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.

[GOPPachyderm]

You are of course right on all three counts. What I meant to say was that those with an evolutionary naturalistic view exclude the supernatural as the explanation for anything. I think that the account in Genesis is true although we don't know all of the particulars, such as the length of time. It seems to me that darwinian evolution is born out of the need to explain away the need for God as creator.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.

(Some) Christians (and many) Muslims have been telling me that for over 50 years. It's about as suspicious as finding a trout in the milk.

[luckystarmom]

It was so appropriate that after we've been discussing this topic, my 11 year old asked me if I knew about the big bang theory. I told him that I did.

I asked if he knew what evolution was, and he knew some of it.

I told him there were people that didn't believe in evolution or the big bang theory, and they believed that God created the earth in 6 literal days.

He then asked what I believed. I said I didn't know what was the truth, but I knew that God started it all.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Neither of these has anything to do with the date of the global flood. We are talking 4,000-5,000 years, not millions of years. I do not believe even creationists can twist the data to say otherwise, though they may try."

It depends on what dating mechanism you use. There are many indications that radioisotope decay has been accelerated in the past. A few of them are:

1) Helium retention in Zircon rocks

2) Radiometric dates from the same rock conflict in a regular pattern -- dating methods using heavier elements and longer half-lives give larger dates, indicating that there have been modifications to their decay rates based on atomic physical factors in the past

3) Radiometric dates from beta decay products are drastically different from those of alpha decay products

Some of this data was presented to the American Geophysical Union during their centennial celebration of radioisotope geochronology. You can see the abstracts from the session here. The last three are from the RATE group discussing the evidences of accelerated decay in the past. RATE has the posters that they presented here (at the bottom of the page).

"Sorry, flood is claimed to be 4,000-5,000 years ago. That is not in the paleozoic or mesozoic. Those are geological periods"

Not according to the standard uniformitarian time scale, but there is reason to doubt the standard timescale.

"90,000 years is not correct. Some labs using AMS are striving for that but the standard labs top out at 50,000 or less."

The reason seems to be that they simply are not getting dates of organic objects older than that. They "top out" at 50,000 simply because that's the limit of carbon decay in the available time!

"Please believe me over the creation websites, as I deal with radiocarbon dating on at least a weekly basis."

So do the creationists. You seem to be thinking that creationists are not dealing with the data on a daily basis. In fact they are.

"I think your replies, though polite and well reasoned, are saying that you believe the bible and will ignore or twist any data to make the answers come out right."

If it were only the Bible saying this, then you may be right, but I think that in such a case I would opt for Montanism. But in fact the historic records of many societies not connected with Christianity tell the same story, with the same timeline. I take the word of eyewitnesses over circumstancial evidence, especially if the eyewitness accounts are in general agreement. Science doesn't know everything, and therefore using current scientific knowledge as a straightjacket on the past can distort our view. I think the eyewitness historical perspective sheds light on these places, and that is exactly what creationist research is doing.

"As enjoyable as these discussions are, I really have to get some work done occasionally!"

Best not to spend time on freerepublic if you want to keep your job :) If only we could get paid to debate!

[curiosity]

So you only need a savior from physical death? Spiritual death doesn't bother you?

[curiosity]

Well I hadn't meant to personalize nature,,,let's call it Macro Evolution then just to satisfy your need for a depersonalized universe!

So where's the paradox?

[mdmathis6]

The paradox lies in an evolutionary process that produces organisms that think outside of the evolutionary process, can act transversly to it and indeed can destroy themselves as well as the entire world!

It is not logical that Nature(or Macro Evolution) should have produced such a creature antithetical to it...unless there was interference in the process somewhere.

[THEUPMAN]

So you only need a savior from physical death? Spiritual death doesn't bother you?

To live in the flesh is death.

To live in the spirit is life.

This is the "fall" in a nut shell.

IF there was no "fall" then we need no savior.

If we say ... this really doesn't mean this , or this doesn't mean that ... then we are basically just making it up as we go . Trying to find something that we agree with , that we think sounds right .

The whole thing started when someone questioned what God had said.

and that is the basic problem we still face today.

But of course there are plenty of religions and new age movements that have all sorts of views. So one can always find one they agree with.

Why try to change Biblical Christianity?

[pby]

"...a wheelchair"

How about a Life Support System?

[Elsie]

We are ALL gonna die.

What happens THEN???



THIS is the Main question - not whether C or E is right!

[Elsie]

yes

Got a link to some?

[Preachin']

"Which version of Genesis are you looking at? Because in the first account, Humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account, Adam was created, then the animals and then Eve."

Specifically, which verses?

[Coyoteman]

I think we are going to have to give up on this discussion. We are simply not speaking the same language, and have no common frame of reference.

'Till next time.

Coyote

[curiosity]

It is not logical that Nature(or Macro Evolution) should have produced such a creature antithetical to it

Why?

[Quark2005]

Got a link to some?

Two examples of the use of statistics by evolutionary biologists & paleontologists jump to the front of my mind.

The most obvious example (to me), though not about biological evolution per se, is radiometric dating, in which the addition of statistical errors from various isotope dating techniques is used to help establish the age of the earth and fossil strata in general. In some cases, a statistical error of distribution less than 0.1% is possible in rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Statistical distributions are also commonly used in the study of genetics as it relates to evolution; one recent example was in the study of mutation accumulations in the 'junk' DNA of primates. The concept of statistical distributions in genetics is also behind the principle of genetic drift.

Statistics is an omnipresent factor in almost all experimental science, whether one realizes it or not. Usually, finished articles in the news & magazines intended for general public perusal don't go into the details of the months/years spent by scientists dealing with the statistics of their research, but they are always being dealt with to minimize uncertainties in data.

[Coyoteman]

Two examples of the use of statistics by evolutionary biologists & paleontologists jump to the front of my mind.

Rightmire uses a lot of statistics in his studies of various fossils. You can get a bunch of references by searching google for:

rightmire journal physical discriminant function

His earlier study of the Bantu expansion using multiple discriminant function analysis was quite interesting.

[Quark2005]

Thanks for the info (you're much more well-informed on this subject than I am, I realize).

[Coyoteman]

Did a bunch of multiple discriminant function analysis in grad school, and developed some interesting techniques for tracking population movements using cranial metrics. Then I discovered Rightmire's work with the Bantu expansion, where he did the same thing slightly earlier (although I got better separation between my groups). Then I ran out of the funny money they used for the computer lab. You know, getting them to add those 256k cores was expensive in those days!

[Quark2005]

You know, getting them to add those 256k cores was expensive in those days!

You're showing your age, you realize... :-D

Though I admit, I still have fond memories of my PCjr...
(going through grad school now with the computer technology we have today makes me wonder how anyone did it 15,20,25 or more years ago...though I'm certain grad students of tomorrow will be referring me as a fossil, one day...)

[attiladhun2]

Science is based on observation not naturalism. Since we observe order and function in the universe, I think it is legitimate to infer a Designer, according to the laws of Cause and Effect.