Well, that’s because you’re always right Evan

I think that a lot of the controversy comes from the fact that people have taken Michael Behe’s assertion and used in ways that he never intended. I saw Behe speak here, and he’s very convincing. He’s really a brilliant man, and he’s certainly not a religious shill with an ax to grind.

His whole point isn’t that evolution doesn’t happen at all. He just says that there are some points at which it would need some “help” to put it simply. I don’t see that his description of intelligent design contradicts theistic evolution at all, really. It’s just when we let politicians define the argument on either side, it quickly become polarized and dumbed-down.

I do think Stein does have a point though. I think that because the argument has been defined in polarizing political terms that for a scientist in a university to “come out” and say he has looked into and given some creedence to Behe’s argument, he would be looked at by some as a religious nutjob. We can’t just pretend that the hardcore atheists like Dawkins don’t exist and have some influence.

Not being a scientist I can only rely on people who are scientists to explain to me in laymens terms what exactly all of this means.

It seems that most of the people talking about this issue aren’t scientists and thats part of the problem. Quite frankly I’m not comfortable with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort being the face of the christian scientific community.

Again I’m not a scientist but I’m going to see the movie and hopefully learn something.

Beuller? Beuller? Beuller? Ben Stein forever pigeonholed in my mind! LOL

And I think he’s saying: “Bueller…Bueller………Bueller” through that megaphone in the movie, too.

In actuality, speaking as a scientist and an engineer, it requires much more faith to believe that everything that exists, including humans, is purely a random occurrence than to believe that something (God, aliens, the FSM, ???) had to ‘help’ out several of the steps along the way. Presenting atheistic evolution as “science” and anything else as “philosophy” is intellectually dishonest…

no, you’re missing what i’m saying. “evolution” itself, the theory of evolution, isn’t “atheistic.” it’s SCIENCE. you betray the problem in your quote. i don’t particularly care what a scientist actually believes. i care whether the scientist is exhibiting integrity and respect toward the scientific method. to assert that someone “had to help along the way” to “fill the holes” or whatever is a purely religious argument, unverifiable by science, and thus has no place in a scientific discussion.

close friends of mine are leaders in the emerging biotechnology world. they are also very spiritual, very religious people. to read their work, though, you wouldn’t know it. why? because they have integrity, and they refuse to muddy their scientific inquiry with religious assertions.

The very fact that evolution is still referred to as a “theory” belies that fact that it too cannot be proven and therefore certain gaps must be filled in… by faith.

Whether it’s faith in a creator or faith in an accident… filling in the gaps in a faith-based operation.

Neil

Evan,

Creation/evolution/intelligent design cannot be proven scientifically. It is not repeatable. It is all opinion.

All you need to know to understand that there is a creator is eyes to see and a brain that understands.

Only those who have become fools through a darkened understanding by supressing the clear knowledge of God through creation can actually buy into the falsehood of evolution.

Chris L, you really should go beyond the Cameron/Comfort Bananna and coke can thingy and look a little deeper into their teachings on the subject. Remember, they are most interested in Evangelism, so their teaching is really mostly just attention grabbing and discussion starting. Comfort’s books actually go much deeper and present some very logical and complete arguments. Though Ray admits he is not a scientist, they are compelling and Biblical arguments none the less.

Stein’s movie is great because it takes the Intelligent design argument from a scientific perspective, not a religious one. The logic is stunning. And why are most scientists so threatened? Because they have staked their careers to this erroneous theory. Even Einstein believed God had to be behind creation.

Evan,
The point is though, that I think that hardcore atheists actually are asking scientists to be intellectually dishonest. I mean even if someone says we’re here because of aliens, the aliens had to come from somewhere, right?

I think there are a lot of scientists who aren’t hostile to religion, maybe even the majority. But there are certainly ones who are, and who even get some sort of thrill out of trying to convince people to be atheists.

By the way, the assertion of researchers being “objective” is pretty much a lie. I’ve seen too many researchers out and out lie to believe this any more. I’m not saying they’re all liars or anything, but to buy the lie that says they couldn’t possibly have an agenda just seems naive to me.

i’m sorry, but American children need more than religious indoctrination if we don’t want India, China, Japan, Europe, etc. to leave them in the dust.

It’s not religious indoctrination that’s the problem. People in India and China are deeply religious. They just work harder than us. Americans have just become fat and lazy.

The point is though, that I think that hardcore atheists actually are asking scientists to be intellectually dishonest. I

i don’t think so.

yes, there are fundamentalist atheists just like there are fundamentalist Christians, and both are obnoxious.

yet, i think the scientific community is asking that people stop trying to blend the two, because though they may not be incompatible ultimately, they are in terms of how study and inquiry are to be conducted, how questions are to be answered, etc…

today’s “holes” may be filled in 10, 20, 50, 100 years…who knows?

but science is, after all, the study of God’s creation, so why don’t we just let them do their jobs?

Evan,

Then allow real scientific debate to take place!

Allow intelligent design to be an alternative theory that can be taught without threat of losing one’s job or status in the community!

Really, what are evolutionists afraid of? Being proven wrong?

but science is, after all, the study of God’s creation, so why don’t we just let them do their jobs?

