The Religion of Evolution

[RichardC]

Originally posted by Helen:
Now, YOU may accept the Bible because of tradition. In that case, you might as well accept the Iliad and the Odyssey as well, or Gilgamesh! You state “Our particular understandings … might not be inspired by God, but by our own desires.” I agree, and that is why it is far better to accept what God caused to be written in a straightforward manner rather than trusting any man’s ‘interpretation’ of it.

Helen, you are apparently asserting that God intends for us to understand Genesis 1-3 as a literal account of historical events. I take it that this is what you mean by "accept[ing] what God caused to be written in a straightforward manner." Why should Galatian or I or other theistic evolutionists agree with your claim? So far as I can see, your argument thus far boils down to Proof by Emphatic Assertion.

The Bible was written down and transmitted by fallible human beings. Thus errors of fact in the Bible would not necessarily contradict its Divine origin. Humans the world over have also commonly used myth to communicate profound spiritual insights, so there would be no surprise in finding myth in the Bible.

Understanding the Bible does not take human minds to ‘interpret’ its meaning. Its meaning is extremely clear and further understanding of cultural expressions only helps clarify it more; it does not change the meaning.

You could advance the discussion a great deal, Helen, by presenting your reasoned arguments that it is "extremely clear" that the Genesis account is intended by God to be understood as an account of historical events.

You suggest a little humility will go a long way. Might I turn those words around on you to suggest that man’s mind is no challenge to God’s? That He has always known not only what He is talking about, but how to communicate with us? To ‘reinterpret’ the Bible to fit with your evolutionary preconceptions is the height of arrogance.

I don't doubt that God knows how to communicate with us in a manner appropriate to his purposes. But here we have a communication, Genesis, concerning which there has been considerable disagreement among Christians, going back to antiquity, as to the intended meaning. You can't just declare your preferred meaning to be the correct one and declare a pox on the others; you need to argue for your understanding of it if you want to change anyone's mind.

Richard

 

[BobRyan]

Paul -
Bob, there's no question that between your view of theology and the view of science as to the facts of the history of the universe, something's gotta give. The two are mutually incompatible.

Well said Paul.

I like the moments when our evolutionist friends show real objectivity. Is there some way we can move the discussion forward using the same model?

Bob

 

[Peter101]

Helen,

I think you will agree that whatever position is argued, that the discussion will be advanced by truth in advertising, i.e. all the various arguments, including yours, that are posted on the Internet should be factually accurate. Don't you agree? I am sure you do. If you accept that, then how about correcting various mistakes that appear on the Setterfield web site, specifically about the assumptions on C-14 dating. Also, tonight I have pointed out several other errors on your web site by one James P. Dawson. Since that material is his, I invite you to contact him and pass on my critique of his writing, so that he may make corrections. You will find this critique as one of the most recent posts on the thread titled "Setterfield theory revisited and refocused". That may not be the exact title of the thread but it is close. Dawson's comments on radiometric dating and radioactive decay are especially poor and inaccurate.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Paul -
Bob, there's no question that between your view of theology and the view of science as to the facts of the history of the universe, something's gotta give. The two are mutually incompatible.

Well said Paul.

I like the moments when our evolutionist friends show real objectivity. Is there some way we can move the discussion forward using the same model?

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Well, lets start with the idea of evidence in favor of evolution. Without at the moment saying how much there is or is not, in theory, is it possible to say that if evidence made evolution to appear probably true to somewhere like 95 to 99 percent probability - it would be reasonable to adopt the idea that evolution is true for normal purposes? Is there any level of evidence (speaking theoretically now, regardeless of whether or not that level has actually been achieved) that would make it reasonable to do that?

 

[BobRyan]

The "starting point" on a thread titled "The religion of evolution" posted on a Christian message board - where the context is supposed to be "Christian Evolutionists" vs the "Christians that accept Creationism" - should be IS there a direct contradiction IF we simply choose to believe the text of scripture from PURE Exegesis.

In other words - step ONE - is to discover "Meaning" as defined by the objective methods of exegesis ALONE.

Step two is then to observe "IS there a contradiction" between what exegesis dictates and what evolutionism dictates?

You are proposing a further step - but we really need "answers" to steps 1 and 2.

In your further step you seem to say
"Given that evolutionISM can NOT be reconciled with the Exegetically clean interpretation of the text - IS there enough outside support for evolutionism to argue that we toss exegesis in this case".

