Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?

[Chuck_H]

Some years ago, I was teaching where the history teacher was telling students that people warned Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the Earth if he sailed too far west.

At the same time, I was teaching that Eratosthenes had accurately measured the circumference of the Earth around 500 BC, and that the Romans and medieval Europeans were well aware that the world was round.

The history teacher was not pleased, until we had a talk, and he learned that what he had learned about Columbus was not correct.

Incidentally, the source of this error seems to be a book by Washington Irving, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.

My bet is that Washington Irving was correct in that in Columbus’s time there were flat earthers just like today. If there can be a flat earth society with all the bull they spew out today, there must have been a founding group somewhere back in history. Maybe it started right after Eratosthenes wrote out his conclusions.

 

[reggieM]

Generally I would rank Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God up there with CS Lewis, G K Chesterton and a slew of other excellent Christian apologists and thinkers.

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister."

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy chapter 7

 

[The_Barbarian]

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities,

It can’t be used to back up any morality at all. Science can’t give you any direction on values or morals. G.K. was a pretty good poet, but he was abyssmally ignorant of science.

The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals.

That’s like justifying burning people alive, because there are forest fires. What a foolish notion. And to call it “orthodoxy,” it’s foolish **and **arrogant.

He’s invented a fantasy to comfort himself, and forged God’s signature to it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

My bet is that Washington Irving was correct in that in Columbus’s time there were flat earthers just like today.

Maybe so, but they weren’t in Isabella’s court. Her advisers correctly pointed out that Columbus had grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth, citing Eratosthenes’s figures.

Fortunately for him, there was something over where he supposed Asia was. That is why the best dead reckoner of his time thought he was in India; if his estimate of the Earth’s size was right, he would have been in India.

 

[Chuck_H]

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister."

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy chapter 7

Apples and Oranges. Dr. Miller uses evolution, physics, chemistry and a great dose of pragmatic theology to make a case for what evolution can and cannot do. Chesterton had something important to say and said it within the framework of his time and understanding. Dr Miller does the same within the context of this time and our current understanding.

 

[Chuck_H]

Maybe so, but they weren’t in Isabella’s court. Her advisers correctly pointed out that Columbus had grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth, citing Eratosthenes’s figures.

Fortunately for him, there was something over where he supposed Asia was. That is why the best dead reckoner of his time thought he was in India; if his estimate of the Earth’s size was right, he would have been in India.

Oh I wasn’t doubting you, I was just reminded of the flat earth society by your previous post. much more joke than correction.

 

[masterjedi747]

Generally I would rank Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God up there with CS Lewis, G K Chesterton and a slew of other excellent Christian apologists and thinkers.

Hence my signature…

 

[bnapgh]

…Scripture describes it…that the earth brought forth living things. Not everything created was created ex nihilo. Life is one of those things…If “ex nihilo” means “from nothing,” it does. Li(f)e was not created from nothing, according to Genesis…

I fear we might be slipping into semantics.

If God wanted to make a cake and had nothing to start with, He might (A) just ‘‘create’’ a finished cake, or He might (B) ‘‘create’’ eggs, flour, butter, milk, etc. and then bake these ‘‘things created from nothing’’ in an oven he ‘‘creates from nothing’’ for an arbitrary amount of time. The result in (B) would be a cake identical with the one he directly ‘‘created’’ in (A).

To my mind, each of case A & case B would result in a cake ‘‘created from nothing’’.

Would you agree?

Or in your opinion would His taking the intermediate steps in case B invalidate any argument that He created the ‘‘cake from nothing’’ ?

If the latter, then we disagree on the definition of ‘‘create from nothing’’ and therefore we must agree to disagree on our conclusions.

I don’t see any way even a figurative reading of “let the earth bring forth” can mean an ex nihilo creation. How would you see it so?

I would see that merely as an intermediate step in His process, but one no less integral to His ‘‘creating life from nothing’’ than if He had put ‘‘full-blown’’ life on earth in a single creative step.