Listen. This is the one subject that I will fight vehemently about because I probably have a lot more firsthand experience (well OK it’s not all firsthand, but it’s through my wife, so it’s someone I trust) in it than others. Being with my wife as she has gotten her PhD at a large, secular research institution has been quite eye-opening for me.

I actually will defend scientists from attacks from Christians a lot of the time. I don’t think most scientists are out to destroy Christians, and I don’t think most of them are hostile towards them even. But there are definitely ones who enjoy being thorns in the sides of Christians. I’ve met them, I’ve heard them talk. I can tell you stories about them. These people aren’t ethical, and they aren’t objective. They exist.

So let’s not pretend that every scientist is a virtuous person in it for the betterment of society. Just as there are lawyers, doctors, police officers, pastors who are bastards, there are scientists who are bastards.

even,

I agree with PB on this one… it is called the evolution theory and is not based on scientific methods of repeatability. In fact if it was science then they would drop the “theory” part. Now science used many theories, but the part that is scientific is the observability of the study object.

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: circa 1810
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Again, the idea is the collection of data and repeatable experience that leads to a theory. Yet, being a theory does not mean it is proved as not all the data may be in. Such as the case that there is no evidence of a “monster” that jumps from a fish to a bird or a reptile to a mammal… most agree these seem to “just appear” on the evolutionary charts.

iggy

Evan…

You’re not getting it brother.

The entire prior assumption of the NDT (neo darwinian theory) is as unprovable as the most fundamentalist creationist dogma.

You can’t prove what happened, you can’t even test what happened 4 billion years ago. Not science. Bam, convo over. However, it’s still pushed that way, so someone is being intellectually dishonest.

So my question is, WHY OH WHY, is that taught as ’science’? Following your logic, we really need to throw out the atheistic underpinnings of the NDT. Because hell, that got taught to me in school and college.

Hypocrites. The scientific community I’m now getting in to are a bunch of hypocrites (not all of them lol), and it’s obvious from the points made here in this thread.

THAT’S why this is a good movie.

Everyone’s got motives.

God and science don’t conflict. Follow the evidence, that’s the scientific method, that’s the purpose of scientific inquiry. If scientists have to come to a personal conclusion that there is intelligent design in nature, great. I don’t believe we should teach that in school. And I don’t think they should teach “billions of years ago, these nonliving amino acids, lipids, and random information came together to form the first living cell”. That’s the most faith-based assertion I’ve ever seen shoveled as science.

Just some thoughts.

Joe

The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus are mostly silent about this issue.

I feel a hug fest between Pastordude and Iggy coming on.

Pastordude: I love you man.

Iggy: No, I love you man.

I agree, Chris, but wouldn’t you agree that the Roman’s chronology is basically an apologetics for the/a Creator and not so much methodology?

PD – What you call coffee Iggy calls “moonshine”.

Montana – I love it. I want to visit the Unibomber museum!

Pastordude: I love you man.

Iggy: No, I love you man.

Which then breaks out into a huge blog fight over who loves each other more! ; )

iggy

Rick,

PD – What you call coffee Iggy calls “moonshine”.

Nope we call it mountain mudd

iggy

i’ll address more specific points later, b/c i’m busy with clients right now, but you’ll notice i’m not arguing for “belief” in either creation or evolution, nor did i state whether i believe in either, both, or neither.

i’m talking about getting peoples’ religion out of the classroom, down the hall, out the double-doors, and back in their homes and churches where it belongs.

adults should be able to experience their faith fully without imposing it on others.

adults, i said.

and no, i do not want my child being indoctrinated in a public school by people with a religious agenda…

b/c that’s all this is.

from Wikipedia:

“Although in the scientific community there is almost universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.”

it’s called a manufactured controversy.

the right wing has been perfecting it for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

more “evil Christian-hating” scientist stuff – a list of the scientific societies (er, all of them) that reject the teaching of intelligent design on an equal footing with evolutionary theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design

there actually is a huge difference between sharing your faith with a willing listener and imposing a belief system about the origins of the universe that is supported by fewer than one percent of all scientists.

i’m sorry, but American children need more than religious indoctrination if we don’t want India, China, Japan, Europe, etc. to leave them in the dust.

I’d say children need NO indoctrination – in the public schools sense. That means not indoctrinating them that a theory is fact… whether that theory is purely naturalistic evolution, or design by creator.

Since neither can be proven, neither should be taught at the expense of the other.

Neil

Ye Olde Christian War On Science Continues Apace!

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully explain observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that “700 scientists … (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) … give credence to creation-science”.[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution”.[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

AND

Project Steve

The National Center for Science Education has produced a “light-hearted” petition called “Project Steve” in support of evolution. Only scientists named “Steve” or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a “tongue-in-cheek parody” of the lists of alleged “scientists” supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.[61][62]

According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve.

Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of September 20, 2007, 830 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 83,000 scientists would have signed.[61] This compares with the Discovery Institute’s announcement to have over 700 scientists that support intelligent design as of February 8, 2007[63][64], which would at face value indicate a broad consensus of at least 99% of scientists supporting the biological theory of evolution.

AND

A 1997 study found that fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy[123] and a People for the American Way poll found that less than half (48%) of those polled chose the correct definition of evolution from a list.[118] In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with “monkeys”, when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate and comparison method.[124]

Oh, dear God.

