Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]

Chicago Tribune ^ | 27 November 2005 | Richard Colling

[PatrickHenry]

The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.

They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.

They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.

But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?

The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.

Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.

The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.

The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.

In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.

[Coyoteman]

I find it amusing that some folks criticize evolution because there are a few small gaps in the fossil record, but they can stretch science and logic into pretzels to allow for a global flood.

Here are a few of the many problems: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.

I have a couple of additional ones from my own research if you need more.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can run but you can't hide. :) "

Is that supposed to mean something profound? You said that metaphysics is about the supernatural. It isn't. Your own post #112 supports this. Darwin was not talking about the supernatural, any more than Aristotle was. He was talking about Locke's ideas about the tabula rasa and epistemology. You are WAY over your head.

[RoadTest]

Don't take the Bible literally. Jesus said "I am the door". You can't take that literally. God uses parables and analogies.

Like myths, they reveal underlying reality.

[Quick1]

I find it amusing that some folks criticize evolution because there are a few small gaps in the fossil record, but they can stretch science and logic into pretzels to allow for a global flood.

I also find it amusing that many of the same folks who criticize Evolution do so because they think that if Evolution is discredited, Creationism or ID will take it's place.

[durasell]

Just think of how much fun it'll be once the debate goes into the classroom...there's going to be some really, really interesting parent-teacher conferences...

[Oztrich Boy]

Don't take the Bible literally.

I'm not the one citing 1 Tim 6:20 as if it had any felevance post First Century

[Gumlegs]

And still in the kiddie pool, too.

[mlc9852]

King James version. Not sure where you got the idea that man was created first, then animals and plants.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

We've been trying to throw her a life-preserver but she won't grab on.

[nightdriver]

"The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality."

Uh, no. "B" does not follow "A" and "C" does not follow "A" and "B."

Let's actually see this "evidence," if it is so convincing. We constantly hear that it exists, but we never seem to get the privelege of eyeballing it ourselves.

[Coyoteman]

I said legitimate scientific evidence. I have read most of the books and articles actually, as well as having been taught evolution extensively in the course of obtaining several degrees in science.

I still have not seen legitimate evidence for evolution. All of the evidence so far is broad reaching conjecture based on a few bones and fossils that are not even complete. And if you read the history of evolution, much of the "scientific" evidence is faulty and some of it is downright fraud.

Here is some legitimate evidence for you. Probably won't do any good; when your mind is made up already, you won't be able to even see it [Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein, 1973].

Homo erectus

Most paleontologists now believe that a second evolutionary pulse occurred around 1.9 million years ago that produced hominids with much larger brains. Homo erectus were the first hominids to not just be human-like, but human. They were hunters, speculates Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, and likely had the ability of some sort of speech, due to an enlarged Broca's area on their skulls. The face has protruding jaws, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a brain size ranging from 750 to 1225 cc. The skeletons are more robust than those of modern humans. Erectus likely had a very efficient walking style, and probably used fire as well. In addition, their stone tools are much better than those of habilis. Some of the most famous early archaeological finds were skeletal remains of Homo erectus, including the 1893 discovery "Java Man", the "Heidelberg Man", the "Peking Man", and the "Turkana Boy" shown in the picture on the right. Erectus also turned out to be the creater of many of the stone tools and Chellean handaxes found at the Olduvai site by the Leakeys, the so-called "Chellean Man". Erectus was likely the first hominid to spread across the world, as the migrated to China by 800,000 years ago and to Europe by 500,000. However, by 300,000 years ago they were to be replaced by a new hominid - Homo sapiens.

[durasell]

It's not polite to screw around with other people's belief systems.

[BushCountry]

The story of his *conversion* was a lie spun a woman named Lady Hope who claimed to have been at his deathbed. She never met him. So much for the honesty of creationists.

Actually, many researchers believe that there is no proof in either direction. Some members of her family recant her account, yet there is no conclusive proof either way. Are you so blinded by your hatred of Creationists that you that you will call them lairs without proof? That speaks volumes to the Sciencific approach you Evos take.

******* excerpt of a book review ********
The book THE DARWIN LEGEND by James Moore is one of the most recent and cautious analyses about the Darwin conversion story. For many years, detractors claimed that Lady Hope either didn't exist or never visited Darwin. Moore demonstrates that she did indeed exist and may very well have visited him.
****************************************

He actually lost his faith almost at the same time he formulated his theory in the late 1830's. He was an agnostic for most of his adult life.

Actually, he still had his faith when he returned on his faithful trip in 1836. Even still, after his conversion away from Christianity he still felt he deserved to be called a "Theist." Again, throughout most of his life, if not his entire life, his belief that God created life was persistent.

[Matchett-PI]

:) Keep running.

Metaphysics:(Greek words meta = after/beyond and physics = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first principles" and "being" (ontology).

metaphysics (m t f z' ks) , branch of philosophy concerned with the ultimate nature of existence.

A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - he who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." - Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838

[mlc9852]

Doesn't matter what you want to call it - it does seem to be making inroads and I couldn't be happier!

[durasell]

You're not doing yourself any favors on this whole metaphysics thing. Better to quit while you're ahead.

[Quick1]

Yep, just keep the debate about ID/Creationism out of the science classroom, and in the Philosphy classroom, where it belongs.

[Gumlegs]

Too late.

[durasell]

The evolutionists have all but lost the battle. Logic never wins out over belief. And even the best science always has (necessarily) a portion of doubt included.

What I'm trying to figure out is how much damage is going to be done. At present time I see a lot of small wounds inflicted, but don't know how they will add up.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Actually, many researchers believe that there is no proof in either direction. Some members of her family recant her account, yet there is no conclusive proof either way. Are you so blinded by your hatred of Creationists that you that you will call them lairs without proof? That speaks volumes to the Sciencific approach you Evos take."

There is no evidence she met him. She's a liar about his *conversion*. Besides, his family (the women anyway) was devout; they would have had every reason to want him to have converted. That they said he didn't says a lot. It's up to those who want to convince us of the Lady Hope story to come up with something tangible. None of his letters up to the time of his death even hint that he was having a crisis of faith or doubted evolution. The burden of proof is with the creationists.


"Actually, he still had his faith when he returned on his faithful trip in 1836. Even still, after his conversion away from Christianity he still felt he deserved to be called a "Theist." Again, throughout most of his life, if not his entire life, his belief that God created life was persistent."

No, he really didn't. And I said he lost his faith in the late 1830's, which is not at all inconsistent with him still having it in 1836. It was in the next two years it melted away. Let's say he became an agnostic in 1850; that still leaves him 32 years as an agnostic.

That James Moore book doesn't say that Darwin converted, it only says that he may have been visted by Lady Hope. I notice that you conveniently left out the last sentence in the paragraph of the book review you excerpted,

"He also concludes, however, that her account of what happened is not reliable."
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm

Very interesting editing.