Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[Right Wing Professor]

I think it is interesting to discuss what the tribes in your area believed, from a historical standpoint. One of our tribes here in W WA believes that clams live under the sand because they were horrible gossips and the other animals got fed up with their trouble-making and buried all of them. There are a lot of good moral lessons in some of it, and it is interesting!

In biology class?

[RipSawyer]

"Genesis is mostly about who created us, not how we were created."

Actually, Genesis contains considerable detail about how we were created and some of the details conflict. Unfortunately, there are many who want to insist that the book of Genesis is literal truth in every word, apparently they do not understand that two conflicting details cannot both be literal truth. The insistence on this, extending in some cases to a search for the actual "tree of life" and the wreck of "Noah's Ark", in my opinion does a great disservice to the search for truth. I would not be greatly surprised to see a television special in which someone points out the location where Cain slew his brother and the weapon he used to strike him down.

[HairOfTheDog]

Maybe not... but somewhere in the 12 years...

My point is, my teacher didn't have any trouble at all outlining the competing theories and letting the class reach their own conclusions.

[Dark Knight]

Did Ivar Haglund know this? After all, he was quoted as saying "Keep clam!"

What a great guy!

DK

[bondserv]

Speaking to evolution, and leaving aside the age of the universe.

Matt 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,...

Referring to:

Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You only have a few options.

1. Jesus was wrong on some things. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
2. Jesus deceptively perpetrated a myth. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
3. The book of Genesis was miswritten and Jesus quoted an error. (therefore Jesus is not the Son of God)
4. We have unreliable Old Testaments and New Testaments. (therefore we have no reasoning for adhering to the standards in the Bible, other than "it sounds good to me")
5. You are wrong about evolution, and Jesus is the Son of God, and we have reliable copies of the original Scriptures.

2000 years of the best scholars unsuccessfully trying to tear down the Scripture tells us to go with #5. Now 300 modern Scholars are going on record disputing the Theory of evolution.

Thanks for the ping Michael_Michaelangelo!

[Right Wing Professor]

Then why isn't everyone absolutely convinced?

40% of the US population will vote for John F Kerry.

6% of the US population believes we never landed on the moon.

12% of the US population believe Elvis's death was faked and he's still alive.

48% of the US population believes UFOs are real, and the same percentage believes there's a government cover-up going on..

[HairOfTheDog]

That may be where Ivar got the "keep clam" jingle! ;~D

[beaver fever]

Even stranger. The Bhagivad Gita meets Chess Made Simple.

[RipSawyer]

"If you don't believe Genesis 1:1 why are you wasting your time in church? You could be out collecting "proof" that man evolved from monkeys."

Now I am laughing out loud, you really blew it big time there! I believe Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, I have not actually said that I don't believe that, if you stop at that point I cannot argue for or against that statement on the basis of reason, I simply am saying that I don't believe that all of Genesis can be literal truth.
As for man evolving from monkeys, I don't know of any thinking person, Darwin included, who has ever actually argued that that is the case. If you are going to discredit evolution the first thing you need to do is have a rudimentary understanding of what you are arguing against!

[Dark Knight]

How many don't believe light bulbs work?

How many don't believe in the existance of cats?

How many don't believe beer can be made?

Except for the people with severe defects, I can make the case for overwhelming evidence on each of the above. Natural selection is a few steps lower than overwhelming.


DK

[Right Wing Professor]

4. We have unreliable Old Testaments and New Testaments. (therefore we have no reasoning for adhering to the standards in the Bible, other than "it sounds good to me")

So, let's see now. Genesis 1 says rthat on the 6th Day God created the various beasts, and then created man and woman in his own image. And then in Genesis 2:2-3, it was the seventh day, and he rested.

And then it goes on to say that God made man from the dust in the ground (after the seventh day; or is this a flashback?).And then he created all the beasts and fowls and brought them to Adam to name. Except he'd already created the fowls back on Day 5, from the waters. Oops!

In fact, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 appear to be two partially conflicting creation stories. And that's only one of hundreds of clear inconsistencies in the Bible.

[bondserv]

Ping to post 65.

[Right Wing Professor]

Natural selection is a few steps lower than overwhelming.

Really? So the scores of scientific papers which have demonstrated natural selection in the laboratory are what? Faked? Like the moon-landings?

[Cowgirl]

The first story is about the creation of earth, the second is the creation of the Garden of Eden.

[bondserv]

In fact, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 appear to be two partially conflicting creation stories. And that's only one of hundreds of clear inconsistencies in the Bible.

Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1 with added detail to day six. It further describes God's creation of Eden, the presentation of the animals to Adam for naming (more convincingly showing Adam that He is God by creating another of each kind of animal before Adam's eyes) and the subsequent creation of Eve. This is a fleshing out of events in day six. That is why Jesus was able to tie together Gen 1 and Gen 2 when describing Adam and Eve being created in the beginning.

Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus quotes from Genesis 1:27 "male and female created he them." and Genesis 2:24 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In fact Jesus adds the qualifier "at the beginning" in Matthew 19:4 that is not in the Genesis text, which would tell me He believed Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. In Genesis 2 Adam and Eve were named and Jesus doesn't hesitate to put together day 6 in Gen 1 and the added detail of day 6 in Gen 2.

If you want to say that Jesus' quoting the text describing Adam and Eve being at the beginning not once but twice in Matt 19:4 and 19:8 would lead me to believe He was just quoting from a fanciful story, I refuse. Who needs Jesus if the first man didn't fall, and sin just somehow crept up on us. We might as well toss out all of Paul's writings about the original sin of the first Adam.

It is more logical to take this as an affirmation of the text in Gen 1 and Gen 2 being something Jesus believes to be true. Paul wrote about Adam as if God affirmed Adams reality to Paul.

[orionblamblam]

> Then why isn't everyone absolutely convinced?

The overwheling evidence says that ghosts, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are just myths... but not everyone is convinced. You'll always have a fringe element.

[bondserv]

The first story is about the creation of earth, the second is the creation of the Garden of Eden.

Beautiful, thank you.

[Dark Knight]

Are you saying that to you, overwhelming evidence is just a few scores of papers? Like the Finches? All it takes is one good scandal, to ruin an overwhelmingly good day.

So are you saying that Natural Selection is approaching undeniable truth?

DK

[orionblamblam]

> you made a claim about the mechanism for biogenesis and then ran away.

Where did I "run away?" I pointed out that chemistry can do some interesting things. I said nothing about evolution in that particular instance.

> Now you're denying Natural Selection as a mechanism too!

Wow. Are you aware that there is more to "Darwinism" than "Natural selection?" That there are refinements that have been made to Darwins original thesis based on new discoveries and understanding?

A "Darwinist" is to "Evolutionist" sorta what a "Copernican" is to "orbital dynamicist." The ealry guys got the large picture right, but time and science ahs improved their original thesis.

Time has not, however, improved the Creationist thesis. It has been in serious intellectual decline for 200+ years.

[orionblamblam]

> So are you saying that Natural Selection is approaching undeniable truth?


Well, hell, son, I will. What fits in it's environment best prospers, what fits poorly either adjusts, changes the environment, or fails to prosper. This is self evident.