Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That depends on whether or not you are willing to consider the Bible as an authority on Creation. My experience with you is that you are NOT willing to do so.

The Bible is an authority on creation but it’s not a science book. The tale is ALLEGORICAL.

Two things:

1. 
   *]What does that mean? “The tale is ALLEGORICAL”? The story of creation is not true? What exactly do you mean?
   *]What does it mean when you say that the Bible is an authority on creation but it’s not a science book? If it tells a STORY, it’s no worse than the JUST-SO STORIES of evolutionists.
   
   
   Ismael:
   

   Before the reformation no one tought it was literal: not the Jews, not the Early Fathers, nor pre-reformation Christian theologians (like Thomas Aquinas for example). Maybe ignorant people tought so…

   Nice swipe. But you’ve got your facts wrong. Perhaps you’ve never heard of Augustine’s work, “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis”?
   
   When Augustine first attempted an exegesis of Genesis, he wrote, “A Commentary on Genesis: Two Books against the Manichees.” This book embraced a clearly allegorical approach and understanding. But Augustine later came to reject such an approach, and embraced one which understood the literalness of the event, and the need to allegorize certain terms.
   

   And please tell us where this other life that exists outside of our planet - where is it located that we may put away such “foolish” thoughts about our pinnacality.

   

   Ismael:
   

   Humans remain quite special in both the case there are ‘intelligent aliens’ or not.
   
   If there are not [other life on other planets in our universe], then we are the only corporeal intelligent (excluding thus angels) beings in the universe… which is pretty special.

   
   Indeed. Which is what the Bible teaches us.
   
   
   Ismael:
   

   If we are not the only corporeal intelligent species in the universe we still are pretty special if God became man to save us… don’t you think?

   No. How can humanity be the pinnacle of creation if there are other “pinnacles” out there? That doesn’t make too much sense.
   
   
   Ismael:
   

   Is there intelligent life outside Earth? It’s possbile.
   Is it probable? here opinions are found in both ends of the spectrum
   Where is it if it exists? On a planet somewhere…

   How convenient of your faith.

 

[reggieM]

Has scientific and historical integrity improved?

Manipulated or suppressed evidence, cherry-picking data, squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process, smoothing over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis, concerted and coordinated efforts by scientists to fit the data to their conclusions …

Emails reveal an effort by scientists to hide the truth

 

[PEPCIS]

Ramapithecus, the Australopithecines, Pithecanthropus erectus, Sinanthropus and Neanderthals are all perfectly good fossils. Anybody who calls them “falsifications” is lying. The only falsification in your list is Piltdown Man, which was indeed a forgery. For the rest you are being lied to by your source.

Hello again, rossum. You should note that Ramapithecus is a falsification, if you want to call it that. The fact is that evolutionists are always found playing fast and loose with the facts, stretching incredulity to its limits. As is the case with Ramapithecus, it was touted as a missing link, only to later be “recategorized” as no longer a likely ancestor of humans.

Evolutionists do NOT use strictly scientific language and approaches in their conclusions, as can be seen with Java Man (Pethecanthropus erectus). Amongst all of the chatter, it all comes down to the conclusions. In this case, evolutionists conclude that Java Man is a “potential intermediate form between modern humans and the common ancestor we share with the other great apes.”

Ahhhh, yes. He is a “potential intermediate.” Why is he not placed in a specific place within the lineage? Because all such conclusions are speculatory by nature. Science CANNOT say if he is an ancestor, but only that IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, that Java Man is a “Potential Intermediate.”

As for Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), there are no extent fossils ANYWHERE for this supposed “ancestor” of man. What places Peking Man into the ancestry of man? Evolutionary speculation.

Neandertals are considered by many to be human, and Lucy was just an ape.

 

[edwest2]

Before this continues, a few notes and translations:

“closed minded” = you don’t agree with me.

“talk/shout past” = you aren’t listening to me and not agreeing with me.

“ignorant” = you don’t agree with me.

“Christian extremist” = you don’t believe in evolution? How is that possible?

“Fundamentalist” = you’re a Creationist/IDer? How is that possible?

Evolution, as far as I can tell, is primarily an ideological weapon to deny God and His work.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.
Bus sign: Man created God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Say that to Richard Dawkins - he has already called it a fact. What I see in evolution are micro changes in species being extrapolated to do something that we have never observed nor do we see evidence for it in the past. Again…this theory uses random chance to account for uniformity and order, laws of logic, conscious searching of a mind for meaning, reliable senses (i.e. preconditions for intelligibility). It makes much more sense to me that a God who transcends space, time, and matter created from nothing a universe with all that we see. He is very big…He is love (for He created being and beings)…and He is a judge (having given us a conscience and written his laws on our hearts…

Evolution (the fact)- Species experience random mutations. These mutations are either good, bad, or neutral. Good ones tend to be passed down.
Evolution (the theory)- evolution the fact accounts for species diversity.

tjm190, you cannot account for the millions of irreducibly complex systems,

Name one

Evolution is science supported by unsubstantiated philosophical presuppositions held by faith.