America deserves to be left behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Wittenburg Door has a review of the Stein movie…

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/stein-nukes-darwin

It all comes down to faith – one way or the other…

Neil

As Evan’s proved, the “scientific” community has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that there is some sort of conflict between science and religion.

proved no such thing.

you put “scientific” in quotes…why?

if anything, the scientific community would like to operate outside of religion, please, since one is based on dogma and the other is based on intellectual inquiry.

also, they are two completely different subjects, and people can hold opinions on both simultaneously.

the only problem with the argumentum ad populum idea is that all the scientific organizations, indeed over 99% of scientists, rather than the 700 or so (some of them not even scientists, per se) touted by institutes of “Creation Science,” are telling us “yes. we the scientific community, apart from a loon here and there who doesn’t actually do experiments or submit experiments to peer view, acknowledge evolution.”

there IS no debate among the scientific community over whether or not evolution happened.

Wikipedia is a reliable source now?

Wikipedia is just the first resource i’ve come across so far in the limited time i’ve spent today on this. believe me, when i lay it out this weekend on my blog, there will be references to lots of journals, etc.

Those guys got pwned and they know it. They’re pissed. The dog that gets hit, yelps

the entire scientific community got pwned. right.

Majority rules, is usually wrong as time increases, in the scientific field.

except that, since Darwin wrote, the body of science has been building UPON the idea of evolution, rather than coming to different conclusions.

the only reason there’s any idea of “majority ruling” here in the first place is that the majority of Americans don’t even have a layman’s understanding of science.

the root of the question boils down to – was life created or did it come about by accident

but that’s not the question these pseudo-intellectuals are framing in this debate. they are presenting ID as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution, which real scientists, almost to a T, agree happened. these people who seem to want to force religious dogma into the public square, into impressionable kids’ minds, systematically do everything they can to give people the impression that “science” is out to get them.

ID cannot be proven, cannot even be TESTED, therefore it belongs nowhere near a science curriculum.

btw, i just got off the phone with a biochemist, at the top of his field…he says those in the actual scientific community are kinda rolling their eyes and snickering at this.

I didn’t say ‘the entire scientific community’ Evan.

The targets of the movie got hit. That’s obvious.

Guess what Evan, macro can’t be tested either. Call you friend. Ask him if we can test macro in the lab. None of this “well the fossils….” crap either.

I’m not saying I’m against what the scientific community believes, I’m getting in to the field myself, I’m just saying, I can tell the difference between science (repeatable testable verifiable things…like say…gravity) and faith (like say…in 1,000,000 years humans will no longer be human).

Joe

the scientific community would like to operate outside of religion

That’s an argumentum ad populum statement.

That’s like saying “The Emerging Church is liberal theologically, therefore Mark Driscoll is liberal”.

from New Scientist:

There are no transitional fossils

There isn’t a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count – trillions if you include microfossils. These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions.html

psssst evan….

still love ya man… even if we disagree.

iggy

another Wikipedia entry…i know, i know…

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the “fact of evolution”.[5][6] Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[7].

When discussing the topic, creationists use “strategically elastic” definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being “just microevolution”.[1]

btw, have you even seen the film?

nope…i don’t need propaganda, aimed at the hoi polloi, from Ben Stein, who isn’t a scientist of ANY kind, in order to educate myself on the findings of the greater scientific community.

“they are presenting ID as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution”

no, i’m not wrong on that. that’s exactly what the goals of the Creationist Anti-Thought Anti-Science movement are, and they’ve been that way ever since Darwin decided to threaten their flimsy faith by asking questions.

did life begin as an ‘accident’ from primordial goo and lightning (or whatever), or was it an intentional act?

The TRUTH is, neither of these can be proven via the scientific method. Whichever you choose is a matter of faith – not science.

then you would agree we shouldn’t be mindlessly indoctrinating schoolchildren by inserting this anti-academic tripe into their science classes?

Evan,

A giraffe with a shorter neck does not prove evolution… it proves there was a giraffe with a shorter neck! If I have a big dog and a small dog… neither would prove evolution. It proves that dogs come in different sizes… and back to the giraffe. There is one in Santa Barbara with a crooked neck… is that evolution?

As far as the intermediate fossils, can we say the adaptation is the same as a fish becoming a man? Now, you can turn off and on DNA for a bird to be a dinosaur, yet again is that evolution or adaptation? I think there is still much room to debate.

More interesting to me is that there is proof man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time… yet that is poopooed as none scientific as it does not fit their model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Barbara_Zoo

http://www.rae.org/tuba.html

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/EarlyFootprints.html

Yes ,”anti-academic tripe”, like telling them that their existence is the result of pure accident and natural selection…

wait, you just conflated the two again – i thought you were trying to say that this debate is only over the ORIGINS, since the process of evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community.

so, which is it? because it sounds like you’re trying to put God into the process of evolution, which he MAY HAVE BEEN, but since we can’t test/verify it, it has no place in science!

“Polling a few people around you is not the basis for truth in fact…”

Unless you can come up with a better way.

excuse me, 99.2% …i had to reset my calculator to decimal.

haha.

*admits it when he messes up*

si, si.

