Evolution is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief... and so is Christianity

One of the most misleading headlines imaginable recently appeared over an opinion column published in USA Today. Tom Krattenmaker, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, set out to argue that there is no essential conflict between evolution and religious belief because the two are dealing with completely separate modes of knowing. Evolution, he argued, is simply “settled science” that requires no belief. Religion, on the other hand, is a faith system that is based in a totally different way of knowing—a form of knowing that requires belief and faith.

The background to the column is the recent data released by the Pew Research Center indicating that vast millions of Americans still reject evolution. As the Pew research documents, the rejection of evolution has actually increased in certain cohorts of the population. Almost six of ten who identify as Republicans now reject evolution, but so do a third of Democrats. Among evangelical Christians, 64% indicate a rejection of evolution, especially as an explanation for human origins. Krattenmaker is among those who see this as a great national embarrassment—and as a crisis.

In a time of great divides over religion and politics, it’s not surprising that we treat evolution the way we do political issues. But here’s the problem: As settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. And by often framing the matter this way, we involved in the news media, Internet debates and everyday conversation do a disservice to science, religion and our prospects for having a scientifically literate country.

So belief in evolution is not something one simply chooses to believe or to disbelieve, “like a religious proposition.” Instead, it is “settled science” that simply compels intellectual assent.

The problems with this argument are legion. In the first place, there is no such thing as “settled science.” There is a state of scientific consensus at any given time, and science surely has its reigning orthodoxies. But to understand the enterprise of science is to know that science is never settled. The very nature of science is to test and retest hypotheses and to push toward new discoveries. No Nobel prizes are awarded for settled science. Instead, those prizes are awarded for discoveries and innovations. Many of those prizes, we should note, were awarded in past years for scientific innovations that were later rejected. Nothing in science is truly settled.

If science is to be settled, when would we declare it settled? In 1500? 1875? 1960? 2013? Mr. Krattenmaker’s own newspaper published several major news articles in just the past year trumpeting “new” discoveries that altered basic understandings of how evolution is supposed to have happened, including a major discovery that was claimed to change the way human development was traced, opening new questions about multiple lines of descent.

But the most significant problem with this argument is the outright assertion that science and religion represent two completely separate modes and bodies of knowledge. The Christian understanding of truth denies this explicitly. Truth is truth. There are not different kinds of truth that operate by different intellectual rules.

Every mode of thinking requires belief in basic presuppositions. Science, in this respect, is no different than theology. Those basic presuppositions are themselves unprovable, but they set the trajectory for every thought that follows. The dominant mode of scientific investigation within the academy is now based in purely naturalistic presuppositions. And to no surprise, the theories and structures of naturalistic science affirm naturalistic assumptions.

“Religion”—to use the word Krattenmaker prefers—also operates on the basis of presuppositions. And those presuppositions are no less determinative. These operate akin to what philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls “properly basic beliefs.”

In any event, both require “belief” in order to function intellectually; and both require something rightly defined as faith. That anyone would deny this about evolution is especially striking, given the infamous gaps in the theory and the lack of any possible experimental verification. One of the unproven and unprovable presuppositions of evolution is uniformitarianism, the belief that time and physical laws have always been constant. That is an unproven and unprovable assumption. Nevertheless, it is an essential presupposition of evolutionary science. It is, we might well say, taken on faith by evolutionists.

For starters, “belief” means something different in a religion conversation than it means when we’re talking about science. In the case of faith, it usually means accepting the moral and spiritual truth of something and giving it your trust and devotion. In talking about evolution, it is more precise to call it “scientifically valid” or “an accurate account of what we observe.” No leaps of faith or life-altering commitments required.

He really does believe that science and theology operate in completely different worlds. The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould believed the same, arguing for science and religion as “non-overlapping magisteria.” But, as both scientists and theologians protested, science and religion overlap all the time.

Krattenmaker argues, “A scientific concept backed by an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence, evolution describes a process by which species change over time. It hazards no speculations about the origins of that process.”

