And this is exactly why I so appreciate this evo/creo/ID forum....I get to see all sides, see who actually has actual reliable information, see who has a lot of made up stuff, and get to see all sides debate each other, and see one side debunk the other side...its all very informative...
Myself, my own knowledge about most of these fossils, is limited, and I have only recently begun to start reading up on them, but using very recently published works, that appear to present the material in a straight forward manner...I need to be informed, when someone appears, and claims to have the 'facts', which are in reality, not 'facts' at all, but really just a bunch of debunked made up nonsense...
To all those on these threads, who actually work in the fields, upon which evolution depends, to those who have extensive knowledge about evolution, to those who know so much more than I do, I do appreciate the work you put into these threads...it helps me, it helps other posters, and it also helps, I am sure, the myriad of lurkers out there...I know it may get tedious at times to so often have to repeat things, to debunk things, to correct errors, time and time again, but for those of us seeking to actually learn a thing or two, those efforts are not going to waste...
One other thing I would add...there are many posters on these threads, who will not and do not contribute to the science side, but merely post Scriptures from the Bible...to them I would also add my thanks, as I am a Christian who does see God as the prime Creator who gave 'life' to the first life forms, but unlike others, I see evolution also being His creation...but the scriptures are always read by me, and appreciated...
Now, I am sure, that there will be those to flame me, they will pop and and declare that I cannot be a Christian and still support evolution...well, I have heard that one time and time again...that may be your personal subjective opinion, but it is only yours, not mine, and therefore does not really mean anything to me...
Not a one of us, has the utimate correct knowledge of what every single sentence in the Bible means...just take a look at the religious threads on FR, and you will see that they will argue about the meaning of every single word...they cannot even agree on what 'til', 'brother', 'sister', 'mother', 'rock', etc means...they discuss the meanings of individual words all the time,and often they will never agree with each other as to what is meant...now, if Christians of varying denominations cannot even agree on the meaning of simple words, what makes anyone think that they, and they alone, know exactly what particular concept the Bible was making in any particular reading...
Millions of Christians do support evolution...I know, I know, someone will now come along and say that those millions of Christians simply do not understand the Bible...how arrogant...those Christians who support evolution, just dont agree with the 'interpretations', of those who maintain, that being a Christian means you must disavow evolution...
So I always welcome Scriptures, from the Bible, on these threads, but a particular posters interpretations of those Scriptures is that...their own particular interpretation...which may differ greatly from my interpretation or others interpretations...
So while I appreciate good firm facts about evolution, about particular fossils, about scientific studies, I also enjoy straight Scriptural passages..what I certainly do not appreciate is a lot of made up stuff, stuff that has been debunked, and stuff full of errors...and I also do not appreciate someones personal interpretation of Scripture, being used as if it were the only correct interpretation...
Theres something for everyone here...
Do you believe God had anything to do with evolution? We're often told here that Christians can believe in evolution, specifically that they can accept "theistic evolution". As I understand it, that's the idea that evolution was God's way of developing life on earth.
I know there are a lot of people who believe that. But it does seem to me to be problematic. If the theory of evolution is true, and if God was involved in evolution somehow, then evolution is a form of design, and even a form of creation if you assume God created the first living cell. The implication of theistic evolution is that without God, there would be no evolution. On the other hand, if God had nothing to do with evolution, then evolution isn't theistic.
What is your take on this?
Preach it, sister!
I think you might appreciate this essay by Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. It's called Faith and the human genome and please note that this is a PDF document not a web page. Google has cached this PDF document as HTML in case your computer doesn't have a program to read PDFs.
This is a non-peer reviewed essay about how, as a Christian, he approaches science. It was published in a periodical called Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith. It is a non-technical essay in which explains how he integrates his faith along side his scientific understanding of evolution and molecular biology. It's worth reading the entire twelves pages, and though he does include some graphs and technical language, the essay is quite accessible to the layman.
I posted an excerpt earlier today in another thread which seesm to not be getting any more hits. To give you a taste of what he has written, I'll repost the excerp here.
Why is the conflict [between science and faith -LC] then perceived to be so severe? Science and Christianity do not have a pretty history. Certainly conflicts tend to arise when science tries to comment on the supernatural -- usually to say it does not exist -- or when Christians attempt to read the Bible as a science textbook. Here I find it useful to recall that this is not a new debate, and I often refer back to the wisdom of St. Augustine. Augustine in 400 AD had no reason to be apologetic about Genesis, because Darwin had not come along. Augustine was blessed with the ability to look at Gen. 1:1 without having to fit it into some sort of scientific discovery of the day. Yet, if you read Augustin's interpretation of Gen. 1:1, it is a lot like mine. In fact, Augustine makes the point how dangerous it is for us to take the Bible and try to turn it into a science text. He wrote:
These are very strong and effective words. But the past century has not been a good one in terms of the polarization between the more evangelical wing of the church and the scientific community. We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive, and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming.
What are the arguments in favor of evolution? Let me quickly describe two arguments. (1) The fossil record. Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science. (2) The DNA evidence for evolution. I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?
Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.
So what are the objections then to evolution? Well, obviously, the major objection in many Christians' minds is that it is not consistent with Genesis. I find Gen. 1:1-2:4 powerful, but admittedly complex and at times difficult to understand with its seemingly two different versions of the creation of humans. Problematically, a literal translation of Gen. 1:1-2:4 brings one in direct conflict with the fundamental conclusions of geology, cosmology, and biology.
Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason? Again from Augustine:
Again, written over 1600 years ago but right on target today!
The methods of one cannot be used in another. Faith and belief of philosophy cannot substitute for facts in the scientific method. Terms as I think, my opinion, proof or it seems are not accepted in the scientific method. You must have evidence that can be reproduced and is testable. Many do not like science for this reason. Opinions are not relevant and are ignored because they are not a fact.