Chris L,
“ID does not posit that “evolution” (more specifically ‘macroevolution’) does not exist ”

i have a, possibly, dumb question. what is the difference between some forms of ID and theistic evolution?

“scientific”

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

What does it all matter? The only question is “Who do you say that I am?.”(Jesus)

All the rest – window dressing.

All mutants are randon except turtles.

haha, at least his film was backed up by the scientific community.

No, it wasn’t it was debated by the scientific community. In England when they teach it, they have to point out that there are at least 9 major errors in it. Be careful Evan, you may become a fundy of a different stripe.

okay, it has 9 errors…

the point is that the issue of global warming, Joe, has the utter weight of worldwide scientific consensus behind it.

ID doesn’t have jack___.

as opposed to some Exxon Mobil scientists and their unpaid spokespeople in the Christian Church?

What I really love is someone like Al Gore receiving tens of millions of dollars for being the Paul Revere of global warming and he and his house and lifestyle spew enough environmental footprints for a small city.

Yea, he’s the Mother Teresa of global causes.

i think he’s done even more lately.

i’m not sure, though.

it does mention that he’s carbon neutral, though.

(and good for George! that makes two good things George ever did in his whole gosh-dern life: 1. done a lot for AIDS in Africa, 2. clearin’ brush the friendly way!)

Oh that is bad design… and nasty in cold seasons.

unless He’s got a mean streak, in which case i’m persuadable.

Evan said: “the point is that the issue of global warming, Joe, has the utter weight of worldwide scientific consensus behind it.”

For the rest of the OF’s here I’m showing my age. I remember a time when we were told the temperatures were dropping and we were all going to freeze to death!

Scotty:That’s great! Do you have any idea what a million year old ‘58 Edsel (low mileage) is WORTH!!!

Keith said: “Scotty:That’s great! Do you have any idea what a million year old ‘58 Edsel (low mileage) is WORTH!!!”

Yes, 175.95 euros

I just realized that Wikipedia is run by the Wiccans.

ha ha you’re so funny Rick!

And we were told that we all came from the Abominable Snowman!

When I first read that I saw “Australia”. Maybe it’s a guilty concience. Maybe we exported all our cold to the world back then so now we’re hot.

For some reason this debate reminds me of one of my favourite songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FZKNEzrQQ

Astralia:

*It was always the one continent we forgot in school.
*I miss the Crocodile Hunter
*I love Hillsong music! (their theology not so much)
*Kangaroos – we know every household has one
*Great White Sharks
*Bee Gees
*Olivia Newton John
*Full of criminals – like us!
*Accent even better than British
*American wanna bees!

Australia – we love em!

Dave – all of us Americans are taught at an early age the pervasive envy that lurks around the world. You see, we are Americans. We’ve even woven our natioalistic pride and fervor in our theology so that we can view God as sympathetic to our causes if not downright American.

Look at a patriotic event and you will see MacLaren standing next to MacArthur, both with hands over their hearts and misty eyed in their emotion. And what is the tie that binds them? Christ? The Word? The Cross? No, its American.

So Dave, please don’t pretend that you don’t want to be an American. Come on over, join up, and worship the Founding Father’s with us. Remember, it was God who shut the door to Noah’s ark and it was that same God who rung the Liberty Bell in 17776!!

Rick: That’s why the Lord inspired the song God Bless AMERICA (Never heard anyone sing God Bless England or God Bless India have ya. Yep, we’re the new “chosen people.”)

That’d be a lot funnier if there weren’t so many people who believe it.

How can the colonies be greater than the motherland? Maybe it’s colonyitis.

5) when it’s too late.

1 has happened, 2 & 3 are already happening, and 4 is already true except for small percentages of Republicans…

it’s always the same percentage as:

1. Bush’s approval rating…
2. People who believe there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark.

You guessed it, I am one giant theological dinosaur who still believes in the literal return of Christ and also believe it is near. Kinda like He came literally the first time!

Oh stop Rick. That’s a false dilemma if there ever was one.

Historic Pre-Millennialism, Amillennialism, and Post-Millennialism all meets all of those criteria except the rather shady judgment call that “the end is near” (88 reasons Jesus will come in 1988, huh?).

Tim – it isn’t as if everyone that believes as do I is a country farmer. There are many theologians with original language credentials that hold to that Triassic view. Do not worry, I usually do not enter into substantive arguments over that because it will happen as God has planned – I’m a eschatalogical Calvinist.

There are only two of us left, me and Nessie!

I read only the beginning of this thread, as there are 145 post, but it seems like it is Evan against everyone else. Well, Evan you have an ally.
1. don’t say “Evolution is just a THEORY” if you do you prove your ignorance of science. As gravity is just a theory as well.
2. Biology is the study of life, it says nothing of how life started that is a completely different field.
3. it is true that many biologist are naturalist but that doesn’t mean that we need to come up with the same conclusion.
4. Science only promotes with it can test and observe, when you start adding God you have religion. I think that ID and Creationism should be taught in schools but under phylosophy(sp?) not science.
5. If you want to get a solid explainable course in evolution look up the podcast by Dr. Zach Miller called Evolution 101, he does another called Apologia which atheist and theist discuss various topics. Both are excellent http://www.drzach.net/

Point is, no one knows FOR SURE how it all began. I tend to lean towards God, I think God could have used evolution, since I dont’ take every word of scripture literally it is not that hard to think this way.

