Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

Friends, I'm going to have to bow out. I've got out of town family coming over for Thxgiving. Y'all have a blessed Thanksgiving, and may the Lord truly bless all of you.

 

Funny thing is... my beliefs are a result of a college class called "thinking, reasoning, expressing".

The prof was hated by virtually everyone but me because he challenged fundamental paradigms that we had been taught throughout our academic careers. He asserted that there is very little novel thought by people. Most people simply react as they were conditioned.

He challenged us to consider what constituted real "thinking". I'm not sure that more than a couple of us actually latched on to what he was trying to show. Everyone else just complained because they weren't being given a test with answers that they could spit out to get a good grade.

Partly due to this guy, I seldom accept things uncritically... and usually ask "Why?" until we get to the foundational premises and assumptions.

 

Same to you John... you hard head .

Seriously, I enjoy your thoughts and manners. Thanks.

 

ScottJ

It was my father who taught me to be critical and ask questions. I used to really upset some of my teachers.

Once, I ran into one of my High School science teachers about 15 years after graduation. He recognized me first and came up to me. Called me by name too. It took me a second or two to recognize him. This was probably the teacher I frustrated most with my questions.

I apologized for being such a difficult student. He surprised me by telling me I was one of his favorite all-time students. He said he liked me because he could tell I was listening, and trying to learn. He enjoyed my challanging questions.

One thing that frustrates me about evolutionists is how they seem to accept any evidence for evolution as fact. They call any evidence against evolution lies, or misrepresentations.

Even when you show them very troubling statements from famous evolutionists themselves, they just ignore these objections.

If I were a student of evolution, I know I would drive my teachers crazy. I would go to class with these statements printed out and ask my professor to explain these problems.

If they said, "You're taking that out of context", I would say, "Nevertheless, they made these statements, How do you explain this?"

Sorry, I rock the boat. But my High School science teacher liked me.

 

"If I were a student of evolution, I know I would drive my teachers crazy. I would go to class with these statements printed out and ask my professor to explain these problems.

If they said, 'You're taking that out of context', I would say, 'Nevertheless, they made these statements, How do you explain this?'"

Has it not yet dawned on you that if you take the statement out of context, then they really DID NOT make the statement that you are quoting as being troubling? Your quotes change the meanings of the statements by removing the context.

It would be the same as if an atheist asked you to explain why it is that the Bible says that "There is no God." Would you take that quote as a reason to give up your faith? No? Why not? Those very words are to be found in the Bible.

The reason is because such a quote has removed the context of the verse and does not accurately reflect the intent of the scripture.

The same thing applies to your quotes. By changing the context you change the meaning from what the author intended. At that point, there is nothing to explain because you are asking for an explanation of why an "evolutionist" would say something that they actually did not say.

This is why I will continue to demand context for your quotes. Between Petrel and me, we have examined, I'd guess, at least 2 dozen of your quotes and shown where the change in context has changed that meaning. At least one quote was found to be made up from thin air.

It is very telling that you have yet to provide context for any quotes. I believe that this means that you understand fully that the meanings are being changed by removing context.

I can only ask why you would do such a thing? Does the ends really justify the means to the extent that it is permitted in your logic to break the commandment against bearing false witness to make your point?

 

UTEOTW

I am taking statements out of context in many cases. However, I am not changing the gist or essence of the statements.

When you produce 50 statements by prominent evolutionists admitting that transitional fossils do not exist (some say extremely rare) it doesn't really matter that they continue to believe in evolution and develop further theories to accomodate this evidence.

The fact remains that they all admit that there is no concrete evidence. Many honestly admit that there is no evidence whatsoever.

So evolutionists come up with a theory that accomodates (perfectly stated by ScottJ) the evidence. Evolution has slow and fast phases. Animals stay the same for many millions of years. And then suddenly, for no explainable reason, evolution (for all creatures at once) speeds up to astronomical rates. Species mutate or evolve into completely different species in the blink of an eye in terms of geological ages.

NOW, the lack of evidence supports the new theory.

How convenient.

You call that science? How can lack of evidence be evidence?? Come on, you know better than that.

And there are numerous statments from many various evolutionists that clearly say the evidence fits the theory of creation much better than evolution.

It's incredible. Just what kind of evidence do you need to understand this? Fossils have been collected for over 100 years. And not one truly transitional fossil that can withstand scrutiny (in the words of evolutionists themselves) has been found.