And I agree that in that model we would "need" to discover how much REAL evidence is in from HARD science (not pure speculation) where results are "verifiable" rather than "extrapolated" and then untestable.

However - since we seem to have "made a start" on steps one and two.

Can we at least clarify those first two - so we have a basis for how we can begin the subsequent objective analysis?

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Whenever the Bible and reality seem to clash, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them.

It's equally likely for either source. So no, there can be no conflict between the two.

There are folks like Kurt Wise, and Harold Coffin, who freely and honestly admit that they would stand by their interpretation of Scripture regardless of the evidence.

But that's not a very logical stand. It is essentially claiming infallibility for one's self.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed, when the Bible and science clash - one of them is being misunderstood or even abused.

However "science" is not a "form of exegesis". So we have the "advantage" of interpreting the text WITHOUT having to "go to the lab".

Our understanding of nature - and our maturity in science - is also a "moving target" so EVEN if we DID hobble our understanding of scripture to our "current views of spontaneous generation" (so to speak) we would simply have to "change religions" as soon as we "discover" that spontaneous generation is not quite as possible as we possibly speculated.

So - all the more reason to be honest and up front with our Exegesis.

Steps one and two NEED to be discussed with integrity.

And on THIS board - all the evolutionist supposedly LOVE to talk about those steps because they are all bible believing Christians.

Lets begin.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionism has to claim so pretty radical things to defend itself -

Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics
. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism is 100% _____. So-called Creation Scientists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.

Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument - is a distortion if you observe that it contradicts the self-organizing requirements of evolutionism)

...
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. (simply put "IF God did it - did not really HAPPEN") Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, (sorry Robert Gentry - we can't hear you speaking in our censorship booth) nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (Again - we can't hear what we choose to shut out)

The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. (though competing theories are spelled out in this article)

Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, AND submit it for TESTING, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas.

(Hint: when was the last time you saw MacroEvolutionism TESTED?)

Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.


Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. (but not evolutionism) ...

Science belongs in science classes. (ALL AGREE b but then Evolutionists claim) Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.

The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes.

People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist "stealth" candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their Views became apparent.

The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts. The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics. Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.
...
Biologists, however, can provide an elegant answer to the question, "How did we get here?"

Thanks to Galation for the great quotes.

Bob

[ July 12, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Evolutionism has to claim so pretty radical things to defend itself -

Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics
. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism is 100% _____. So-called Creation Scientists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.

Okay, well, nothing radical so far. I hope that you have some better examples.

Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument - is a distortion if you observe that it contradicts the self-organizing requirements of evolutionism)

...
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory ...

Still true, nothing radical here.

...to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. (simply put "IF God did it - did not really HAPPEN") Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments,

Basically correct ... if the type of age dating that Steve Austin does is a typical example.

(sorry Robert Gentry - we can't hear you speaking in our censorship booth) nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Correct again. I have seen creationists INVITED to publish in by some reviewers, but they cannot find the nerve to do so.

(Again - we can't hear what we choose to shut out)

I guess you can't leave a quote well enough alone. You have so butchered it with snide comments that I really have little idea what your point is.

The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism ...

No problem here. Creationism is simply not science. It can be brought up in comparative religions or some such class. If we are to be completely 'fair' as you seem to suggest, I think we should include holocaust denial as well. Wouldn' that be 'fair?'

...from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories.

Hmmm, I see nothing radica here, either. I have heard no credible competing theories.

(though competing theories are spelled out in this article)

Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, AND submit it for TESTING, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas.

True. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better have something more than a bunch of incredulous whining.

(Hint: when was the last time you saw MacroEvolutionism TESTED?)

Frequently, actually. It is tested every time a prediction is made regarding the fossil record.

Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.

Science is based on an open and honest look at the data.

Still on track.

(but not evolutionism) ...

You seem to like to see your words in print... Why not leave the quote alone and let people read it uninterupted?

Science belongs in science classes. (ALL AGREE b but then Evolutionists claim) Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.

Okay, now, what was your point? This all sounds pretty reasonable to me...

The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes.

People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist "stealth" candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their Views became apparent.

Sounds right. Do you deny this?

The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts.

YOu say most of them ARE religious nuts? Seems to me the statement is right on.

The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics.

And?

Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.
...

Okay, where is the radical stuff?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I really find nothing wrong with the quotes you presented.

