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.

[AntiGuv]

What proof is there that evolution is not a RELIGION itself?

Umm, that proof would be the quite clear definition of the term "religion" which doesn't match the scientific theory of evolution. In my view, a more interesting question would be: Why do creationists have such a low regard for religion that they consider it an insult to call evolution a religion?

[SouthernFreebird]

Frankly I don't care how I got here. Where I'm going after is what concerns me.

[curiosity]

I'll give you a proof.

Webster's defines religion as follows:

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Evolution makes no claims about any supernatural powers, neither denying nor affirming them. Ergo, evolution is not a religion.

[Just mythoughts]

"Seems pretty simple to me, you either believe that God created the word in six twenty four hour days or you believe God is a lair and the whole thing evolved in one way or another over a period of time ranging from eons (what ever they are0 to millions and even billions of years."


NOT that simple, as Peter tell us how long a 'day' with the Lord is and one day is as a thousand years. Further the Bible nowhere tells us how old this earth is, and this earth displays the evidence that something took place eons ago to be in the condition it is this day. Flesh man did not walk with the dinos.

[durasell]

A literal reading of the bible does not allow for allegory or metaphor. That's the whole point.

[AntiGuv]

No one reads the bible literally. There is allegory and metaphor scattered throughout. If you dispute this and claim to be Christian, then get back to me when you castrate yourself (Matthew 19:12).

[Matchett-PI]

"so what am I looking for on your homepage?" ~ john_baldacci_is_a_commie

Scroll aprox 1/3 down the page and click on these links, for starters:

Star Light & the Age of the Universe

Astrophysicist writes Dr.James Kennedy. (Response below his letter)

The Origin and Meaning of Time

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

"..In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."

[durasell]

Uh, perhaps I framed my response incorrectly.

I don't read the bible literally, but there are plenty of people who do. I know this for a fact. Any second one or more of them will probably chime in.

[AntiGuv]

Any second one or more of them will probably chime in.

Well, if they're guys, I hope for their kingdom of heaven's sake that it's a very high-pitched chime. LOL

And if they're girls, they should not chime in at all, because I'm a guy (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

[Matchett-PI]

"Evolution makes no claims about any supernatural powers, neither denying nor affirming them. Ergo, evolution is not a religion." ~ curiosity

"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

Metaphysics has to do with the supernatural.

[durasell]

google literal bible reading, etc. and read the literature. Fascinating stuff.

I have to get to work, take care.

[nmh]

It really comes down to this,

those who are true believers don't need to prove anything. The evidence speaks for itself. The Judeo Christian God means what He says and isn't limited in ability and certainly isn't an ape. The godless will believe otherwise.

[RoadTest]

1Tim. 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith."

[Matchett-PI]

"I don't read the bible literally, but there are plenty of people who do. .." ~ durasell

"...It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields. Obviously the vast majority of believers spend their entire lives doing little more than reading the Bible in English (or whatever native tongue) and importing into its words whatever ideas they derive from their own experiences. This process is very often one of "decontextualizing" -- what I have here called "reading it like it was written yesterday and for you personally." ...

Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- what I have elsewhere spoken of in terms of being "unskilled and unaware of it."

And is my observation to this effect justified? Well, ask yourself this question after considering what various fields of knowledge a complete and thorough (not to say sufficient for intelligent discourse, though few even reach that pinnacle, especially in the critical realm) study of the Bible requires:

Click to continue: http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html

[rache]

Yes, Christians do not need to be persuaded that God DID Create the world! The problem is, Evolution, because there is not proof for it, is a Belief itself, and therefore is NOT science! There is absolutely no proof for evolution whatsoever! That is why it is called the evolution THEORY!

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Seems pretty simple to me, you either believe that God created the word in six twenty four hour days or you believe God is a lair<<<

I am not sure if God is a "lair" or not, but, it is written, One day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

[kindred]

The just shall live by faith.

Evolutionary theory should be studied closely by scientists without an prohibitive bias toward the one True God and His Christ; to dismiss all the holes and lack of science and anti science is wrong.
A the liberal mindset is a religious mindset that assumes fables and myths are all true despite scientific laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and transmutation of species being totally violated in their religious like dismissal of all truth but that which they choose to belive. And they are so anti choice and anti science biased when it comes to disproving their false science. Their is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[LauraleeBraswell]

When you take Genesis literally, you lose the message behind the meaning. And no, Evolution doesn't rule out God.

[curiosity]

Metaphysics has to do with the supernatural.

Wrong. Take some philosophy.

BTW, evolution has nothing to do with metaphysics. Darwin was merely exorting philosophers to ponder the metaphysical implications of his theory. His theory, however, is not metaphysical.

[mdmathis6]

I think it was Catholics that had a broad history of burning "witches", heretics, and "fundamentalist protestants"(at least of the types that were present such as anabaptists). Be careful, your own ignorance is showing!