Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[Charles Meadows]

The fact is evolution is out there.

Students ARE going to be exposed to it. They are going to have questions.

Some will have only a few questions and can be satisfied by simply knowing that evolution is just a theory and that there are viable alternatives.

Others will have deeper and more penetrating questions - questions which sometimes do not have easy answers.

We should educate our children. That involves first and foremost inculcating Christian truth. They should be taught about the theory of evolution as well as the intelligent design theory. We should be honest in that there are some unanswered questions.

We must avoid being dishonest with them. Saying that evolution is groundless and scientifically bogus serves no purpose. That is a lie. Evolution is not proven but yet it would explain a number of theings we have observed.

Eventually people will have to come to grips with their OWN beliefs. This is part of becoming adults. If we are honest and diligent teachers our children will turn out well.

 

[Bunyon]

"Although I must commend ScottJ and Bunyon for being much more articulate in presenting their positions than the last time I've done this dance with you. You guys are doing some good thinking and debating. "--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't remember debating this with your before, but I appreciate the complement.

While it is true that a scientific law can be undermined it is considered a step up from a theory. A theory is something that is possible or probably true. But a law is something that is accepted and acknowledged by the vast majority to have withstood major scrutiny and has been shown by experiment and observation to be consistant. None of this applys to evolution. It is a theory with problems and should be tought as such.

 

[Johnv]

Well put, Charles. I also agree with Bunyan, stating "a theory with problems and should be tought as such".

 

[Paul of Eugene]

We keep hearing the party line that evolution theory has "problems" and yet all these "problems" seem to evaporate when it comes to specifics. Are you asking that we just tell school students there are "problems" without listing them? What would be the worst "problem" for the theory you can think of?

 

[Bunyon]

Are you serius Paul of Eugene? You don't think it has problems? Why then does it remain a theory?

 

[Mercury]

Why does electromagnetic theory remain a theory?

Why does atomic theory remain a theory?

Why does germ theory remain a theory?

In your earlier post, the definition you gave of a law is a pretty good definition of a scientific theory.

 

[MC1171611]

As I learned it, a real Theory is an idea, ar Hypothesis, that has recieved much public approval and scientific acceptance, as well as much evidence to back it up. That is why Evolution is not a Theory, but a simple Hypothesis, a goofy idea cooked up by a pagan, God-rejecting non-scientist who wrote a book based on supposition, little evidence, and whole boat-loads of FAITH.

Teaching evolution in the tax payer funded socialistic Public Schools is causing a Spiritual dearth among Christian children, especially because of a lack of sound teaching at home and in Church. When a child is exposed to Federally funded LIES almost forty hours a week, and is only in church for three to four hours a week, a great imballance is caused in the mentality of those children. That is why, for the most part, that most of today's youth go astray after college: their foundational belief in the Bible has been compromised through false teachings of evolution!

It all stems from not believing the Bible as it is written; when you take a textbook that claims to be "scientific," and it contradicts the simplest teachings in Genesis, then you have a problem, one that will not be corrected unless we throw "science falsely so-called" out of the window, and replace it with the Word of God.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
While it is true that a scientific law can be undermined it is considered a step up from a theory. A theory is something that is possible or probably true. But a law is something that is accepted and acknowledged by the vast majority to have withstood major scrutiny and has been shown by experiment and observation to be consistant.

This is the layman's understanding of scientific law. I remember getting this definition in Grade 9 science or maybe it was before high school. I soon found out in higher level sciences that this is simply not true. Evolution wasn't even an issue in my understanding of scientific laws and theories. The layman's definition of scientific law simply isn't used in the scientific world.

Scientific laws are no more proven or trustworthy than scientific theories. They are scientific laws because they can be simply stated given a set of conditions. Usually they are accompanied by a simple mathematical formula. But in no way is a scientific concept more "proven" simply because the creator of that concept called it a law instead of a theory.

Wikipedia : Scientific Law
...