There really does need to be a coherent theory of creationism that can do a better job of explaining the evidence than the mainstream sciences do. Until you have something that can explain what we see around ourselves better than what we already have, looking for any weakness, quote mining and distorting does nothing to move your ideas ahead of science.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


There really does need to be a coherent theory of creationism that can do a better job of explaining the evidence than the mainstream sciences do.

The problem with this demand is that those who establish the rules will object at any point where a Creator is submitted as a cause or when limitations for interpretting evidence are based on an intelligent planner/designer rather than the forces of chance.

The only strength if you want to call it a strength of evolution is that dogmatically avoids any appeal to supernatural influence. In this way, evolutionists can claim to be the most reasonable folks around since they only submit as "truth" those things which can be "measured" (although this really isn't true either). All the while, they deny the greatest truth of all, the supernatural does exist and it does imact/influence the natural world. Remarkably, it is considered more reasonable in secular science to say that we simply don't know what started it all but that we are sure that it is purely naturalistic than to say "In the beginning, God created..."

The thing confusing to me about including Creation concepts in public education is that if evolution is so soundly scientific and creation is so hobbled by its religious character, why would anyone believing evolution not want the two to be compared in an academic setting?

 

[Meatros]

All the while, they deny the greatest truth of all, the supernatural does exist and it does imact/influence the natural world.

I'm a theist based on faith and personal experience, but I find this hard to believe: What evidence is their of the supernatural?

The thing confusing to me about including Creation concepts in public education is that if evolution is so soundly scientific and creation is so hobbled by its religious character, why would anyone believing evolution not want the two to be compared in an academic setting?

There are a few things to consider when introducing theological theories into a scientific class room. First and foremost is that it wastes valuable class time to teach things have no scientific value in a science class. Second, if you include one religion's creation, don't you have to include them all (or at least the majority)? Third, to include creationism (which isn't scientific), the students would become confused. Fourth, why not teach it in the theology/philosophy classes, where it is better suited?

 

[A_Christian]

If one is going to teach
science based on Scientific interpretations
of accumulated data, then CREATIONISM fits the bill. If you are going to base science on only what can be observed then EVOLUTIONISM must be
eliminated from the public school.

Not all "religions" have data to either back
their claims nor the logic to establish reasearch.

 

[Meatros]

If one is going to teach
science based on Scientific interpretations
of accumulated data, then CREATIONISM fits the bill.

Nice to say, now prove it. What predictions does it make? What evidence supports it? Is it falsifiable?

If you are going to base science on only what can be observed then EVOLUTIONISM must be
eliminated from the public school.

Actually "evolutionism" isn't taught in schools, the theory of evolution is.

Not all "religions" have data to either back their claims nor the logic to establish reasearch.

Oh please! I still can't believe that some people on this board so ignorantly water down the word religion that practically *EVERYTHING* could be considered a religion.

What is the "God" of evolution? What are the system of morals?

 

[The Galatian]

If you've been reading the posts on this board, you've seen a great deal of evidence for evolution. That's why you see the vast majority of scientists of all faiths who accept it.

If it was a religion, you wouldn't see Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. who accept it.

This seems so obvious that it always puzzles me why some people can't understand it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Is it falsifiable?

Please describe how evolution is falsifiable. BTW, I am not talking about picking and choosing parts favorable to evolutions interpretations of data. The whole thing... by what means would you falsify something that was not observed and cannot be recreated on scale with respect to time and environment.

Actually "evolutionism" isn't taught in schools, the theory of evolution is.

To a very slight extent you are correct. The ideals of modernism/humanism have prevailed for a good portion of the last century. Exclusively teaching evolution as the scientific explaination of origins is simply a necessary component of reinforcing the notion that man can answer his own questions and solve his own problems without God.

Post-modernism will soon replace modernism but I doubt the confusion of "no truth" will be much more hospitable to the Truth than restricting truth to the mind of man.

I still can't believe that some people on this board so ignorantly water down the word religion that practically *EVERYTHING* could be considered a religion.

Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism are religious viewpoints. Evolution is the strictly acceptable view of origins for these perspectives.

What is the "God" of evolution?

By extension from "humanism", Man is evolution's god. In particular, the mind and reason of man.

You even see it here. The ability of scientists/men to reason and interpret establish the boundaries of what can be considered scientific "truth".

What are the system of morals?

Usually but not always pragmatism. Some have rejected morality altogether. Many possess faith in the idea of "good government" which relies on the power of man's wisdom to govern himself.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
What evidence is their of the supernatural?

