Posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:15 AM PST by cainin04
It has nothing to do with superstitions. Deep down people know when they are being rolled by "experts". When scientist use intimidation and ridicule to supress any discussion of alternatives to evolution, people begin to wonder what is going on.
It may be that evolution will be generally accepted. Before that happens it would help if there could be some compelling evidence to support it and if there could be an open robust examination of the evidence without the rancor and namecalling that seems to characterize the debate.
As far as I know, no Biblical figure believed that you must reject evolution since the theory of evolution was proposed only 150 years ago.
A point well taken. Thank you.
It was, 50 years ago, outside all but a small cadre of Biblical lieralists. That, IMO, is about as 'generally accepted' as it's ever going to be.
Before that happens it would help if there could be some compelling evidence to support it and if there could be an open robust examination of the evidence without the rancor and namecalling that seems to characterize the debate.
The evidence, from fossils, genetics, phyolgeny, population biology, etc., is compelling to anyone who will permit hiimself to be compelled.
Evolution is anti-creation
It almost goes without saying that evolution is anti-creation. Darwin was opposed to all forms of creation (Gillespie, 1979, pp.xi, 3, 19-20, 39), even theistic evolution (Bowler, 1990, pp.158-161). In his Origin of Species Darwin mentioned "creation" or its cognates over 100 times, mostly pejoratively (Jones, 2002). Neo- Darwinism's co-founder Julian Huxley expressed the consensus of the scientific establishment when he declared that evolution and creation were mutually exclusive: "The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion" (Huxley, 1960, pp.iii:252-253).
Dictionaries of biology (Abercrombie, et al., 1990, pp.194-195; Hale & Margham, 1988, p.214; Tootill, 1981, p.108), science (Isaacs, Daintith & Martin, 1991, pp.183, 251-252; Lafferty & Rowe, 1996, p.222) and philosophy (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.108), define "evolution" as being opposed to creation. Leading biology textbooks usually commence their section on evolution with an attack on creation (e.g. Campbell, Reece & Mitchell, 1999, pp.415-417; Mader, 1990, pp.281-283; Raven & Johnson, 1995, pp.7-8; Keeton, Gould & Gould, 1986, pp.12-13; Knox, Ladiges & Evans, p.707; Solomon et al., 1993, p.390; Starr & Taggart, 1998, pp.16, 270-275). Leading evolutionary biology textbooks also usually contain an attack on creation (Dobzhansky, et al., pp.9, 349; Futuyma, 1986, pp.3,15; Ridley, 1996a, pp.41,65-66; Strickberger, 2000, pp.5ff, 53ff).
Evolutionists have also written many books attacking creation in defence of evolution (e.g. Berra 1990; Ecker, 1990; Eldredge, 1982; 2000; Futuyma, 1983; Gallant, 1975; Godfrey, 1983; Kitcher, 1982; McGowan, 1983; Montagu, 1984; Newell, 1982; Pennock, 1999; Plimer, 1994; Price, 1990; Selkirk & Burrows, 1988; Strahler, 1999; Wilson & Dolphin, 1983; Young, 1985; Zetterberg, 1983).
Evolution is so anti-creation, that leading evolutionists have admitted that even if creation was true, it could not be accepted by them as science (Eldredge, 1982, p.134; Ruse M., 1982, pp.322-323; Futuyma, 1983, p.169; Ruse, 1996, p.301; Pennock, 1999, p.283; Ratzsch, 1996, p.168).
From here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe03rlgn.html
No, personally, I think the reason people reject evolution is that most people don't study biology beyond their high school biology class. In such a class they get only a very simplified and in many cases incorrect idea of what evolution is about. I personally have time and time again run into people, for example who believe that the theory of evolution deals with the origin of life. I have encountered many who say that it teaches that there is no God. I have also met many who say that "It's just a theory. There's no proof. If there were proof it would be the LAW of evolution." All of these indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, and in the case of the second and third examples, a lack of understanding of science in general. I think people would accept evolution better if it was presented as a scientific explanation of the variation that exists in living things without all of the religious overtones. It should be pointed out that it makes no mention of God at all, and that there is significant evidence in support of it, but that, like any other scientific theory, there is not absolute proof of it.