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens.
...
Laws as approximations

Outside the scientific community, it is often assumed that the laws of nature have been proved beyond a doubt, in the same manner that mathematical theorems can be proven. However, this is not so. It is just that no instances have ever been seen where they are repeatably violated. It is always possible for them to be invalidated by repeatable, contradictory experimental evidence, should any be seen.

...

 

[Bunyon]

I don't see where there is a difference between what I said and what you pasted, except that we wont call evolution the law of evolution if we prove it. I acknowledged in my previous post that a theory can be something seen as "probably true" but it is not proven even if it is generally held true. The only reason mainstream science is holding evolution to be "probably true" is because they wont consider viable alternatives if they think it might have spritual implications. And they have ruled out some possibilities like inteligent design. Yes, if it is proven it wont be called the law of evolution, I understand that, and you are right. But it is still only a theory. We don't talk about the theory of entropy. There is nothing about entropy that is simple, but it is law in that it is constantly and always and widly observed to be true and predictable. We can never test evolution in that way.

Yet, even Crick of Watson and Crick fame (or crick I forget which one) has submitted or advocated a paper called Panspermia because he understands that the probability of DNA assembling itself in a primordial soup is really an impossibilty. So he postulates that the DNA came here on a comet. Which is just away of hidding from the obvious, DNA is God's alphabet and he wrote the code in creation. If no less than Crick has problems with evolution and sees holes he needs to fill, then no one can really rest on any assurance about evolution.

"And by 1993 he (crick) says, "It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started. At present, the gap from the primal 'soup' to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" (8). "

If this essentiol step in evolution looks forbiddingly wide to Crick, than no one can say it is a done deal.

[ November 14, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
There is nothing about entropy that is simple, but it is law in that it is constantly and always and widly observed to be true and predictable.

The second law of thermodynamics is very simple. delta S in a closed system has always been greater than 0. Of course there are many reactions where delta S is less than 0. Those are reactions in an open system where energy is added to the system. It may be possible that there are closed systems that violate the second law of thermodynamics where delta S is negative. This has never been observed though.

There is nothing in evolution that violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Bunyon]

Yes, there is simple equation that can be used to determine entropy in certain closed systems. But it is a part of everything. From stars to black holes for even they preceed to less ordered states. So ulitmately it is not simply in its applications or implications.

But the fact remains if Crick, the ultimate authority on DNA, and RNA, is unconvinced and sees "forbiddingly" troubeling problems in evolution, we can not say it is proven or generally held true. So it is a theory in the lowest level of the word.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Yet, even Crick of Watson and Crick fame (or crick I forget which one) has submitted or advocated a paper called Panspermia because he understands that the probability of DNA assembling itself in a primordial soup is really an impossibilty. So he postulates that the DNA came here on a comet. Which is just away of hidding from the obvious, DNA is God's alphabet and he wrote the code in creation. If no less than Crick has problems with evolution and sees holes he needs to fill, then no one can really rest on any assurance about evolution.

"And by 1993 he (crick) says, "It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started. At present, the gap from the primal 'soup' to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" (8). "

If this essentiol step in evolution looks forbiddingly wide to Crick, than no one can say it is a done deal.

Current abiogenesis theory is relatively recent and poorly supported relative to evolution. I'm not sure why you bring this up since we are talking about evolution.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Yes, there is simple equation that can be used to determine entropy in certain closed systems. But it is a part of everything. From stars to black holes for even they preceed to less ordered states. So ulitmately it is not simply in its applications or implications.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

The second law of thermodynamics can be very simply stated. Entropy is definitely a complex scientific and statistical concept. But entropy is not a law. The second law of thermodynamics which characterizes entropy in a specific situation, closed systems, is a scientific law because it can be simply stated. Entropy can either increase or decrease. But in closed systems, it has only been observed to increase.

Evolution doesn't take place in closed systems so the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to evolutionary discussions.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
I don't see where there is a difference between what I said and what you pasted, except that we wont call evolution the law of evolution if we prove it.

