Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here's how.
1. Evolution fits well with good theology. Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life's complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.
2. Creationism is bad theology. The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts. This God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such humanlike constraints. As Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote, "The Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art." Calling God a watchmaker is belittling.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.
4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin's "natural selection" is precisely parallel to Adam Smith's "invisible hand." Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature's economy mirrors society's economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down.
Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced. The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."
Correct. But we don't just go on structural similarities, as you already know if you've read the article.
The truly interesting thing is that the theory of evolution predicted that we would find very specific fossil sequences, and we found them. For example sequences from land dwelling walking mammal to modern cetaceans. You are right, we can't prove that those intermediate fossils are ancestors of modern whales, but wasn't Darwin the luckiest man alive to predict that such fossils would exist, long before they were found, unless his theory is correct. And that is just one example amongst many thousands of confirming data.
Pretty much every way that we *could* have discovered fossils would have disproved evolution. But what we actually keep finding, and the discoveries keep appearing, are finds that are consistent with the theory. They are consistent with respect to the geological strata that we find them in. They are consistent with respect to radiometric dating techniques applied to the rock we find them in. They are consistent with respect to the geographical regions we find them in (what creationist would have specifically predicted finding marsupial fossils in Antarctica, as evolutionary scientists did *before* they were found).
It isn't just fossils either. The theory makes preidictions about what we'll find when in the modern world. eg remote oceanic islands all have unique species of flightless birds, no two islands share the same species, easily understood using evolution, incomprehensible using a design hypothesis. Every one of the many millions of species currently extant fits into a nested hierarchy of form and function, and as we go backwards through the geological record the hierarchy shrinks (with a tendency towards simpler and simpler forms) just as the theory of evolution predicts. As I say if evolution is wrong those evolutionary scientists are the luckiest people alive to just keep making all those successful predictions of field data.
Opinions vary. I've done a bit of looking into Strong's Concordance for the King James version:
Isa 40:22I've underlined the phrase with the word for "circle" [chuwg] (Strong's 02329). Here are the only other verses that use the same word (also underlined), none of which implies a "sphere":
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
Job 22:14Word Search Results for "sphere" -- NONE
Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.Pro 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth
Word Search Results for "ball " [duwr] (Strong's 01754). Here are all verses that use the word for "ball" [NOTE: Two verses are in the same book as the "circle of the earth" passage, so the author of Isaiah had both words at his disposal]:
Isa 22:18
He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.Isa 29:3
And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.Eze 24:5
Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, [and] make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
[The Hebrew lexicon gives this meaning as "a burning pile, a round heap of wood"]
Read the accompanying verses. It absolutely obviously describes a flat disk.
Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.
Someone has sold you complete nonsense. No educated man for hundreds of years before Columbus had believed that the earth was flat. The curvature of the earth's surface is quite obvious to mariners. The ancient Greeks even worked out the size of the globe to a pretty fair degree of accuracy and this fact was well known to educated people in the 15th Century. Columbus was mocked, if anything correctly, because it was known that the world was too large for him to reach china with the seafaring technology of the time. He and all his crew would have died of starvation if the Americas hadn't been unexpectedly in the way of his voyage.
"You are right, we can't prove that those intermediate fossils are ancestors of modern whales, but wasn't Darwin the luckiest man alive to predict that such fossils would exist, long before they were found, unless his theory is correct."
Read some of Darwins later writings in which he himself calls into question many of his conclusions. Predictions don't prove anything when you already know the outcome of the prediction when it's made. You might find structural similarities between one skull and another, but the difference between them are huge when one is trying to claim this animal evolved into that one when there are no fossils found in a series to demonstrate how those differences changed over time. I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just misused in explaining the differences between species. Minor changes in species over time could happen. But one species completely evolving into a different one? There is no evidence which supports this contention.
"They are consistent with respect to the geological strata that we find them in. They are consistent with respect to radiometric dating techniques applied to the rock we find them in. They are consistent with respect to the geographical regions we find them in . . ."
I'm not following how these "consistencies" support evolution of one animal into another. I see this as evidence that intelligent design knows what belongs where and with what else. And Darwin predicting that fossils would be found doesn't prove anything except that he was observant.
For ages, scientists believed in a geocentric view of the universe. The differences between night and day were believed to be caused by the sun revolving around the earth.
Today, we know that the earth’s rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. But 4,000 or more years ago, it was written, “Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the day spring [dawn] to know his place? . . . It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal” (Job 38:12,14). The picture here is of a clay vessel being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel—an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation.
Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is another clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring at the same time.
In speaking of the sun, the psalmist says that “his going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof” (Psalm 19:5,6).
For many years critics scoffed at these verses, thinking that the sun was stationary. Then it was discovered in recent years that the sun is in fact moving through space at
approximately 600,000 miles per hour.
It is traveling through the heavens and has a “circuit” just as the Bible says. Its circuit is so large that it would take approximately 200 million years to complete one orbit.
The Scriptures say, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1). The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb “finished,” indicating an action completed in
the past, never again to occur. The creation was “finished”—once and for all.
That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle’s “Steady-State” (or “Continuous Creation”) Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called “irtrons,” matter (or energy) was constantly being created.
