PDA

View Full Version : the lie of evolution and atheism



cwb
May 8th 2007, 10:40 PM
Do people really believe the lie that we came from nothing and that there is no creator or are they just putting up a facade for some reason such as not wanting to follow or obey Him.

Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It seems to me from these verses that God has shown every man that He is real and hence people who say they believe there is no creator are really lieing and just putting up a front for some reason. Could it be that many of us Christians have fallen for this lie that they believe there is no creator when in fact they know there is a creator (for God has shown it unto them) and have just chosen not to obey or follow Him.

cwb
May 8th 2007, 10:47 PM
I'm sorry. I actually meant to post this in Bible chat since it really is not about end times. I'm not sure if I can move it myself or delete it.

rchivers
May 8th 2007, 10:50 PM
I think deep down inside somewhere everyone knows there is a God.

I think pride is what gets in the way of people admiting it and doing what they should do.

Many people consider themselves 'good'. There is this hope that we as the human race can eventually advance and overcome anything on our own. Eventually we will create a utopia, eliminate disease, etc.

If you believe in the devil, you probably believe there is a God. Yet many are deceived and dont believe in hell as a place. If there is no hell, then there is no reason to strive towards securing a place in heaven.

The devil is really good at making people think he does not exist.

TEITZY
May 8th 2007, 11:46 PM
In fact they do something even worse than just believing a lie:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

The word "suppress" means to "restrain" or literally 'hold down' the truth, therefore preventing others from knowing it. IMO this is a far greater crime than believing a lie because it involves the deliberate deception of others and not just self-deception.

The fact is that sinners would much rather believe a lie than acknowledge the truth of God's existence, since to do so would make them accountable to someone. Unbelievers hate God because they love their sin, simple as that.

Cheers
Leigh

Teke
May 9th 2007, 12:28 AM
Do people really believe the lie that we came from nothing and that there is no creator or are they just putting up a facade for some reason such as not wanting to follow or obey Him.

Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It seems to me from these verses that God has shown every man that He is real and hence people who say they believe there is no creator are really lieing and just putting up a front for some reason. Could it be that many of us Christians have fallen for this lie that they believe there is no creator when in fact they know there is a creator (for God has shown it unto them) and have just chosen not to obey or follow Him.

Atheism is a new religious movement. And new religious movements cause social anxiety.
Are you caught in the social anxiety of atheism?

cwb
May 9th 2007, 01:14 AM
Atheism is a new religious movement. And new religious movements cause social anxiety.
Are you caught in the social anxiety of atheism?

I'm sorry. I am not really understanding your question. What exactly is social anxiety and what is "the social anxiety of atheism"?

SpeakSlow
May 9th 2007, 01:50 AM
I think that they choose not to believe because if their is a God, they will have to play by his rules, not their own.

Teke
May 9th 2007, 02:17 AM
I'm sorry. I am not really understanding your question. What exactly is social anxiety and what is "the social anxiety of atheism"?

Never mind the question.:P

Christians that focus on things in their discussions such as evolution, age of earth, stars, how the planet came to be, or even the literal character of OT stories, are agreeing these are essential questions for humanity. They aren’t.
The essential question for humanity is God revealed thru Christ. :hug:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Mat 16:13 ∂ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

cwb
May 9th 2007, 03:00 AM
Never mind the question.:P

Christians that focus on things in their discussions such as evolution, age of earth, stars, how the planet came to be, or even the literal character of OT stories, are agreeing these are essential questions for humanity. They arenít.
The essential question for humanity is God revealed thru Christ. :hug:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Mat 16:13 ∂ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

I certainly agree with you. Part of the reason for my post is that many times in the past I have gotten into arguments with "atheists" about the existence of God. After reading the verse I posted from Romans 1, I am beginning to think that this is a useless arguement to get into with somebody since God has already shown them He is real.

pmckelvy
May 9th 2007, 03:20 AM
I think that they choose not to believe because if their is a God, they will have to play by his rules, not their own.

