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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolutionist misrepresentation # 437: that neo-Darwinism is not based on naturalism, which is atheistic at its core."

Creationist lie #1: Only evolution is based on methodological naturalism; all other sciences aren't.

Name one theory in science that is based on supernatural/untestable/nonphysical explanations.

[Dimensio]

This is the stupidest statement I've seen on FR this month, and that's saying something.

How long have you been observing these crevo discussions?

[durasell]

I can tell you for an absolute fact that for many people here in NYC and other major cities, that kind of statement defines the conservative movement.

[Dimensio]

Evolutionist misrepresentation # 437: that neo-Darwinism is not based on naturalism, which is atheistic at its core.

All science is based in naturalism. Science can't address anything outside of the natural universe. Singling out evolution on this basis is intellectually dishonest.

[Dimensio]

So, frankly, when evolutionists decry Christianity, for instance, especially when they assume the absence of a God,

What about evolutionists who don't assume the abscence of a God?

[Theophilus]

Why not?

It can't be observed

It can't be tested

It can't be verified.

[elbucko]

I understand. The Left has its Michael Moore's and conservatives have the Jerry Falwell's. Neither does the country any good.

[Dimensio]

It can't be observed

I stopped here. Evolution has been observed. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't actually studied the subject.

[longshadow]

Welcome to the Festival of Fresh Meat

[durasell]

Bravo! Bravo!

Our differences were once our country's greatest strength. There are those who would turn that strength to a weakness.

[attiladhun2]

I also know that the six days of creation are literal.
The earth is not 6,000 years old, nor are the six days of creation literally equal to 144 hours. The archaelogical record in Egypt, for example, is unbroken for over 6,000 years. If Ussher's Chronology (the one appealed to overwhelmingly by young earthers) is true, the archaelogical record would universally begin after 2400 B.C., that date Ussher gives for the Deluge. Moses' purpose in writing the Creation account in Gen. 1 and 2 was not about dating the events described therein, but in order to teach the fact that God alone was involved in the creation of the universe and that no part of creation was itself a god or goddess. Specifically, he was writing to combat heliolatry, the worship of the Sun Disk (as Creator), Atum-Re. This is why he begins the creation account with the creation of light. Moses' order in the Creation Account is replicated in pagan cosmologies from land of the Etrucans to Sumer. They are all similar and involve the creation of light, the earth, sky, waters, etc, often in the same order as indictated in Scripture. This is only explicable if Moses was attempting to show that Elohim was the Creator and not some heathen god.

[MEGoody]

How very nice of the author to share his views about what Christians should or shouldn't do. It's a shame he wasted all that time and effort, seeing as how Christians don't follow him.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Bravo! Bravo! Our differences were once our country's greatest strength. There are those who would turn that strength to a weakness.

Logic 101: Cheering someone for bashing differences -- Micael Moore, Jerry Falwell or ANYONE who does not believe in the theory of evolution -- does not translate into appreciating our differences or seeing those differences as strengths. In fact I believe he stated that those who differed with him were RUINING the country.

[Sensei Ern]

"I understand. The Left has its Michael Moore's and conservatives have the Jerry Falwell's. Neither does the country any good."

That is insulting and ignorant. FIrst off, as Rush says, we need to keep a few liberals around as museum pieces.

Jerry Falwell has done more good than you can imagine. Unfortunately, most people don't think, "WhHat has he done for us?" They think , "What has he done for me, lately?" The Moral Majority brought abortion to the froefront and was instrumental in getting Reagan into the White House. It also led the fight to get pornography out of the hands of children. It was also instrumental in setting up sources for protecting our children from abduction. The list is long, but I won't bother you. You will either see your error, or will refuse to see it no matter how many positive accomplishments I list.

[steve-b]

I hope (and pray) we don't loose the conservative movement to these morons.

Indeed.

(It does, however, provide a little insight into how some people on the other side could continue to believe in their own absurdities, e.g. some of them still insist that the Ratherscam memos are genuine, or at least sufficiently suspicious that Dubya ought to "answer the questions they raise").

[nmh]

"If you believe the Bible can you believe evolution? "

Not a chance!

Evolution, and the "big bang" are totally incompatible with what God states in the Bible.

I'm always amazed at folks the will take the word of atheists, who are the ones propelling evolution and the "big bang" over what God states and still claim to be "Christians".

Two opposing theories can NOT be true at the same time. Either God is the liar or mere fallible mortals are lying ... . The Bible states God cannot lie and ALL is God breathed - not just some of it or what you selectively agree with. ALL of it and the evidence when viewed objectively supports exactly what He states in the Bible.

It's also not an "interpretation issue". The Hebrew is quite clear on seven literal twenty-four hour days and btw, we are made in His image and He is NO "ape".

There is no rational way to reconcile evolution or the "big bang" with the Bible. They are diametrically opposing theories.

[durasell]

Logic 101: Cheering someone for bashing differences -- Micael Moore, Jerry Falwell or ANYONE who does not believe in the theory of evolution -- does not translate into appreciating our differences or seeing those differences as strengths. In fact I believe he stated that those who differed with him were RUINING the country.



Can you please re-state?

[BushCountry]

I never said that it was an established fact. He was the one that said the story was a complete lie. It wasn't, in fact, the women existed and most likely visited Darwin. Both sides have no conclusive evidence either way.

The one fact you and he avoided was that Darwin considered himself a "Theist" even after turning away from the literal interpretation of the Bible. That he believe that God created life and was one of the first IDers.

[Right Wing Professor]

But honestly, we're warned to stay out of the sun now and wear UV protection.

So you think if you slap on the SPF 30, you can live until you're 900?

Funny how Africans, whose skin is naturally screened against UV, don't live longer than Causcasians, huh?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Either God is the liar or mere fallible mortals are lying."

Or...

The Bible is not completely the Word of God, and was written by fallible mortals.

"The Hebrew is quite clear on seven literal twenty-four hour days and btw, we are made in His image and He is NO "ape"."

The physical Creation is also quite clear; the Earth is billions of years old.

God may not be an ape, but we are. :)