I would also not be able to refute His ability to create a ‘‘full-blown’’ cake from nothing while leaving evidence that might lead some to conclude that He first made and used flour, butter, sugar, etc. — even though He did not use any of those intermediate steps.

Some might see this as, what was your word, deceptive? I do not know the way God reasons, so I cannot say with confidence that He might not let us deceive ourselves, or even let us feel that He had decieved us.

Now, if one believes in a deceptive and powerful devil, might he have created appearances that deceive rational beings into incorrect conclusions? Perhaps. Personally, I consider that irrelevant.

Was Newton deceived more than Einstein or just more naive?

Are the temptations of the flesh to sin forthright or ‘‘deceptions of false satisfaction’’?

Was the Book of Job filled with deception?

I am not sure, but I don’t feel that impinges my understanding of God’s love.

 

[reggieM]

Apples and Oranges. Dr. Miller uses evolution, physics, chemistry and a great dose of pragmatic theology to make a case for what evolution can and cannot do. Chesterton had something important to say and said it within the framework of his time and understanding. Dr Miller does the same within the context of this time and our current understanding.

Interesting. You called Chesterton an “excellent Christian apologist and thinker”. Barbarian said he was “a pretty good poet, but he was abyssmally ignorant of science.”

Since you said nothing about Barbarian’s dismissal of Chesterton as an apologist, I’ll assume that you agree with him (you’ve changed your mind apparently in the course of one exchange of posts).

Therefore, when you say,

Chesterton had something important to say and said it within the framework of his time and understanding. Dr Miller does the same within the context of this time and our current understanding

I will then accept that Dr. Miller’s ideas are as “abysmally ignorant” as G.K. Chesterton’s are – although in the “context of this time” we can’t yet recognize how “foolish and arrogant” (to use Barbarian’s terms) Miller really is.

Or perhaps you do not want to oppose Barbarian since you agree with him on evolutionary theory.

 

[reggieM]

Dr. Miller uses … a great dose of pragmatic theology to make a case for what evolution can and cannot do.

Quite strange for a guy who is not a theologian. But apparently he will not object to non-scientists giving their opinions on evolution either – to be consistent.

I’d also wonder how he could use theology to explain what evolution (e.g. plumbing) can and cannot do.

Perhaps Barbarian will explain how Miller’s theological understanding is an important factor in understanding this brand of evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Perhaps Barbarian will explain how Miller’s theological understanding is an important factor in understanding this brand of evolution.

It doesn’t apply at all. How God uses evolution to His purposes is a matter for theology, not for science. You do understand that a scientist can also understand theology. After all, the Pope understands evolution. And so far, God has only created one brand of evolution.

It was precisely this conflation of science and theology that brought down Chesterton. No one who understand science would suppose that any scientific theory can support or deny any sort of morality.

Miller, as you would know if you read his book, makes just that point. So does the Pope, as you already know. Some people never seem to get it, no matter how many times they see it. This is an interesting moment…

Interesting. You called Chesterton an “excellent Christian apologist and thinker”. Barbarian said he was “a pretty good poet, but he was abyssmally ignorant of science.”

Since you said nothing about Barbarian’s dismissal of Chesterton as an apologist…

Am I the only one here who thinks it’s odd that Reggie thinks pointing out one’s shortcomings in science, dismisses that person as an apologist?

It would explain a lot of the posts he’s written…

*A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he is not saying.
Gilbert K. Chesterton *

 

[reggieM]

And so far, God has only created one brand of evolution.

The above statement by Milton aptly sums up the problem with **materialistic evolutionists ** and properly puts us in our place.

Again, interesting to see the contradictions come up between Darwinian advocates.

 

[Chuck_H]

Again, interesting to see the contradictions come up between Darwinian advocates.