Answered specific prayers for people to whom I had not revealed my concerns.

There are a few things to consider when introducing theological theories into a scientific class room. First and foremost is that it wastes valuable class time to teach things have no scientific value in a science class. Second, if you include one religion's creation, don't you have to include them all (or at least the majority)? Third, to include creationism (which isn't scientific), the students would become confused. Fourth, why not teach it in the theology/philosophy classes, where it is better suited?

I would agree with each of these points... regarding the teaching of evolution. 1) Evolution has no value in applied science therefore it wastes valuable class time. 2) Evolution is the creation account of the modern philosophical viewpoint, humanism, and atheism. If you are going to teach one philosophy's account, shouldn't you teach them all? 3)Evolution is taught as a theory that excludes all other scientific theories... de facto- "fact". It is not "fact" and many students especially in lower grades are confused into thinking it is. 4) Why not teach evolution separate from hard science so that the two won't be confused with each other? The only "benefit" of a student knowing evolution is so that they know it. It is not useful in any applied science from Super Glue to Space Shuttles. The detriment is that it may not be true and cause them to doubt something that is true.

 

[Meatros]

Please describe how evolution is falsifiable. BTW, I am not talking about picking and choosing parts favorable to evolutions interpretations of data. The whole thing... by what means would you falsify something that was not observed and cannot be recreated on scale with respect to time and environment.

Playing ping-pong? Not observed? You can observe evolution, go get an immunity shot. The predictions evolution makes are subject to tests. How is it *not* falsifiable?

To a very slight extent you are correct. The ideals of modernism/humanism have prevailed for a good portion of the last century. Exclusively teaching evolution as the scientific explaination of origins is simply a necessary component of reinforcing the notion that man can answer his own questions and solve his own problems without God.

In science class shouldn't you only teach things that are 'scientific'? Where does evolution mention philosophy? Where does it mention origins? Are you referring to abiogenesis?

Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism are religious viewpoints. Evolution is the strictly acceptable view of origins for these perspectives.

Evolution is also an acceptable viewpoint of theists-your point means nothing. Is gravity a religion? Even if I were to assume that Atheists, agnostics, and humanists all accepted evolution, that doesn't mean that evolution is miraculously a religion!

By extension from "humanism", Man is evolution's god. In particular, the mind and reason of man.

You even see it here. The ability of scientists/men to reason and interpret establish the boundaries of what can be considered scientific "truth".

You are confusing evolution with 'humanism'. Is gravity similarly responsible for this train of thought? You are committing a nonsequetor (sp?).

Usually but not always pragmatism. Some have rejected morality altogether. Many possess faith in the idea of "good government" which relies on the power of man's wisdom to govern himself.

Again, you are adding to the theory of evolution in order to justify the claim that it's religious!

Answered specific prayers for people to whom I had not revealed my concerns.

In otherwords, anecdotal-hardly conclusive for the public masses.

1) Evolution has no value in applied science therefore it wastes valuable class time.

You can thank your immunties for it.

Evolution is the creation account of the modern philosophical viewpoint, humanism, and atheism. If you are going to teach one philosophy's account, shouldn't you teach them all?

Evolution is *not* a creation account, you mistake it for either abiogenesis or the big bang, and you stretch the vernacular of 'creation account'.

Evolution is taught as a theory that excludes all other scientific theories

Lamarkism doesn't have the evidence that evolution does, other then that, what other scientific theories are there?

Why not teach evolution separate from hard science so that the two won't be confused with each other?

Your strawman characterization of evolution isn't what the actual theory is. You should learn it before you attempt to call it anything other then a hard science. You attempts to obfuscate evolution into a philosophy or a creation story are not remotely accurate.

It is not useful in any applied science from Super Glue to Space Shuttles.

Again, this is either a lie or ignorance. Evolution is directly responsible for a host of things that you would deny; including but not limited to, immunizations.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
... including but not limited to, immunizations.

This is an apparent attempt to confuse microevolution with macroevolution. Immunizations have everything to do with how organisms adapt and/or possess self-defense mechanisms. It is not in the least dependent on the notion that all life forms evolved from a simpler lifeform.

... and you would accuse me of lying or ignorance?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Answered specific prayers for people to whom I had not revealed my concerns.

In otherwords, anecdotal-hardly conclusive for the public masses.

</font>[/QUOTE]... and therefore at least this much ahead of the "proof" for evolution. I have observed these things and these things are observable. Evolution was not observed and cannot be observed.