Want to see the statements???

 

"I am taking statements out of context in many cases. However, I am not changing the gist or essence of the statements."

I am confused. You realize that you are removing the context but you still insist that you are not changing the meaning.

But time after time with your quotes it has been pointed out that when the context is returned that the meaning of the quote changes.

Could you please explain to me just how you can see these numerous examples and you can realize that you are taking them out of context yet you still think that the quotes are germane and honest? I do not understand how you can claim this for quotes that do not accurately reflect the views of the persons being quoted.

"The fact remains that they all admit that there is no concrete evidence. Many honestly admit that there is no evidence whatsoever.

So evolutionists come up with a theory that accomodates (perfectly stated by ScottJ) the evidence. Evolution has slow and fast phases. Animals stay the same for many millions of years. And then suddenly, for no explainable reason, evolution (for all creatures at once) speeds up to astronomical rates. Species mutate or evolve into completely different species in the blink of an eye in terms of geological ages.

NOW, the lack of evidence supports the new theory.

How convenient.

You call that science? How can lack of evidence be evidence?? Come on, you know better than that."

Listen, you have been making this claim for as long as you have been here. I have repeatedly shown you the real, positive evidence on which PE is based. YOu do not respond to these statements and you keep making the same assertions which have been shown to be false.

Could you at least attempt to address my evidence showing that there is real data on which PE is based? Here is the most recent attempt from a few pages back.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/12.html#000165

"It's incredible. Just what kind of evidence do you need to understand this? Fossils have been collected for over 100 years. And not one truly transitional fossil that can withstand scrutiny (in the words of evolutionists themselves) has been found."

You use Gould and PE falsely to claim that there are no transitionals when GOuld himself points out that such quotes are out of context and that transitionals are "abundant."

You recently used Fedduccia to try and claim that Archy was not a transitional when he himself calls it a "Rosetta stone" of evolution, a creature that could equally well be called bird or reptile and that is a perfect example of a transitional.

I have given you numerous examples of transitionals, none of which you have addressed.

"Want to see the statements???"

Sure.

If you can provide links to read the full statements in context so we can be sure of what was originally meant. Do you have any such quotes?

 

JWI

I decided to start looking through your quotes from a few pages ago just to see if you have learned anything about getting honest quotes.

The first quote, Ayala and Valentine, is merely what was pointed out with your mangling of the Patterson quote. It is difficult to sort out the specific path that evolution actually took from morphology when you have a collection of intermediates, some of which may be directly ancestral but most of which are likely side branches. Some of the side branches may be more closely related to the specific path yu are examining while others may me less close. But, whatever you may assert, this does not pose any sorts of problems for determining what happened.

 

While the first quote was a mild misrepresentation, the second was a very serious misrepresentation. Since I am at the in-laws, it will also be my last tonight.

Your quote was

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

If you were to have looked up the context, you would not have used the quote. Well, it seems that you might actually have. Here is the preceeding paragraph.

Do you still want to use this particular book from Futuyma as a reference?

Well, in case there is doubt, let's quote the sentences that follow your quote.

It sounds like Futuyma and I share an opinion of the tactics used.

Now that the quote has been put into context, I have some questions.

You obviously merely spammed us with a list of quotes someone else put together. Do you think that this person was being honest or dishonest by supplying this quote as he did?

Do you withdraw the quote?

Do you accept Futuyma's opinion as given in the wider quote? If not, why did you quote him to begin with?

Do you think that you bear any responsibility for proving this faulty quote? Many of your other quotes have been shown to be similiarly mangled so A case can be made that you should have been checking the accuracy of your quotes before using them.

 

I don't think that's what many or at least not all creationist writers do. They simply present the statements without making commentary on how the evolutionists' manage to overcome the problems that they acknowledge.

I honestly don't see a whole lot unfair about showing that notable evolutionists admit conditions of doubt rather than the unqualified certainty they express when asserting the theory as a whole.

This is especially fair game when they make broad generalizations like saying that there are few if any transitionals or that evidence for the species that supposedly gave rise to the Cambrian explosion is virtually non-existent.

 

PE is an attempt to accommodate the evidence where believers in evolution see an impasse in the traditional view.

There is no "positive evidence" in favor of it. No one has ever seen PE at work. No one has ever devised a means of testing its mechanisms or function. It is the work of human imaginations driven by belief in a philosophy.

