good science.

 

[food4thought]

Is there doubt of evolution based on providing scientific explanations that place evolution in doubt, or is is based on evolution threatening their personal faith belief?

I can't speak for everyone, only myself... my doubts stem from not seeing compelling evidence and some scientific questions.

 

[food4thought]

Well not quite. The 200 generations number is based on evolution simulations I have run on my computer. The number doesn't vary much with size of population because after the beneficial mutation starts to take off, its numbers grow exponentially. It will vary from 150 to 300, actually. The other numbers make sense in the context, don't they?

Forgive me for my false accusation then... at what rate do we actually observe beneficial mutations in the human and ape genomes, and what would be an acceptable definition of "beneficial"?