But the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no “creation” ongoing today. It is “finished” exactly as the Bible states. Three places in the Bible (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; Hebrews 1:11) indicate that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Increasing Entropy) states: in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered.
Everything is running down and wearing out as energy is becoming less available for use. That means the universe will eventually “wear out” so that (theoretically speaking) there will be a “heat death” and therefore no more
energy available for use. This wasn’t discovered by man until fairly recently, but the Bible states it in clear, succinct terms.
God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing”
Job 38:19 asks, “Where is the way where light dwells?” Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a “way,” traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together. . .”
With all these truths revealed in Scripture, how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific.
You falsely accuse the biologists. All of them know of possible observations which could disprove eovlutionary theory. There are many observational outcomes which could disprove evolutionary theory. None of those outcomes has occured when tested.
You have now created two missing likes on either side of your missing link.
How about the same insertion errors corresponding to splits found in the same place that species are found to diverge in the fossil record? That's pretty good consilience of information. What about biogeographical correlations consistent with evolution? Evidence drawn from very different arenas of inquiry contributes to the theory.
The hallmark of any good theory is that it makes very specific predictions. Here's an example of such a specific prediction from one of my links:
"An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water."
There are no competing theories to evolution that have this predictive ability with regard to these types of phenomena. If there was, biologists and paleontologists would embrace them wholly.
No, we don't know what the next 150 years will bring, but the general pattern of scientific achievement has been that theories have refined and perfected rather than completely replaced - evolution appears to be falling into that pattern.
Well said.
When cutting and pasting the work of others it is polite both to readers and the writer of the original work to provide an acknowledgement of the original source.
Where is your son serving?
Except that Hinduism calculated the age of the earth correctly.
Darwin constantly called his own conclusions into question from the start, and he attempted to anticipate the arguments of his opponents. This doesn't make his successful predictions less remarkable.
Predictions don't prove anything when you already know the outcome of the prediction when it's made.
But they mean a huge amount when you don't know the outcome, as Darwin didn't and as many other evolutionary scientists haven't when they made predictions. The ERV evidence is a modern example of a successful prediction of evolution made before the genome data came in. Your point is?
You might find structural similarities between one skull and another, but the difference between them are huge when one is trying to claim this animal evolved into that one when there are no fossils found in a series to demonstrate how those differences changed over time.
OK, where do you think the huge unbridgeable gap is in the hominid skull sequence present by Theobald?
I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just misused in explaining the differences between species. Minor changes in species over time could happen. But one species completely evolving into a different one? There is no evidence which supports this contention.
Apart of course from the avalanche of evidence across numerous scientific disciplines which does support that contention. It doesn't go away just because people stick plugs in the ears and put their hands over their eyes
This claim is surprisingly similar to claims made by Muslims about the Qur'an. It should be viewed with suspicion by thinking people. Thinking people look to scripture for answers to questions of morality and purpose. Thinking people look to science books for answer to questions about biology, astronomy, and geology. Thinking people do not look to scientific texts for spiritual advice, and neither do they look to scripture for scientific facts.
You seem to have plagiarized your screed from here:
http://www.evidencebible.com/pdf/03_Luke.pdf
Plagiarism exposes FreeRepublic to legal sanctions. I suggest you ask the mods to delete your post before FreeRepublic starts getting letters from lawyers.
A creationist plagiarising?
Tell me it ain't so.
For ages, scientists believed in a geocentric view of the universe. The differences between night and day were believed to be caused by the sun revolving around the earth. Today, we know that the earth’s rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. But 4,000 or more years ago, it was written, “Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the day spring [dawn] to know his place? . . . It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal” (Job 38:12,14). The picture here is of a clay vessel being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel—an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation. Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is another clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring at the same time.
4:40 Scientific facts in the Bible. For ages, scientists believed in a geocentric view of the universe. The differences between night and day were believed to be caused by the sun revolving around the earth. Today, we know that the earth’s rotation on its axis is responsible for the sun’s rising and setting. But 4,000 or more years ago, it was written, “Have you commanded the morning since your days; and caused the day spring [dawn] to know his place? . . . It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal” (Job 38:12,14). The picture here is of a clay vessel being turned or rotated upon the potter’s wheel—an accurate analogy of the earth’s rotation. See also Hebrews 11:3 footnote.Source
Scroll to page 266 (10 of 58)
I'm a layperson. Maybe this makes sense to you, but it is greek to me. What about biogeographical correlations consistent with evolution? Evidence drawn from very different arenas of inquiry contributes to the theory.
So? Doesn't prove animals evolved. The hallmark of any good theory is that it makes very specific predictions. Here's an example of such a specific prediction from one of my links: "An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
Any other possible explanation for this? Such as the animals in questioned drank from the same water source? Where is the proof that an animal evolved into a different species? No, we don't know what the next 150 years will bring, but the general pattern of scientific achievement has been that theories have refined and perfected rather than completely replaced - evolution appears to be falling into that pattern.
And people who once swore that the Sun revolved around the Earth had thousands of years of "proof" for their position. They were wrong. It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water."
Another example of the difference in the standard of evidence held by the different parties.
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.