Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Liberal Classic]

I regret my conclusion that scientific topics should be considered poisonous in the religion forum. The topic of the boundaries of science and faith is interesting to me, and is one that I believe is worthy of discussion. My reluctance to discuss it here, however, comes from the simple fact that a few people don't have any manners and ruin things for everyone else.

[js1138]

We're going around in circles. The point is, the flood stories could be, at least partially, a memory of a disaster that resulted in the genetic bottleneck.

Anything's possible, but a 75,000 year old memory is implausible, particularly since there are more recent events that could lead to the same memory.

[kellynch]

There are lots of places in the Bible where people misinterpreted what was said in the scriptures. In order to be a Christian, you don't need to disbelieve evolution. You only need to believe that Christ is God, that He died on the cross for our sins, and that He rose again.

Bravo!

As Darrow pointed out in the Scopes trial, our day is 24 hours long, but we have no way of knowing how long God's day is. I continue in that vein by saying that, if we automatically presume that His day is as long as ours, we risk thinking that He is like us and, by doing so, we drag Him down to our level. God is not like us, and we have no business thinking that anything He does is analagous to anything we do.

And, by telling us that the Earth is only a couple of thousand of (our) years old, while at the same time allowing us to use our technology to show that the Earth is, in fact, billions of years old, seems to me to imply that God is a practical joker. And I cannot believe for an instant that our fundamentalist colleagues would ever dream of implying that God is a practical joker.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

And, by telling us that the Earth is only a couple of thousand of (our) years old, while at the same time allowing us to use our technology to show that the Earth is, in fact, billions of years old, seems to me to imply that God is a practical joker. And I cannot believe for an instant that our fundamentalist colleagues would ever dream of implying that God is a practical joker.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[js1138]

Through Mary?

[VadeRetro]

The World Book set I have is much better written than the oddball thing you seem to be quoting. What year was that and were they drunk?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

In fact, anyone who is a creationist and doesn't think God is a practical joker is ignoring the duck-billed platypus. 8>)

[Dimensio]

- Here is what "The World Book Encyclopedia" says about evolution: "Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution.

The World Book Encyclopaedia is not an authority on biological science. Quoting incorrect dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions do not change the actual definition as accepted by biology.

(Remember Carl Sagan? He was WRONG too.)

How was Carl Sagan wrong. Provide evidence to show that he was wrong.

AND that evolution is random, chance transmutation of simple to complex, from NONLIVING "somehow" to LIFE/LIVING, from ONE to ALL, and lastly, that this INCLUDES the ORIGIN of the Universe from NOTHING OUT OF NOWHERE to the boundless, complex, "gi-hugey" thing it is today.

You are simply wrong. The theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life, nor does it address the origin of the universe. You cannot refute the theory of evolution by continually misrepresenting it.

[Liberal Classic]

I have said a number of times before on FR that the only conflict that exists between science and faith is that which people make. I wholeheartedly agree that what we are witnessing is a sectarian conflict. I even said so earlier on this thread. Personally, I believe it is an important and relevant topic. However, there seems to be a small number of people dedicated to poisoning this debate. Rather than disrupting the careful balance that exists in religion sub-forum, I suggest that scientific be discussed elsewhere. I regret having to adopt this position, but I feel I am left with little choice.

[VadeRetro]

Provide evidence to show that he [Sagan] was wrong.

On Aug 17, 1978, he ate his salad with the big fork and compounded the error by eating his entree with the little fork.

[King Prout]

- From "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary":
Evolution: "A PROCESS of CONTINUOUS CHANGE from a LOWER, SIMPLER OR WORSE to a HIGHER, MORE COMPLEX BETTER state. A PROCESS in which THE WHOLE UNIVERSE is a PROGRESSION of INTERRELATED PHENOMENA (Accidents)."

pfft... duelling dictionaries...

Oxford American Dictionary
Avon Books ISBN 0-380-51052-9
c.1980 Oxford University Press

e-vo-lu'tion (ev-o-loo-shon) n. 1. the process by which something develops gradually into a different form. 2. the origination of living things by development from earlier forms, not by special creation. e-vo-lu'tion-ar-y adj. e-vo-lu'tion-ist n

oh, and here is what your "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary" actually says:

Dictionary definition of evolution

evo.lu.tion n
1a: a process of change in a certain direction: UNFOLDING
 b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off: EMISSION
 c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state: GROWTH
  (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
 d: something evolved
2: one of a set of prescribed movements
3: the process of working out or developing
4: the extraction of a mathematical root
5a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species): PHYLOGENY
 b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
-- evo.lu.tion.ari.ly adv -- evo.lu.tion.ary adj -- evo.lu.tion.ism n -- evo.lu.tion.ist n or adj

why did you represent the definition from your source incorrectly?
why did you fail to include citation tracking information for your source?

Religion Moderator, does not this kind of deliberate TEXTUAL misrepresentation constitute mendacity? If not, exactly WHAT does it represent?

[Liberal Classic]

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, on which "creation science" implicitly insists, misses the point of the Bible itself, which seems uninterested in literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally. Literalism is not only misleading but is also a disservice to the cause of the Bible itself. It forces the Bible to compete as science, and in such a competition it cannot win. In a scientific age such as ours the Bible will never be accepted as science by educated people. What is more, attempting to secure acceptance for it as science is hardly worthwhile, for this would divert attention away from the Bible's religious message to details which from a religious point of view are trivial. The religious message is precisely the realm in which science cannot compete, and those devoted to the cause of the Bible would do far better service to their cause by stressing its unique religious message. To the religious person it makes little difference whether the world was created in six days or several billion years.

-- Jeffrey H. Tigay, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania

[King Prout]

see #957

[Dimensio]

- I HAVE given evidence, and I've given links.

You have not provided specific references for your claims. Moreover, several of your claims are demonstratably impossible.

. I went to your link, HOW do you think I saw all that SUBJECTIVE Hooey called a "refutation" posted there?

You have provided no evidence that the information that I referenced is "Hooey". In fact you have given no evidence that you have actually read the reference. Calling it "Hooey" does not demonstrate that you have actually read the information. To actually refute the information, you must demonstrate that specific claims within the reference are false. You have not done this.