But this is not even remotely accurate. Evolutionary scientists constantly argue for naturalistic theories of the origin of matter, energy, life—and the entire cosmos. The argument that the existence and form of the cosmos is purely accidental and totally without external (divine) agency is indeed central to the dominant model of evolution.

On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility. Theistic evolutionists simply do not present the model of evolution that is supposedly “settled science.”

On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis. Krattenmaker asserts that “it is more than possible to accept the validity of evolution and believe in God’s role in creation at the same time.” Well, that is true with respect to some concept of God and some concept of creation and some version of evolution, but not the dominant theory of evolution and not the God who created the entire cosmos as the theater of his glory, and who created human beings as the distinct creature alone made in his image.

I am confident that Tom Krattenmaker fully intended to clarify the matter and to point to a way through the impasse. But his arguments do not clarify, they confuse. At the same time, his essay is one of the clearest catalysts for thinking about these issues to arrive in recent times in the major media. It represents an opportunity not to be missed.

Evolution and true belief in God and His Word are COMPLETELY uncompatible.

I’ve had “Christians” argue with me that God created through evolution and so there... they’re on both sides of the fence safely.

The Word of God says that death entered the world through Adams sin. IF one believes the Word of God, there was NO death prior to Adam and so evolution could not be possible.

On the other hand, one can choose to not believe in God or a creator and go with the evolution theory too. My point is that you cannot have both.

Just saw the IMAX movie here in Cleveland of the Monarch Butterflies and got really sick and tired of the incredible “evolution” attributions to this beautiful creature of God.

And I’m sick and tired of people looking at me crosseyed when I poo-poo evolution . . .

“Almost six of ten who identify as Republicans now reject evolution, but so do a third of Democrats.”

If one ever wanted solid evidence that Republicans are more educated, smarter than Democrats, here is the proof.

It is time Republicans move forward to eliminate the teaching of Evolution in our schools and colleges which would not only increase the percentage of people that would reject Evolution, but further marginalize the Democratic party.

Presuppositional Apologetics. The facts are that without the God of the Bible, we couldn’t:

-Know Anything
-Say Anything is Right or Wrong
-Couldn’t Trust Our 5 Senses
-Couldn’t Engage in Scientific Experimentation
-Couldn’t Engage in Logical Discourse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j9-cyRbFcs

Dr. Jason Lisle talks about the ULTIMATE PROOF for God’s Existence, Creation and Creationism

Evolution is an attempt to explain how life as we see it today came from nonliving chemicals. Supporters of evolution studiously avoid any discussion of “origins”, yet they depend on this seminal event to have the theory they cling to. They are in grotesque denial.

God promises to judge all humanity, and logic dictates that everyone who fervently believes that evolution is true will have their opportunity to find out from the Author of life to what extent what we see today is the end result of natural selection and to what extent it comes from His design.

I can accept that lizards in an isolated ecosystem will have their genetic expression tuned by long time survival rates. That seems to be a consequence of sexual reproduction and the very nature of DNA. However that does not explain how higher forms of life appear especially in the absence of intermediate species. That does not explain how a fish became a bird, and idea that I think is absurd as much as unicorns traversing rainbows of gold while defecating Skittles are absurd.

Funny stuff. Evolutionists keep repeating the logical fallacy of “settled science.” This is just a variation of argumentum ad numerum, an argument or appeal to numbers. At the same time they can’t see that their religion, their worship of materialism, is just as much faith-based as Christianity’s.

But the main show-stopper for evolution is their belief in abiogenesis, life from lifeless chemicals. Even the most “simple” of cells is mind numbingly complex. To believe that such complexity can spring up spontaneously is ridiculous. Pasteur devised the law of biogenesis, that life always comes from life, many years ago, and it’s still a law of science, unlike their fairytale belief in the opposite, which requires blind faith on their part.

And Christians try to push their faith onto others?