False- it is based on 19th century observations, later confirmed by genetics

Repent and turn to Christ…don’t reject the great love that He showed on the cross to satisfy the justice that we deserve - infinite punishment. It was told to us in the Old Testament by types, figures, and bold statements that God would come to earth one day to die for the nations…and it happened and the earth exploded with Christianity immediately following these events (not a myth purported hundreds of years later).

Didn’t know Christians could repent and turn to Christ, especially over a scientific belief

 

[tjm190]

Evolution, as far as I can tell, is primarily an ideological weapon to deny God and His work.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.
Bus sign: Man created God.

Peace,
Ed

How many times has it been explained to you why that the above argument is invalid?

 

[tjm190]

Hmmmm. No surprise there. Typical of those with closed minds who refuse to engage in real debate. Just want to shout past others, huh?

Nope- his entire post was based on the ‘just a theory clause.’ If I started a post with ‘Since we have proven Christianity false…’ i wouldn’t expect you to give much thought to the rest.

As you noted, the word “theory” also means:

"hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was …”

Of course, evolutionists will attempt to claim that the theory of evolution is so accepted that it is as good as a fact. But, no one ever said, EVER, that consensus is fact. However, a concensus of people who believe something and operate according to that belief is nothing more than organized religion.

Yes it does- however, the ‘theory’ in evolution does not mean that. The word ‘theory’ in the theory evolution has the same meaning as it does in the theory of gravity and quantum theory.

Nobody ever said evolution’s acceptance is what makes it proven- that’s quite backwards from the truth.

 

[StAnastasia]

Are some (StAnastasia) still blithely unaware of the falsifications practised by evolutionists??

Abu, can you offer non-YEC sources to substantiate your accusation of “falsification”? Remember, you may not use YEC or IDC sites. If you cannot, I’ll assume you are not telling the truth.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ohhhh, StAnastasia - That is so beautiful.
But, what am I supposed to do with this mystery of DNA in the universe? I dunno. Maybe whether or not God applied DNA universally or not, is one of those little mysteries we all have to live with, with no answer to it.

Donsnow, that’s a good question. Remember that the word “mystery” carries different valences in different disciplines. In biology and other sciences. a “mystery” is always something to be explored, experimented with, explained. In religion a “mystery” is that before which we remain in silent awe (“muein = to remain silent”).

With respect to your question, I would say that for science the origin and working of DNA is a problem to be solved, a mystery to be unraveled. For religion, DNA is another part of God’s infinite creative power at which we marvel. That God could create an evolving universe that blossomed forth after 13.7 billion years into human beings who marvel at God’s works – this is simply stunning, a grand mystery, something to be contemplated and appreciated for what it is.

StAnastasia

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi ed,

Glad to see you’re still in the fight.

 

[StAnastasia]

How many times has it been explained to you why that the above argument is invalid?

As a rough estimate, I would say 200+ times in the last year. Duane Gish of ICR does the same thing: if you lie often enough, it takes on the odor of plausibility.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Hmmmm. No surprise there. Typical of those with closed minds who refuse to engage in real debate. Just want to shout past others, huh?

Nope- his entire post was based on the ‘just a theory clause.’

Exactly my point. You’re simply operating from talking points. This is the old evo-argument which claims that “a theory is more than just a theory when everyone (read: evolutionists) all agree to it.”

As you noted, the word “theory” also means:

"hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was …”

Of course, evolutionists will attempt to claim that the theory of evolution is so accepted that it is as good as a fact. But, no one ever said, EVER, that consensus is fact. However, a concensus of people who believe something and operate according to that belief is nothing more than organized religion.

tjm:

Yes it [the definition] does [also carry another meaning] - however, the ‘theory’ in evolution does not mean that. The word ‘theory’ in the theory evolution has the same meaning as it does in the theory of gravity and quantum theory.

Well, that’s the claim, now isn’t it? The hard part is to prove it by scientific evidence.

tjm:

Nobody ever said evolution’s acceptance is what makes it proven - that’s quite backwards from the truth.

Evolutionists say that all the time. Where have you been?

 

[PEPCIS]

As a rough estimate, I would say 200+ times in the last year. Duane Gish of ICR does the same thing: if you lie often enough, it takes on the odor of plausibility.

Yes, it always comes down to evolutionists resorting to base insults. Good job StAnastasia. You’re living up to your old standard. You haven’t changed since our last encounters when you continually made insinuations and outright lies. Is this what you consider makes for good debate?

 

[StAnastasia]

You haven’t changed since our last encounters when you continually made insinuations and outright lies. Is this what you consider makes for good debate?

It’s not a lie. I’ve heard Gish proven wrong on a point, and take the same falsehood to the next audience of unsuspecting, adoring fans of his and use it there. Truth means very little to a person like him. or to Kent Hovind, or Ray Comfort, or Kirk Cameron, or Ken Ham.