At the very best, it may accommodate the evidence better than other ideas in some circumstances.

 

I accept that it is his opinion.

The problem is that his accusation isn't at all substantiated. The "collection" is what it is... until one assumes evolution as a framework for interpretting it then is so very proud when the evidence "supports" evolution.

No evolutionists knows that even a single "transitional series" exists. All they "know" is that the evidence exists and can be speculatively laid out in a manner consistent with ToE.

OTOH, if you don't assume evolution, you can lay it out in some other manner consistent with another framework.

Evidence can and has come to light that proved some of these supposed series were simply false. So the series are modified. No problem... unless you, as this guy does, claim those series as support for the theory. The simple fact that the evidence can be explained by a theory doesn't mean the evidence is exclusively explained by the theory and certainly doesn't lay a foundation for claiming that the evidence "supports" the theory.

 

Getting back to the OP: an article in this mornings local paper is of interest here.

Headline
“Science curricula to expand evolution theories”
“Local Christian schools are teaching evolution and creationism side by side”


[SNIP] “There’s room for both, says Todd Williams, senior vice president and provost at Philadelphia Biblical University. Instead of teaching one theory, students at the university in Langhorne Manor are taught to critically analyze different perspectives and opinions.
“To be biblically minded does not mean students can’t be will educated in the viewpoints of others,” said Williams. “We don’t vilify Darwinism but we want students to understand and think about it critically.”
While studies are rooted in a biblical worldview, students are encouraged to form their own opinions.
“We live in a pluralistic society and we want them to know what’s out there,” says Williams. [SNIP]

Rob

 

Act 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision:
Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Tit 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.
2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1Jo 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life,
1Jo 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

I don't think that's what many or at least not all creationist writers do. They simply present the statements without making commentary on how the evolutionists' manage to overcome the problems that they acknowledge.

I honestly don't see a whole lot unfair about showing that notable evolutionists admit conditions of doubt rather than the unqualified certainty they express when asserting the theory as a whole.

This is especially fair game when they make broad generalizations like saying that there are few if any transitionals or that evidence for the species that supposedly gave rise to the Cambrian explosion is virtually non-existent. </font>[/QUOTE]The "unfair" part is that the original intent of the author is being changed by removing the context. I will return to my analogy. Could you please explain how this is any different than if an atheist were to quote the Bible as saying "There is no God"? It is the same thing.

Now let's go back to the Futuyma quote above. JWI isolated a little piece that talks about a lack of gradual series from a larger paragraph talking about the adundance of transitional forms available to us. He presented it out of context to support a meaning which the author did not intend. Remember here that as fossil records have become more and more rich, the changes have been found to be anything but gradual. They are very jerky instead. The quote does not, in context, reflect a lack of transisitionals in the fossil record but instead describes the patterns of the known series.

It is dishonest to pull the one sentence out and thus change its meaning.

But let's remember what else Futuyma said, as it is germane to much of what we are discussing.

"The creationist argument ... is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

 

PE is an attempt to accommodate the evidence where believers in evolution see an impasse in the traditional view.

There is no "positive evidence" in favor of it. No one has ever seen PE at work. No one has ever devised a means of testing its mechanisms or function. It is the work of human imaginations driven by belief in a philosophy.

At the very best, it may accommodate the evidence better than other ideas in some circumstances. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps one day someone will address the evidence that opposes this assertion instead of just reasserting the same thing over and over. All I can do at this point is to return to my previous post. See the post to see where the quotes that follow come from.

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record."

Pervasive ["that which is diffused throughout every part of"] trends. Not missing data.

"This is a strange argument, however, since the paper where they first proposed PE was completely based on two independent paleontological studies (on pulmonate gastropods and on Phacopsid trilobites), which they described in detail with extremely good temporal resolution. Using positive evidence, these studies showed stasis and rapid evolution that supports the PE model. Furthermore, Gould and Eldredge's second PE paper also extensively analyzed well-resolved paleontological evidence in support of their hypothesis."

Again, the theory is based on actual evidence.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3217/12.html#000165

You also continue to attempt an argument that evolution merely "accommodates" the evidence.

accommodate - "to make fit, suitable, or being in agreement, harmony, or correspondence"
"to bring into agreement or concord"

I was going to object to your phrasing but maybe it is not so bad after all.

But let's examine your intimation by examing one of my favorite cases.