Jeff, there is a problem with your argument comparing origins to gravity. One can be tested and the effects examined. One cannot. We can pick something up and drop and it and observe gravity. We can time the fall and put it through rigorous mathematical equations. We cannot do this with origins. So, your assertion that gravity is “just a theory” does not work, my friend.

Science only promotes with it can test and observe, when you start adding God you have religion. I think that ID and Creationism should be taught in schools but under phylosophy(sp?) not science.

Yeah. Exactly. You can’t test where humans, birds, dinosaurs, or frogs came from. Then you add in the god of “Chance” and his wife “Time” and uh…

You have religion. Thanks for clearing it up for us =)

Joe

Jeff is right in that many fields of science are expanding now that absolutely rely on the study and acceptance of evolution.

As my biochemist friend said incredulously yesterday (who is a Christian, by the way), when i told her about this thread, “um, why are people still considering evolution a ‘belief’? why does it have to be a ‘belief’? it just IS…you can observe it in a lab!”

her father, probably one of the more influential people in science/biotechnology in the US today, also a man of faith, concurs.

For example, the structure of the eye is irreducibly complex, but yet it is found in multiple widely-divergent species. So – you have to theorize some sort of common ancestor which evolved – against the forces of nature – via vestigal optics into complex optics prior to further differentiation.

actually, there was an article not that long ago about the discovery of an ancient species which may explain the evolution of vision. i’ll have to dig around in my e-mail b/c i know i sent it to people when it came out.

What keeps getting spelled out as “science” is that the jumps on the evolutionary ladder which went against the forces of nature happened randomly. What is taught broadly as “Natural Selection” includes this random causation. This actually is a matter of philosophy, not science.

that’s actually a broad over-simplification and misrepresentation of “macroevolution,” as Christians use the word.

are some Christians of such weak faith that scientific discovery that appears to contradict the Bible could possibly threaten their beliefs in such a way? that’s what this seems to be about, to me.

It is the CAUSE of this which is not scientific, but continues to be claimed as “science”.

no, because evolution actually doesn’t address that question at all. it seems to be offensive to some Christians that the scientific world doesn’t accept God as the baseline, but for the gazillionth time, that’s just not the role of science.

so basically, evolution disproves a literal understanding of the creation story in Genesis, suggesting that it should be taken more allegorically. so, just as with the constantly moving goalposts of global warming deniers (1. there is no global warming. 2. okay, there is, but it’s not caused by man, 3. okay, there is, and some of it is caused by man, but it’s mostly a natural CYCLE! 4. blah. blah blah. blah blah), now literalist Christians want to say “okay, God might have used evolution, but he HAD to flip certain switches along the way, etc…”

it seems like a Christian (or Jew or Muslim or whatever) of strong faith should just be able to say, “okay, we now understand that evolution was the process. I personally believe God’s hand was behind it. The End.”

Evan – would you opposed to public schools being allowed to teach theistic evolution as well?

To me, though, it is a non-issue since I got saved while believing in evolution and I wasn’t challenged on it. I did not evolve from monkeys, though, I came directly in a quantum species leap from a frog. We all came from frogs.

Chris said it all – God (Jesus) is behind it all.

Then we must do it the divine American way – public referendum. Settled.

See, Evan, you are a facist!

” i say we let the experts (the scientific community) decide.”

Expert = a former pert.

Since most of the secular argument comes with a “no Creator” attachment we can readily see the motivation.

I believe God created the heavens and the earth, therefore I think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Evolution is so full of loop-holes and “missing links” that it’s really hard to take seriously. Schools need to teach a better balance of different theories of the origins of the earth, not just one.

Rick, you are hilarious.

God bless you and your “missing link”!

Hold on…forgot to include my smiley….

=)

Well, I believe “Saved By The Bell” actually revealed Mr. Belding to be the creator of the universe, as well as Zack Morris’s personal enforcer, therefore I think Beldingism should also be taught in science classes as a valid viewpoint.

I mean, science can’t test Beldingism any more than it can test Genesis, so it obviously must belong in a science class.

Meanwhile, Indian and Japanese and Chinese and English (and name one hundred other countries of your choice) students will continue to skate by American students in scientific achievement, because OUR kids are too busy learning about religion in science class, and they didn’t obtain the passing understanding of evolution required to study most science/medicine, etc., thereby solidifying one more rung of the US’s descent from “superpower” to “has-been.”

Praise Jesus!

Good point Deborah.

He might, in the context of a culture or nation, if those kids couldn’t get decent jobs and therefore lived barely above, or way below the poverty line. And uh…suffer.

Then again, saying what Jesus would or wouldn’t approve of is almost as ridiculous as the phrase “what would Jesus do?”

Nah nah nah. What DID Jesus do.

Something about ‘the least of these…” and “the little children..”

Rings a bell =)

I agree– what is scientific knowledge in light of eternity? I would much rather see children come to know the Lord than pursue knowledge that’s only good for a short lifetime.

The way I see it, it’s not about the United States. It’s not about competing with students in other countries. It’s about understanding the truth, and religion is so much more important than science in that aspect.