I am sorry if you see trying to grasp the entirety and enormity of this whole subject as something to parse and quibble with.

It should not come as a surprise that a scientist should be ready to review past hypothesis and adjust them as evidence arises. It was Dr. Miller’s wise discussion of the uncertainty principle that led me to adjust my thinking. It should also not come as a surprise that an educated man has some grasp of theology. Considering the history of Dr. Miller I would be inclined to believe that he has extensive exposure to both biology (his field) and theology through his struggles with ID and YEC promoters. I have little doubt that Dr. miller has had the advice and information from many theologians as he dealt with the Dover trial and since.

As for contradictions; may I suggest you search out and attend the North American mammology meeting where you will be witness to many lively and contentious contradictions and debates. Science has never been known to make doctrines or dogmas and Darwinian evolution is no exception. Mode and means have been the topics of many an argument.

Lastly, any human being that asks God why or looks for God or seeks God is a theologian. Bowing to those that make it a profession, we must all be theologians or we are simply lukewarm and Jesus will spit us out of His mouth.

 

[Chuck_H]

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities,

It can’t be used to back up any morality at all. Science can’t give you any direction on values or morals. G.K. was a pretty good poet, but he was abyssmally ignorant of science.

The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals.

That’s like justifying burning people alive, because there are forest fires. What a foolish notion. And to call it “orthodoxy,” it’s foolish **and **arrogant.

He’s invented a fantasy to comfort himself, and forged God’s signature to it.

Just to set the record straight
I agree with Barbarian.

 

[Chuck_H]

Again, interesting to see the contradictions come up between Darwinian advocates.

Again; wrong! This simply shows that biologists tend to be reductionists (mea culpa) but physics rightly puts us in our place as simply being unable to overcome the uncertainty principle and therefore totally unable to link all behavior and all physical changes to an absolute standard. Like the physicists we must accept that events occur beyond defined absolute certainty. This does not defeat the statistical certainty of evolution, it wards off those that would make evolution into a replacement for God.

I would challenge you to throw your ideas into the pot since evidently you are capable of doing so.

 

[Chuck_H]

"Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. On the evolutionary basis you may be inhumane, or you may be absurdly humane; but you cannot be human. That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being as cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continued to recur: only the supernatural has taken a sane view of Nature. The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother. Unfortunately, if you regard Nature as a mother, you discover that she is a step-mother. The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister."

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy chapter 7

Sadly, while a great apologist for Christianity he falls short of the total argument since there are a number of people that have managed to do both.

What is the unanswered question is why man would see it as his duty to preserve an animal that views him a food? Could it be that both have the earth as their mother who gave birth to them as species and a mother that was given her right to create by God?

 

[abu_kamoon]

First, this excerpt is taken out of context. It is a continuation of a hypothetical proposal that had been presented in an earlier thread and was a response to another’s post within that context.
If that proposal was approached with a literal belief in Genesis then it would be a foregone conclusion that it would be immediately rejected.
In order to be discussed:

1. It must be assumed that mankind arose through a progression of natural evolution to a point where God was ready to give man a soul and begin a relationship.
2. It then follows that there was a point in time where man was simply Homo-sapiens-sapiens a critter, followed by the next moment where God “breathed” into him supernatural life( the soul) and he became man “enhanced”.
3. And finally, IF this were the case what should be able to be seen in genetics, archeology and anthropology which would support such a proposal.

It is not to be taken as dogma. It is simply a proposal for discussion within the context of the thread.

As I’ve said many times, belief in Evolution brings up more questions than it answers. Aside from the fact that virtually everything that Genesis tells us would be a lie, in this hypothetical scenario, this first “homo sapien” would have been born from non-human parents. How would he relate to his parents? Would they have been able to communicate by speech?

If God suddenly “breathed a soul” into this first homo sapien and he became “enhanced”, does that mean he magically changed into in different creature (rational, capable of abstract thought, esthetic appreciation & c)? If that is the case, would he have any memory of his previous “unenhanced” condition?