I agree. I actually don't believe there are any true athiests. God reveals himself to us all in some way I believe. If you don't like the rules then you believe in something else. Eventually you can trick yourself into this new belief but deep down inside we were all made to crave God.

ravi4u2
May 9th 2007, 04:14 AM
The evolutionist tend to twist the arms of anyone who believes anything else besides what they believe. In an episode of the Bill Maher show on HBO, after saying how stupid everyone who does not believe in evolution were, he asks his guests (well actually one democrat politician) if he believed in evolution. The politician said that of course he did believe in evolution but that he also sees the hand of God in many things around him. I personally cannot comprehend this.

cwb
May 9th 2007, 04:38 AM
The evolutionist tend to twist the arms of anyone who believes anything else besides what they believe. In an episode of the Bill Maher show on HBO, after saying how stupid everyone who does not believe in evolution were, he asks his guests (well actually one democrat politician) if he believed in evolution. The politician said that of course he did believe in evolution but that he also sees the hand of God in many things around him. I personally cannot comprehend this.

Sounds like a politician. They are all pretty good at speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Soj
May 9th 2007, 04:58 AM
I think people believe in "the theory of evolution" and athiesm as an excuse not to believe in creation and ultimately God. The reason for this is simple - final authority! They want to be their own final authority in this life and not allow God to be, they want to be [g]od in other words and live how they please without anyone telling them what to do.

The Christian trusts in God and God's word as his/her final authority in all matters of faith and practise...or rather is *supposed* to.

Athiesm has been around for 1000's of years btw:

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

watchinginawe
May 9th 2007, 11:19 AM
I'm going to go ahead and close this thread here. That means I get the last say! :pp :)

Actually, I only wanted to say that we should not expect the special creation of man in his present form to be a "test of faith" of a Christian. Sometimes we seem to use atheist and evolutionist synonymously. While we might disagree with those who "see the hand of God" in evolution, the issue certainly shouldn't be used as a litmus test for Christianity.

Currently, these kinds of threads are being somewhat hosted in the Apologetics and Evangelism (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=14)forum. If you are passionate about this subject and want to add something I think you will find a thread to participate in there.

God Bless!

watchinginawe
May 14th 2007, 03:36 PM
This thread is now moved and re-opened for posting. Please review the rules of the A&E forum if you are not familiar with them.

God Bless!

cwb
May 14th 2007, 07:25 PM
Sometimes we seem to use atheist and evolutionist synonymously. While we might disagree with those who "see the hand of God" in evolution, the issue certainly shouldn't be used as a litmus test for Christianity.


When watchinginawe originally closed this thread she said this quote. I just wanted to let everybody know my original post was more about those who say there is no God at all than evolution. I was not trying to insult anybody who sees the hand of God in evolution or make that a litmus test for christianity. Just wanted to let everybody know that.

davidturtledove
May 14th 2007, 07:46 PM
God created the heavens and the earth

science is merely the observance and study of the physical world. This study has shown things evolve. They have mistaken the order of things.
God created things and by His hand evolutionary processes developed as part of His creation. evolution actuallly bears evidence towards God but they have missed this point!

We have seen that things evolve and i would not dispute this however we certainly did not come from apes! Scripture is clear on this! Adam and Eve were created from the dust!

As far as man knowing better and persisting in the lie of evolution anyway, I believe this is the case with some and ultimately they all will have no excuse for their unbelief. Still it is prudent we look for their salvation that some may be set free from the trap of the devil!

Paul_born_again
May 14th 2007, 09:32 PM
A tad bit out of context (this verse is specifically referring to scoffers of Jesus' second coming and scoffers at the Flood, but I feel it applies to this discussion as well).

2 Peter 3:3-6 -
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

Atheists do not believe in God not because of lack of evidence, but because they do not want to admit to themselves that He exists. They willingly refuse, despite the overwhelming obvious, because admitting that He exists will mean that they are not the final authority of everything, they are not the gods of their own world.

punk
May 14th 2007, 10:07 PM
Science merely makes empirical observations and draws conclusions from them.