Studying science from a Christian viewpoint is so amazing and interesting. There is so much evidence out there that supports the Bible, a world-wide flood etc. I strongly recommend any resources from Institute for Creation Research; they have a lot of interesting stuff.

“I think Jesus actually cares about more than filing souls into two books like an accountant.”

(He says as he reveals neither the significance of those books or the August Christ and what He cares about)

What shall it profit a man if he gains the entire world and knows every detail of science and yet loses his own soul.
(paraphrase – Jesus circa 29 A.D.)

Rick, I agree with you. But I’m trying to say, we’re all going to have to make a living, why should we be behind in science, if the information is available to teach, which produces better jobs, better living conditions, and smarter people to cure diseases (example). Just for the sake of pushing the Christian Faith on a secular country?

Why?

With that said, I think you set up a false dichotomy with that quotation from Jesus. Just because someone would be a scientist (or a pilot, or a plumber) to the best of their ability, doesn’t mean they’re trying to “gain the whole world” (this is why paraphrasing is bad, you made the verse something it wasn’t).

But now Evan, don’t get me wrong, but Jesus much more cares about His children coming to Him, spending eternity with Him, being what we were created to be (to be in fellowship with God), than us knowing the intricate details of creation (science) and competing on the global market, or even living in poverty or not. Not saying He doesn’t care about that, but lets look at the priorities of His ministry realistically.

Joe

Joe

Evan

I believe he might consider it a slap in the face as we are blessed to live in a country that was blessed and forgot to be thankful and grateful to Him, by being such an unholy nation of people.

Oh yea, this Aussie throws his two cents in. Man, ever since the BeeGees they think they have some authority. Kangaroo theology, first they’re here then they jump there.

Hey Dave, I have rarely seen anything solved in a debate. A man convinced against his will – and all that. Oh well, put another shrimp on the barbie!!

Merry,

shhhhh we won. don’t tell anyone else though. okay?

They can stare at me blankly all they want, Evan. I still think getting the gospel out and learning about God is so much more important than knowledge. Learning is good but Christ should always come first.

why, then, did He create such a unique and detailed world, with so many causes to be attended to, so much suffering to be alleviated, if it could all be boiled down to that simple death-wish dichotomy of whether you’re going to an (undeserved) paradise or an (undeserved) hell when you die?

“I believe he might consider it a slap in the face as we are blessed to live in a country that was blessed and forgot to be thankful and grateful to Him, by being such an unholy nation of people.”

A wrong premise. Only believers “know” Him, not nations. America was religious at times but God does not deal with nations.

OOOPS Sorry Rick

Unholy, so called Christians??

It started out as a little humor because its such a down day for me.
At least for a few minutes I smiled. It’s all just so sad. I just picture Jesus weeping over Jerusalem.

Jesus is a drover, Rick, and we are the brumby. It doesn’t serve much to work out how the billabong got filled before we settled, does it?

whatever, Australia, with your “lack of desire to fight wars and ousting governments that do.”

Indeed! Our ANZACs fought long and hard in kokoda, and we freed Jerusalem!

I think you have a point there Evan, that too often obedience discussions get turned into a “heaven/hell” arguement

well, and i think too often “He died for you” drowns out “Oh, also, He lived for you, and still does.”

b/c if that part wasn’t important, God could have saved himself 30-some-odd years.

You know better than to say hell is undeserved

actually?

i think it’s all a bit extreme.

and by “a bit,” i mean, “a lot.”

both sides. “paradise” and “eternal fiery damnation!”

and it seems to trivialize humanity, and all of our experiences and personalities and strengths and weaknesses and joys and suffering down to an utterly pointless game.

The movie “King Kong” is the story of Genesis. Eve was a blond.

Evan, everything in God’s unique and detailed world is apparently going to die no matter what, no exceptions, no matter how much suffering gets alleviated, so what’s the point?

well, don’t feel ecclesiastical

i just happen to believe that we’re already living in God’s kingdom, but many of us just don’t see it.

and apparently, and i know it’s a verse that gets brought up time and time again (but least it’s a verse that’s used to build people up rather than tear them down), but apparently whatever we do for the least of these among us, we’re doing for Christ. apparently what we do down here DOES matter.

AMEN EVAN!

God is a God of NOW just as much as THEN and LATER. What we do now makes a difference. And Jesus said “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is [within/among] you.”

Joe

Well…that’s not the calvinist position at all lol.

Anyways, the death and ressurection of Jesus is cut and dry. The problem is actually that people try to make it COMPLICATED.

The Gospel is so simple a child can grasp it. I really truly believe that. Adding to it, subtracting from it, messing with it, making it too complicated to know and believe, just does a dishonor to God who makes it so simple for us. So much sacrifice…to give us that.

Well…that’s not the calvinist position at all lol.

i was writing in Southern Colloquial, sorry, it didn’t translate.

what i meant was “some o’y'all’s” sins, not “all y’all,” but “some o’y'all. the ones i done picked. fer no reason.”

Iggy – the Greek word is “ethnos” indicating kinds of peoples not nations as in countries. The word used in the OT indicates the same using the term as referring to the peoples of the world. Many countries were ethnic people as well. Assyrians, Philistines, Babylonians, all were sometimes considered a tribe.