 

[donsnow]

Donsnow, that’s a good question. Remember that the word “mystery” carries different valences in different disciplines. In biology and other sciences. a “mystery” is always something to be explored, experimented with, explained. In religion a “mystery” is that before which we remain in silent awe (“muein = to remain silent”).

With respect to your question, I would say that for science the origin and working of DNA is a problem to be solved, a mystery to be unraveled. For religion, DNA is another part of God’s infinite creative power at which we marvel. That God could create an evolving universe that blossomed forth after 13.7 billion years into human beings who marvel at God’s works – this is simply stunning, a grand mystery, something to be contemplated and appreciated for what it is.

StAnastasia

I am humbled, nicely, by your reply, StAnastasia,

You do it every time, stand by your position, yet see things the way I do. Remarkable.

 

[edwest2]

How many times has it been explained to you why that the above argument is invalid?

The people who put up the billboards and signs, and pay money for them, certainly stand by those words 100%. The likelihood of the average American reading a billboard or a bus sign is far higher than picking up a book about science. They know what they are doing. My fellow Catholics need to be warned that they are being led down the wrong path - again.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Donsnow, that’s a good question. Remember that the word “mystery” carries different valences in different disciplines. In biology and other sciences. a “mystery” is always something to be explored, experimented with, explained. In religion a “mystery” is that before which we remain in silent awe (“muein = to remain silent”).

With respect to your question, I would say that for science the origin and working of DNA is a problem to be solved, a mystery to be unraveled. For religion, DNA is another part of God’s infinite creative power at which we marvel. That God could create an evolving universe that blossomed forth after 13.7 billion years into human beings who marvel at God’s works – this is simply stunning, a grand mystery, something to be contemplated and appreciated for what it is.

StAnastasia

As a Catholic, what I find stunning is Jesus being able to raise the dead to life, or instantly healing leprosy or blindness. That is how God works.

Evolution is a vague, unproven, doubtful collection of bits of data that does not seem to have any practical real world application other than as a weapon to deny God and His work. It is, however, a comfort to the anti-theist who desires to be free of any bondage to what he calls myth or superstition, and the invisible man in the sky.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hi ed,

Glad to see you’re still in the fight.

Hi,

Just continue to tell the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Nope- his entire post was based on the ‘just a theory clause.’ If I started a post with ‘Since we have proven Christianity false…’ i wouldn’t expect you to give much thought to the rest.

Yes it does- however, the ‘theory’ in evolution does not mean that. The word ‘theory’ in the theory evolution has the same meaning as it does in the theory of gravity and quantum theory.

Nobody ever said evolution’s acceptance is what makes it proven- that’s quite backwards from the truth.

Hi, tjm190 -

If Darwin is so right, how come he has political imposition of his theory into public schools by law? In the late 19th Century, Darwin and English law requiring government subsidised education and school teachers teaching Darwin with apparent government authority. Then, during the early 20th Century in the US of A, the same mandantory public education at Congressional legislation. Would Darwinism had stood by itself as a theory, if it had not been taught with indirect government authority? We’ll never know. But, I say that government subsidy of an allegedly scientific theory impunges its strength, if not its validity.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat,

(1) I don’t know that I would describe myself as a “fan” of common ancestry; it’s part of evolutionary theory. I guess I’m as much a fan of it as I am of plate tectonics.

(2) I am not convinced the universe is “teeming with life,” although I may not be as pessimistic as Ward and Brownlee who in Rare Earth argue that complex life is uncommon in the universe. Joel Primack (U.C. Santa Cruz) thinks they are unduly pessimistic. In any case, even if only one planet per galaxy is life-bearing, there would be one hundred billion such planets in the universe.

(3) I have friends who are working on the various scenarios of the origin of life (surface pools, deep sea thermal vents, etc.) (See Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil). It seems plausible that life might have been created more than once, just as it seems plausible that we ourselves are the product of endosymbiosis.(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory). I assume that all chordates share a common ancestry, but perhaps not all phyla do. I don’t know the genetics; Alex McAndrew could help here.

(4) I find the question of the origins of life very intriguing. Panspermia seems to be a cop-out; Dawkins’s postulated arrival of life on earth in asteroids or meteorites merely pushes the question of origins back one step, and solves nothing. Life’s origin seems a likely locus for the Genesis “let the earth bring forth…” Michael Lodahl explores creation ex nihilo in “Out of Nothing’s Womb Produce” Is Next-to-Nothing Enough?-or Is It Too Much?", chapter three in God of Nature and God of Grace.

StAnastasia

That’s all quite interesting, but my question was “Why isn’t Earth teeming with life from multiple common ancestors?” If life could arise (without divine intervention) on other planets, it would seem that certainly it would have happened more than once on Earth, leading to more than one “common ancestor”.