Just an fyi that evolution will never be proven. Just like all scientific theories have never been and will never be proven. They can be disproven and it happens all the time. There is a Talk.origins link to evidence that would disprove evolution. None of which has been evidenced yet. I'll try to dig it up.

Science isn't in the business of proofs. That is the realm of mathematics and logic.

 

[Bunyon]

I don't know, I think it has been proven that the world is not flat; that was once just a theory in someones mind. It has been proven that fusion occurs in the sun, that was once just a theory. But the this is just semantics, I understood what you were saying about how science uses the words law and theory.

I was not saying that evolution depended on the law of thermodynamics, I am not sure why you think I did. I am sure I was tought the "Law of entropy" in college, but that was 10yrs ago, maybe my memory is going.

 

[Helen]

Entropy is not a law? Here are a couple of quotes from P.W. Atkins The 2nd Law; Energy, Chaos, and Form, Scientific American Books, 1994, pp 58 and 62-63:

*****

"The interpretation of the Second Law that we have now partially established relates to the Clausius statement, which denies the possibility that heat will travel spontaneously up a temperature gradient. The dispersal interpretaton simply says that energy might by chance happen to travel in such a way that it ends up where there is already a higher proportion of atoms ON...but the likelihood is so remote that we can dismiss it as impossible.

..."We have to interpret the dispersal of energy to include not only its spatial dispersal over the atoms of the universe, but the destruction of coherence too. then energy tends to disperse captures the foundations of the Second Law.

"The natural tendency of energy to disperse -- that is, to spread through space, to spread the particles that are storing it, and to lose the coherence with which the particles are storing it -- established the direction of natural events...even if energy were to accumulate, there is little likelihood that it would do so coherently.

"Natural processes are those that accompany the dispersal of energy.

"...As energy collapses into chaos, the events of the world move forward. But in Chapter 2 we saw that change is accompanied by an increase of entropy. Entropy must therefore be a measure of chaos. Moreover, we have seen that the natural tendency of events corresponds to the corruption of the quality of energy. Consequently, quality must reflect the absence of chaos."

*****

all italics are in the original.

According to this expert and an evolutionist, entropy is definitely a law! Whether or not it can be 'simply stated' has nothing to do with it.

As far as abiogenesis go, evolution demands it, for evolution demands only naturalistic causes. That is why theistic evolution is a total cop-out. Use God when nothing else man can think of works...

God as second best is not a good plan.

 

[Bunyon]

RNA assembly is an esential step in evolution, yes? If Crick can see no possibilty of it happening on its own in the primordial soup, I think we will have to see evolution as a Theory with holes like swiss cheese. If the most basic first step is an impossibility, I would say the whole theory is sunk. Unless of course you want to go with Panspermia, but then how was the extraterrestreal RNA, DNA assembled?

 

[Gold Dragon]

The second law of thermodynamics, which describes entropy in a specific situation (closed systems) is a scientific law. Entropy is the concept that the law describes in that situation. It isn't called the Law of Entropy. It is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is about entropy. The first law of thermodynamics describes another thermodynamic property called enthalpy or internal energy when heat is added to a system or work is done by the system on the environment. It can be expressed simply as delta U (enthalpy) = delta Q (heat) - delta w (work).

The third law talks about entropy at 0 Kelvin simply stating that entropy approaches a constant at 0 Kelvin or absolute 0.

The zeroeth law is about thermal equilibrium of several systems and can also be simply stated.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Evolution is completely independent of abiogenesis theory.

RNA assembly is not relevant to evolution except that it happens. How the first RNA were assembled is not relevant to evolution.

 

[Helen]

the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a demonstration of the law of entropy in a specific situation (a closed system with a heat gradient). None of the other laws of thermo are being discussed here -- don't start dragging red herrings across the path, OK?

Entropy -- and more specifically increasing entropy -- is considered a universal law in physics.