I realize that you are not claiming this as a dogmatic belief, but I am posing some interesting question that would arise if we were to accept this idea. To me, it’s much simpler to just believe what God said in Genesis. I’m sure that you have heard of Occam’s Razor - the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Belief in Evolution not only presents technical question such as these, it also makes one wonder why God wouldn’t have just told us about Evoultion in the first place.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Actually, if creationists developed more humble attitude towards science we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

You have often posted that evolution is obviously not true, when the vast majority of scientists studying the subject have found that it is. I’m not sure how that squares with humility.

Scientists don’t claim to know it all, but there is much that we are certain of. How would it profit a scientist to be humble, and say evolution could be wrong, when much of it couldn’t. There are parts of the theory that are uncertain, but as a whole it is hard to imagine how a completely different theory could account for all of our observations.

Many people are alive today that wouldn’t be if there were no sickle cell anemia. Yet you claim this is a devolution. You claim with certainty that mutations can not be beneficial. That’s hardly a humble claim. It actually claims a much higher degree of knowledge about the human genome than scientists would ever claim to possess.

By the way, Homo sapiens sapiens are modern people. We are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, also called modern Homo sapiens. The species also includes archaic Homo sapiens. It’s still correct to call us Homo sapiens, but Homo sapiens sapiens is more precise. The term means “thinking man” (Homo - man, sapiens - thinking). Homo is the genus. There were several species in the genus Homo (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalesis). The genuses Australopithecus and Homo make up the hominid family.

Do you know much about biology? I’m not being snide. I’m just curious.

I disagree. The scientists who believe in Evolution (which is most of them) are unable to recognize that science cannot answer some question - for example, our origins. They weren’t there to observe it. They can only speculate.

If the evidence were as plain as Evolutionists claim, Evolution would have been recognized hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. People, including scientists, see what they want to see. They utilize evidence that tends to verify their belief, and reject any that contradicts is.

There are a couple of dozen systems to determine how old something is. Most systems give relatively youthful ages for fossils, rocks & c, and so they are rejected. Carbon 14 gives very old dates, and very old dates are required for the Evolutionary theory, so Carbon 14 is used. That is, except when it gives a date that does not fit in with the evolutionary theory.

Since Evolutionists seem to think that the sickle cell is proof of Evolutionary progress, maybe an Evolutionist can tell us who cancer, or diabetes have contributed to our survivability? I am not a biologist, but I am able to see how the human body is more prone to disease than our forebearers.

 

[reggieM]

Lastly, any human being that asks God why or looks for God or seeks God is a theologian.

In the eyes of the Catholic Church, that is not true. You could take Charles Curran as one of many examples. In 1986, the Holy See declared that Curran was “no longer suitable or eligible” to exercise the function of theologian.

Beyond that, your idea betrays a contempt for the disicpline and study of theology.

Apparently, to be considered a “credible scientist” (as most Darwinists here claim) one has to have a Ph.D. at least and be published in peer-reviewed journals.

In your view of theology, however, “any human being” (e.g. 9 year old child) who “asks God why, or looks for God, or seeks God” is a theologian. Interesting contrast on the difference of emphasis given to science versus theology. In this view, theology is about as substantial and serious as day-dreaming or wishful-thinking. Science, however, is bound by all kinds of academic rigorism.

This a very distorted and simplistic view of what it means to be a theologian - in general terms. When speaking specifically of Catholic theologians it’s even less correct.

 

[reggieM]

Just to set the record straight
I agree with Barbarian.

Interesting. You claim that Chesterton is an “excellent apologist” (just like Miller), but also that in calling his book “Orthodoxy” is “foolish and arrogant” (as Barbarian claimed).

Apparently, you also believe that Chesterton “invented a fantasy to comfort himself, and forged God’s signature to it”. But this is what an “excellent Catholic apologist” would do.