My point was God deals with people not countries today. Even when Jonah went to Ninevah he went to speak to the people not the organized city. God destroyed Sodom but he spared the Lot and his family. God destroyed Jericho but save Rahab and her family. So God may use the name of a city or country, but he doesn’t deal with them as a package.

In the New Testament the countries are much more mixed. God says preach the gospel to every creature, not every country.

I would see it more He saw, always has seen, knew it was coming, so he came, set things straight, and people pissed on Him and what He did.

No wonder he had to save us.

If the now matters, certainly, logically, the END does as well. It blatantly says though in the Bible the reasons Jesus died. Primacy being to salvation for those who believe. I’m not sorry that this is plain and the way it is.

Well…I suppose that’s where we disagree. I definitely believe he is returning…you know…because of the whole…Bible thing. =)

I’m no ‘Left-behindist” by any means, but I’m going to just go with Jesus’ words on this one =).

Jesus is already here, in the hearts of believers, uniting them to Himself, and to anyone who would come. He is here, drawing humanity to Himself, and through those who know Him, He’s ministering to a hurt world. He is returning at the consumation of the Age, because well…He is. You know, when the Apostles watched Him ascend in to heaven, and kept watching even after he was gone, and then some angels appeared and were like “hey…guys….don’t worry, in the same way you saw Him go…he will return again…so…like…go do something.”

Yah!! Let’s go do something!

“but apparently whatever we do for the least of these among us, we’re doing for Christ. apparently what we do down here DOES matter.”

I quite agree. And I believe that’s because God’s preparing us for eternity.

the end is no longer the end. he’s not “coming back.” he’s already here.

He’s here in his believers in the form of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ, though, is not here. God the father is silent and invisible. I believe that will change someday!

That’s my belief too, and if He does literally come back then woohoo, but I have no want to be gone from here.

see? that’s always how i’ve been!

all the preaching i’ve ever heard about heaven has kinda made me go “eh. whatever.”

it all seems so…escapist.

but yet…if death is just a transition, and Jesus already “came back,” as in….i mean, the biblical writers literally believed it was going to be happening in their lifetimes, and, um, MAYBE IT DID.

but for me, this doesn’t cause problems, because, as i’ve said on here before, i think most of the poetry, most of the metaphor, goes unnoticed in the Bible…

b/c here’s the thing. when he “went away,” as in, on the cross? he WENT AWAY. then he came back. that was the second coming. when he “ascended,” he didn’t actually “go away.”

so.

much more inspiring way to live, i think.

“but I have no want to be gone from here. I don’t understand how much more God could be here.”

Paul said to go and be with Christ is far better, and just before he was martyred he said God would give him a crown of righteousness and also to all who “love His appearing”. Titus calls His coming the Blessed Hope. The verses that project our hope to the coming of Christ are many.

As far as not knowing how God could be here anymore than he is now, well, your view of God’s ultimate presence is way too low. Think about the priests not able to enter the temple because of God’s presence, the glory on the mercy seat, and all the many manifestations of God’s presence. Oh yea, there’s much more than this and He is coming.

Jesus will come again, said the angel, just like you saw Him leave. He dwells in His church, he will come with His church and every eye shall see Him. His glory will be immmeasurable and His enemies will die by the sword of His mouth. I have a limited view, I know, I need to expand it.

Tribes means peoples. God deals with peoples, lost and saved within those people groups, but he deals with those peoples individually. No one gets saved en masse, unless God saves many individuals at one time (Day of Pentecost) but it is still individually.

When a missionary goes to Angola and settles in the northeast part, God begins a work among that ethnos, but he isn’t dealing with the chora (country), He’s dealing with the ethnos (people).

Mark 5:1 -…into the coutry (chora) of the Gadarenes
Acts 4:36 -…a Levite and of the country of Cyprus
Acts 18:23 -…all the country of Galatia and Phyrgia

BTW – this has nothing to do with your view of the kingdom, God deals with people not geographical location separated by a recognized government. When Peter says we are a holy nation (ethos), he is saying we are a holy people.

Think about the priests not able to enter the temple because of God’s presence, the glory on the mercy seat, and all the many manifestations of God’s presence.

If the temple was merely a symbol of us, and God now choses to live within, we could be in a situation where God is only partially with us.

And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight.
(Act 1:9)
who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into the heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the way you have seen Him going into Heaven.
(Act 1:11)

And suddenly a sound came out of the heaven as borne along by the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
(Act 2:2)

It’s obviously a personal take on the matter, but to me it seems like He came back!

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: …
And I will give wonders in the heaven above, and miracles on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and glorious Day of the Lord. And it shall be that everyone who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
(Act 2:16,19-21)

Fulfilled in that day are things that sound end times, and are even quoted sometimes as being end times events.

