Kansas Board Holding Evolution Hearings

Peoplepc news ^ | 5-7-05 | People pc

[followerofchrist]

TOPEKA, Kan. - Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.

Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.

snip

Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it.

Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."

[GarySpFc]

Most Christians are not strict Biblical literalists, so evolution is perfectly compatible with most denominations' view of God.

That's not entirely correct. The 1999 Gallup poll showed 87% of the public believes in God, with an increase to 47% for Creationists and 40% theistic evolutionists.

What you say is certainly true of strict Biblical litearlists, but not all Christian opponents of evolution are Biblical literalists. None of the intelligent design advocates, for instance, are.

That depends what you mean by strict Biblical literalist. Few Christians believe Christ was being literal when He said, "I am the door," or, "If thy eye offend thee pluck it out." However, the majority to accept the Word of God as being inspired and inerrant.

The problem is that evolution has become synonymous with atheism in the minds of many Christians. That's partly due to irresponsible preachers who do not understand evolution, and it's partly due to people like Provine. You're right, Provine does not say that evolution rules out any conceivable deity, but he does claim it rules out a personal God who involves himself in the lives of men. That is not something any Christian, even one who rejects young earth six-day global flood creationism, can accept.

So in your mind it's only a few like Provine and irresponsible preachers. I beg to differ.
"The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 69

[curiosity]

Interesting. To refute my point that it's a few like Provine who are responsible, you cite...Provine.

[Fester Chugabrew]

A Christian has to make some distinction between normal governance of the world and miraculous interventions.

We were born into the Law of Gravity, so for us it will always be "normal governance." Who is to say that every moment gravity runs its course it is not an absolute miracle? The distinction is one we have created for ourselves. It is not necessary for a Christian to maintain it, but it is helpful at times. A virgin birth may be out of the ordinary where our experience is concerned, but I don't think our experience is the ultimate test of objective reality. Do you?

[GarySpFc]

Interesting. To refute my point that it's a few like Provine who are responsible, you cite...Provine.
You made a generalization, and I simply posted Provine's remark that he did not know of a single one. Until his demise Provine was one of the leading spokesman for the Darwinist camp.

[GarySpFc]

A Christian has to make some distinction between normal governance of the world and miraculous interventions. How else is it possible to believe in the Virgin Birth or the Ressurection? Obviously, these events had to be miraculous interventions as they violate the laws of nature.

If God grows a 50 foot oak tree in 30 years or 30 seconds it is really the same miracle, with the only difference being the time frame.

[Thatcherite]

The part where it explains how, exactly, she criticized evolution. I can't find that anywhere, even with a Google search. I just get a load of creationist pages lamenting the removal of a professor who "dared" speak out against evolution without bothering to provide the statements that they made so I can determine for myself whether or not this was one scientist who was informed or talking out of her ass.

I found something about her speech. Apparently it was the usual tosh, " I discussed the nonexistence of evidence for chemical (prebiotic) evolution, the "Haeckel's embryos fraud" from developmental biology, evolution-disconfirming evidence from paleontology (the Cambrian explosion), and the subjectivity of paleoanthropology in its interpretation of the place of human-like fossil skulls in "human evolution". I went on to point out that the General Biology text we use here at MUW greatly misleads students by presenting false "evidence" for evolution and by ignoring the overwhelming disconfirming evidence."

Unfortunately she doesn't specify (anywhere that I can find) the "overwhelming disconfirming evidence" that she has apparently discovered so we'll have to place her Nobel Prize on hold for the moment. Just the same tired old endlessly refuted canards. I can just see the biology faculty wanting to continue to work with her after that one, too.

[stremba]

I would have no problem if one believed even that God does step in from time to time and tinker with the process. That idea could not form a part of any scientific theory, however, and would have to be an article of faith.

[stremba]

True enough. Natural selection and "theistic" selection would produce exactly the same observable results. In science, however, Occam's Razor would apply to this and lead us to assume natural selection. That is, given two hypotheses that yield identical observable results, the assumption is to use the one that does not needlessly multiply entities. Since natural selection proposes that organisms survive according to how well they fit their environment, and "theistic" selection proposes that organisms survive according to how fit they are for their environment and that God plays a part in this determination, we assume natural selection. The theory of evolution can be said to be "atheistic" only for this reason. Anyone, evolutionist or creationist, who implies that evolution and theism are incompatible is simply unknowledgeable and/or is promoting an agenda.

[stremba]

Maybe Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, Provine, et. al don't actually speak for all of science in general or for all individual scientists, but rather are promoting their own personal agendas.

[RadioAstronomer]

I tell ya. You can't dodge forever. Sooner or later we'll find out and when we do......

Uh Oh! LOL!!

[RadioAstronomer]

I always ask you that question and you refuse to answer.

Because it is inappropriate for this discussion.

Why is it most people who swear by evolution don't believe in God?

Not in my experience

Which came first - atheists or evolutionists?

Atheists. They have been here for a long time. Evolution is really a new kid on the block.

[RadioAstronomer]

Imagine meeting you here.

:-)

[GarySpFc]

Maybe Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, Provine, et. al don't actually speak for all of science in general or for all individual scientists, but rather are promoting their own personal agendas.

They clearly were the leaders by recognized by their peers in their respective disciplines.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's the eyes, and maybe the glasses.

[PatrickHenry]

AAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!

[Stultis]

A Christian has to make some distinction between normal governance of the world and miraculous interventions. How else is it possible to believe in the Virgin Birth or the Ressurection? Obviously, these events had to be miraculous interventions as they violate the laws of nature.

Well, I'm a philosophical theist who doesn't believe either of those things actually occurred. But even if you do it seems to me there is a difference between providential acts directly involving God's physical incarnation in the world (i.e. Jesus as both human and divine) and God's governance of nature and actions of purely creaturely beings. For one thing there is the generosity of God in permitting each creature to be authentically itself, and to be free. Tinkering with mutations seems inconsistent with freedom. Also if God is tinkering with mutations, then what else? Say a leaf falls. Is that because of chemical reactions at the base of the leaf causing it to separate for the stem, or did God make a miracle for one (or any number) or particular leafs to fall that wouldn't have "otherwise". The effect of affirming tinkerings is to make the world a domain sprinkled with occult effects rather than a whole, coherent and seamless creation.

[Stultis]

Why is it most people who swear by evolution don't believe in God?

Most evolutionists are theists. Think a minute. Atheists are something like 9 percent of the population and evolutionists are over 50 percent. How could your assertion even possibly be true?

[mlc9852]

I was actually talking about scientists - sorry. I didn't realize so many outside of the profession of science swore by evolution.

[Stultis]

I was actually talking about scientists - sorry. I didn't realize so many outside of the profession of science swore by evolution.

I think you're wrong there too (about most evolutionary scientists being atheists). There is some difference between scientists and the general public, in the direction that scientists are more likely to be atheists. I don't recall exactly what the figures are, or exactly how they've been polled, but I'm certain the differences are no where near dramatic enough to make a majority of atheists. I do remember a poll from some years ago finding that biologists were no more likely to be atheists than other persons with the same level of education in non-science fields. (And I'd bet less likely if you compared them just to Social Science Ph.D.s!)