If you examine the genome of eukaryotes, you will see that they are made up of a few percent by retroviral inserts. The inserts in the genome are part of a fairly rare sequence of events and thus are used as one type of rare genomic event in tracing ancestry.

The sequence is as such. The host is infected with a retrovirus, a type of virus which inserts sections of its own genome into the genome of infected host cells to make copies of itself. The next step is that the virus must infect a germ line cell that eventually leads to an egg or sperm cell that it used for reproduction. So a particular cell must be infected and both the cell and the host must survive to reproduce. Finally, this new sequence must spread to the whole population and become fixed.

Now just because this sequence is rare does not mean that we do not have plenty of examples of the individual steps involved to study. AIDS is a retrovirus and I would bet the most widely studied of all virii. And one thing that we know is that such insertions are random.

When you look at humans, you will see that we all share the exact same set of inserts. If you look at the other apes, you will see that we all share very nearly the same set. The differences between the apes falls into a certain pattern. In addition, these inserts have no selective pressures and are therefore free to mutate. The pattern of mutations between the apes also fits a pattern, remarkably the same one from the pattern of the shared and unshared inserts.

Because of the great size of the genome, biologists consider even a single shared insert to be unequivocal proof of common ancestry. Here we have many more than just one.

This is not merely the type of accommodation that you intimate, it is strong evidence in support of common descent.

And it is testable. For example, within the inserts, we can check for more inserts to see if the patterns hold. If we broaden our genetics, we can check many other types of sequences to se if they, too, meet the same pattern. We can even test with the morphology of known fossils, but this becomes more problematic than genes for various reasons.

I am sure that you could come up with an ad hoc explanation. But on every point, your ad hoc explanation would be far more speculative and would do a far poorer job of explaining our observations. Your ad hoc explanation would also be completely untestable. You would not be able to outline for us just how your ad hoc story better fit the data and what additional data and tests could be used to show that your story realy was a better fit for the data. Your story would not even begin to fall into agreement with all of the other data that common descent "accommodates" so effortlessly and in a testable manner.

 

That would be dishonest since what the Bible actually says is not allowed.

The quotes don't speak to what the evolutionists believe. Anyone familiar with this debate is under no delusions about Gould recanting before he died.

They speak to what the evolutionists acknowledge as the state of the hard evidence. That seems to me to be the context in which they are being cited... and not as admissions by these men that evolution is false... nor statements about what these people believe about the evidence.

 

Oh, and the quote used by creationists did include "disappointingly few"... so that really isn't a very good example of quoting out of context.

 

"The quotes don't speak to what the evolutionists believe."

Absolutely. The quotes do not accurately reflecct the opinion of the author.

"That would be dishonest since what the Bible actually says is not allowed."

And it is just as dishonest to change the meaning of the quotes from the scientists by changing the context as it would be to change the meaning of scripture by doing the same.

"Anyone familiar with this debate is under no delusions about Gould recanting before he died."

Did any one suggest that Gould recanted of anything?

"They speak to what the evolutionists acknowledge as the state of the hard evidence. That seems to me to be the context in which they are being cited... and not as admissions by these men that evolution is false... nor statements about what these people believe about the evidence."

"Oh, and the quote used by creationists did include "disappointingly few"... so that really isn't a very good example of quoting out of context."

They are only "admissions" when the context is removed.

I can only here return to my previous statement on this as far as your characterization that it is accurate as far as there being "disappointingly few" gradual trnasitions.

by me...

And by Futuyma...

"The creationist argument ... is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution."

"Contrary to Creationist claims, the transitions among vertebrate species are almost all documented to a greater or lesser extent. Archeopteryx is an exquisite link between reptiles and birds; the therapsids provide an abundance of evidence for the transition from reptiles to mammals. Moreover, there are exquisite fossil links between the crossopterygian fishes and the amphibians (the icthyostegids). Of course, many other ancestor-descendent series also exist in the fossil record. I have mentioned (Chapter 4) the bactritid-ammonoid transition, the derivation of several mammalian orders from condylarthlike mammals, the evolution of horses, and of course the hominids."

 

The quotes of the evolutionists don't claim that they don't believe in evolution. They don't claim that they don't believe the evidence favors evolution. They simply highlight candid acknowledgements about the state of the hard evidence.

Actually, no. They are admissions. The context shows that the evolutionists have an explanation... not that what they said wasn't true as stated.