Please name one scientific theory that has been proposed as an alternative to evolution.
No side has a monopoly on those who are willing to sacrifice truth for pride (been there done that. everyone has except One). It is particularly sad for christians to do so since we should know how dangerous a trap it is. Although I do not get as much time as I would like, I try to understand various aspects of both evolution and creation theory. I consider it a responsibility as a christian.
Red herring. And laughable.
I'm just passing on the Biblical account. If you got a problem with that, don't take it up with me. As for my reading of Darwin, I stand by it.
> Deep down people know when they are being rolled by "experts".
Yes. Most people get that feeling whenever a preacher other than their own starts yapping.
> When scientist use intimidation and ridicule to supress any discussion of alternatives to evolution
Not happening. Discuss alternatives all you want. But don't try to pass off religion as science. ID is just the same old Creationist claptrap in a cheap suit.
> it would help if there could be some compelling evidence to support it
The fossil record is quite enough on it's own.
---"All the evidence - all of it - points to a 4.5 billion year old Earth."---
Hmmm. I'll remember that the next time I hear someone like National Geographic or somebody add or subtract a billion years or so.
It's only a billion years, after all.
---"No, it isn't. Not if you understand the evidence. Not if you research and examine all the evidence honestly."---
Funny. I hear the same thing on both sides of the Jesus as Messiah argument. Exact same claim.
> I think the reason people reject evolution is that most people don't study biology beyond their high school biology class. In such a class they get only a very simplified and in many cases incorrect idea of what evolution is about.
I concur. My own field is astronautics and rocketry, not biology; but I see the VAST lack of understanding most people have of what I consider the basic science of my field. It's not that they're morons, it's that such knowledge just never gets to them, and popular culture works against it. I shudder whenever I hear in a scie-fi movie that the "orbit is decaying," or watch a ship go into orbit around a planet while thrusting *towards* the planet, or hear someone mention that space is cold or that there's no gravity in space. And don't get me started on them damn X-Wing aerobatics...
People as a group are just plain scientifically illiterate. In the case of space... nobody seems to much care. Tell somebody the actual facts, and if their eyes don't glaze over, it still probably ahsn't made much of an impact. But in the case of evolution, when someone tells the truth, that truth tends to disagree with the comforting superstitions they were raised on, and many get in a snit.
"As far as I know, no Biblical figure believed that you must reject evolution since the theory of evolution was proposed only 150 years ago."
First of all, that wasn't my point. My point was that if one gets worked up by "zeal" then they gotta get worked up at the people of faith in Scripture, and the authors of Scripture. That's all.
Nonetheless, you raise an interesting point. However, Paul clearly believed in a literal Adam, and a literal consequence of a literal fall being physical death. Many NT writers reference the flood. The decalogue obviously accepts the 7 day creation cycle, rather than the 7 billion year creation cycle (otherwise we would be commanded to work 6 billion years and rest 1 billion).
There is only evidence that Biblical authors did anything other than believe the OT account in its entirety. If someone can show me where Jesus or Paul (or Luke, or Peter, or Mark, Matthew or John) doesn't believe in Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Babel, Abraham...etc...then I am all ears.
Yes, but it looks like the light was divided in verse 16, i.e., day 4. I take the the light to rule the day as the sun and that for the night the moon. No?
Verse 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." - Humpty Dumpty
Furthermore, the "idea" of evolution is a bit older than 150 years. It is an idea very much alive in Greek philosophy and we have good reason to think that Paul was fairly conversant with Greek philosophy. I am quite certain that he would have the evolution of his day, and of ours.
I agree with you that the theory doesn't explicitly deny God's existence, however making everything contingent on time, chance and matter implies a denial of God. And while "evolution" may not deny God, many evolutionist do because they understand the implications of the theory.
Ah, yes. Creationist tactic 101 when presented with a statement that exposes their ignorance: run away like a coward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.