Death certainly could have existed prior to adam. There are not enough details in Genesis to know for sure. That’s because Genesis is not a science book and devotes little space to the topic. Apparently it was not as important a topic as some creationists would have you believe given God did not devote much space to it in the Bible.

Dinosaurs and animals lived and died long before man was created. So death existed based on physical evidence. Young earth Creationists contort themselves to death with bizarre theories trying to explain it away. Dinosaurs in Noah’s ark? Yeah right.

I believe man and woman was created as described in Genesis but spend little time thinking about it. We aren’t supposed to know the details or more would have been provided in Genesis. In meantime let the scientists do what they wish. So far they haven’t found much to support their agenda.

Pasteur devised the law of biogenesis, that life always comes from life, many years ago, and it’s still a law of science,

That is such a stunning contradiction of their position that they have started saying, as Mohler points out in this article, that evolution doesn't speak to biogenesis. I have shown from textbooks used years ago, that evolution certainly did tie the "sea of protein soup with the lightning bolt" to the first cell. I, for one, was raised on those textbooks and those explanations.

That became so obviously untenable that they discarded it, and then pretended it was never said by them in the first place.

Since they also don't allow appeal to a Creator, does anyone know how they explain biogenesis. Is it simply "dust to cell" at this point....with an occasional abracadabra?

I suspect that the dinosaurs may have died in the flood.

Watery secret of the dinosaur death pose

15:35 23 November 2011 by Brian Switek
For similar stories, visit the Dinosaurs Topic Guide

Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.

When palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur skeleton – whether it be a tiny Sinosauropteryx or an enormous Apatosaurus – there’s a good chance it will be found with its head thrown backwards and its tail arched upwards – technically known as the opisthotonic death pose. No one is entirely sure why this posture is so common, but Alicia Cutler and colleagues from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, think it all comes down to a dip in the wet stuff.

snip

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html#.UtbJo_sufAU

“On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility.”

This seems inaccurate. There is no way you can deny the possibility of divine intervention. By its nature, it is undeniable as a possibility, since it is divine.

The ‘dominant model’ of evolution appears to refer to that taught to young people in science classrooms, but this is not a very in-depth version at all. It is far more likely to be a general overview with blind sports colored by the teacher’s own biases. If evolution as a whole were settled science, why would anyone be studying it at all? I mean, why study the intricacies of a question you already know the answer to? In this field, as in pretty much every other field of science, there is vehement disagreement about mechanisms, time scales, and lineage. It is not some monolithic theory, which is a view only propounded by T.V. scientists like Richard Dawkins and *chuckle* Billy Nye the Anus Guy.

Dinosaurs in Noah’s ark? Yeah right.

I don't know what's so wrong about dinosaurs on the ark. It depends entirely on what is meant by "kind". We still have komodo dragons, crocodiles. Crocs can get very large. And, of course, we have a host of smaller reptiles. Perhaps they didn't need to take on a large member of the "kind" to have saved a sample of the "kind."

And, then of course, there's always the issue of eggs.

Now, did Noah's flood really destroy everything on the surface of the earth as the scripture indicates or is it a myth?

The theory did state that, as they found in very controlled conditions, an electrical current through the right sequence of molecules at the right time, created the first stages of life... this theory falls apart when applied to the primordial oceans which were not ‘controlled’ but were raging, crashing bodies full of all kinds of elements. The probability was so ridiculously remote, it was described as the probability of getting a functioning 747 were a hurricane to pass through a junkyard.

This is why people in the field have had to go to the Ancient Aliens theory that we were seeded by creatures from another world. Of course, they don’t state this publicly on T.V. because it would embarrass them.

Don’t forget hocus pocus and presto changeo. I saw those same arguments in textbooks.

They shouldn’t be permitted to disavow their foundational argument, the abiogenesis that undergirds their faith.

I mean, if materialism is “settled science,” throw some chemicals together and create a cell. No? Morons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.