Evan, I have a great amount of respect for your opinion on this because you know scientist personally. It bugs me to no end to hear people spout, “it just a theory” or “what about the gaps” when they have never read a book on the subject nor spoken to a scientist about it. I am current in debate with my wife about this topic, she is elated that the movie is doing so well and wants us to see it to only further her point. She says, they have scientist on both sides, yeah but expelled has the edit button. Listen to a scientist in their own words and you get a different story. We Christians need to come to grips with this; evolution is observable, testable, etc. Talk to any biologist, they will show you the facts. Stop listening to the folks that are trying to backup biblical literalism. Those are the folks behind this movement and they are well funded. It’s all about creationism, its all about a literal 6 days, 6000 years ago. Even though they will not say it in a documentary like this, that is the goal, biblical literalism is the goal.
I believe that God put the laws in action to bring us to the point we are today. Science will tell us how it happened but not why, that is a philosophical question. Put ID, creationism, and naturalism and all the deep questions in philosophy not science.

One more thing that I think is lost here. Ever wonder why so many scientist are hostile to organized religion? Take a look at history. Organized religion put the damper on so many ideas of the past that turned out to be factual. Why, because it conflicted with the leaders presuppositions of scripture.

Chris,

I appreciate your response and I understand your thinking. My frustration is with the literalist, I am also frustratrated with the disinformation from those people. Like they attack Biology about how life began, that is not biology that is abiogenisis. Arguments out of ignorance and one liners (its just a theory) will not work.
I agree that there are those on both sides that are all too confident about the issue. Literalism on both sides of the issue needs to be approached with more humility.

She says, they have scientist on both sides, yeah but expelled has the edit button. Listen to a scientist in their own words and you get a different story.

this is what the creationists want people to THINK. but as Project Steve and other organizations have shown, the creationists have about 0.5-0.8% of the scientists on THEIR side and that the real scientists make up the other 99 some-odd percent.

Stop listening to the folks that are trying to backup biblical literalism. Those are the folks behind this movement and they are well funded. It’s all about creationism, its all about a literal 6 days, 6000 years ago.

YEP! This has NOTHING to do with science. It’s like that nutso creation museum they opened to “provide a biblical view of science.” real scientists chortle and then go back to their work…what was it the founder of Wikipedia said, kind of laughing at Little Schlafly when he decided to start Conservapedia as an outlet for his pouting and bellyaching?

“Free Culture knows no bounds.” that’s true… so it’s like, okay, fine. teach your intelligent design to your home-schoolers in lieu of science, but please stop bothering the grown-ups.

One more thing that I think is lost here. Ever wonder why so many scientist are hostile to organized religion? Take a look at history. Organized religion put the damper on so many ideas of the past that turned out to be factual. Why, because it conflicted with the leaders presuppositions of scripture.

exactly. and the Christians of “right now” never like to be compared to the Christians of “back then,” because it’s always “different this time/on this issue.”

yeah, right. it all screams “my faith is so tenuous, and if one more thing in the Bible is proved to be not literally true, I’m jumping off a bridge! so now i have to make up my own facts and my own world and my own fantasyland, etc.”

And I have, and not just Christian biologists. A number of Biologists I know are agnostic – they believe that something/someone was behind the origins of life on earth, though they don’t accept that it was the Judeo-Christian God who was the cause.

yes, but what the fundie x-ians are doing is trying to insert these beliefs into the scientific discussion, when your agnostic scientist friends could explain to you that it has no place in the scientific debate.

Stein is Jewish (and Judaism is a whole lot more lenient on views of literalist vs. framework Creation philosophy)

more importantly, Stein is a hack, who will align himself with even the most vapid of conservative causes in order to keep his mug on the screen. simple. as. that.

but rather go to the evidence on hand and the logical impossibility (the proverbial BMW created by a tornado going through a junkyard) of random chance creating life as it exists today.

that’s not how the theory works, but okay, keep playing that one, it seems to be a hit.

Genesis is meant to be taken literally. Why do so many who profess belief in Jesus of Nazareth and His Gospel struggle so much with accepting it – and in understanding that if Genesis is not literally true, then the Gospel is meaningless?

i dunno about your conclusions, but i’d say that Genesis is pretty much a myth, cobbled together from other myths.

i mean, we already know the first man was here LONG LONG LONG before any supposed Adam & Eve.

the implications, as you mention, though, are a bit striking. Original sin is out. good, I didn’t believe in it anyway.

Thank God for His Grace. One can be saved by trusting in Jesus Christ. However, believers who dismiss Genesis for another creation account are left with an incoherent theology, a Gospel which is just floating out there in history, disconnected from its foundation. It seems to me that with many, God is merely tacked-on at the end to give it all (the evolutionary model) meaning.

Jeff,
Evan’s theology aside, your sweeping generalization of everyone who’s not a young earther is really quite laughable. I could point to scores of Christian writers, theologians, and pastors who aren’t young earthers, and who have a theology that quite well-grounded.

Remember, the Bible was written to an ancient people as its primary audience. They were not interested in the mechanisms of Creation. If it were exlpained to them they wouldn’t understand it. They had no idea what DNA was, what a cell was, or even what the law of gravity was for that matter. Genesis speaks to the “why” and “who” of Creation, not the “how”.

There are no historic creeds that mention the age of the earth. It is not a core issue. One can believe the Bible without being a young earth creationist.

Phil,

Are you claiming that an All-Powerful, Holy, Loving God, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, used Evolution as the “mechanism” by which to create?

“If He came back and that’s it, what are we looking for?”

Some say that Jesus came again on Pentecost and He isn’t coming back literally. That is what I meant.

then again, i’m not quite sure exactly what I believe about that, personally.