The alternative is that God deliberately and deceptively made the world to look much older than it really is to fool us.

Would you make God a liar?

Scruffy Kid
May 15th 2007, 12:25 AM
I know that many who have posted in this thread are sincere Christians, who are in part motivated by zeal for God's truth. I must state, to start with, that I make many mistakes and have many sins. I'm not the best person to be correcting others.

But, however much the posters did not intend their remarks with ill will, I cannot let the horrible comments made on this thread pass without sharp protest.

I'm sorry to have to say that many attitudes expressed in this thread have the appearance of being sinful, untrue, rude, proud, and a major hindrance to the gospel. What's been said will rightly and justly anger and disgust anyone who knows many honest, upright atheists. IMHO, what is called for is public repentence on the part of a number of those who have posted.

I am, indeed, ademant about the truth of the Gospel. I think that not believing in God does great harm. I want to convince people who don't know Christ to follow Him. I think that Christ's work and person and victory over sin is the most beautiful thing in all creation, and the only thing that saves us. I'm terribly distressed by the rise of atheistic ideas in our society.

But it does not help to go about making broad-guage statements about large classes of people which are rude and untrue, as this thread has done.


(1) Many sincere people do not believe in God. I know many such people. This has included members of my family, and close friends. Some have tried hard to believe in God, and just can't convince themselves that the existence of God is true.

The kinds of generalizations people are making about atheists here are careless and untrue. The Bible says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."


(2) Going around calling people liars is not a Christian practice. Instead, the Bible tells us that we are to speak with non-believers with gentleness and respect.

Peter (I Pet. 3:15-16) tells us that we should "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and reverence (πραύτης, prautēs, pronounced "prah-oo-tace", meaning mildness and suggesting humility, and φόβος, phobos, meaning fear, but implying respect and reverence): Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." Paul (in Acts 17), encountering Pagan thought on the Aeropagus (Mars Hill), speaks with respect of the Athenian traditions and sages, to win over their hearts. Jude (1:9), speaking even of those who corrupt the Christian community, makes the point that the Christian way is not to use harsh and reviling language -- that's how perverters of the truth act! -- noting that even "the archangel disputing with the devil about the body of Moses did not presume to bring a railing accusation against him ..."


(3) Contrasting others' bad motives with one's own good motives seems arrogant and self-justifying.

The overall impression created by speaking about those who disbelieve as having "just chosen not to obey or follow Him" is to contrast those willfully wicked unbelievers with the poster's implied self-image as willfully virtuous and truthful. It suggests self-righteousness, pride, and a general "holier-than-thou attitude.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of talk that causes others to think Christians are self-righteous hypocrits always criticizing others, and oblivious to their own faults.

Jesus tells us not to try to remove the speck from another's eye before we've got the log out of our own.
(Matt 7). Paul tells us that we should consider others better than ourselves, rather than being puffed up with pride. (Phil. 2, etc.) Proverbs tells us that "a soft answer turns away wrath."


I have been saved not because of my good choices, but by the grace of God to me, a sinner.


(4) Christians talking trash about others does incalculable harm to the gospel. It causes those who don't know God to turn away and not listen. When people who disbelieve have heard this kind of trash talk it seals them against Christianity. When they finally encounter a godly person who speaks of our hope in Christ in a way that they could have understood, they start off deeply prejudiced against it by the rude, thoughtless talk of people who have spoken ill of them.

Talking rudely and mean and falsely about atheists -- to say nothing of Christians who accept the theory of evolution -- turns others away from the gospel.


(5) Let's stop being conformed to this world, and be transformed by the renewing of our minds

We do not have to sin in this way. The Bible severely warns us against causing others to stumble.

Let's go learn how the Bible tells us to treat others -- with respect, love, honesty, compassion, truthfulness, scrupulous fairnees and gentleness.

cwb
May 15th 2007, 04:32 AM
I'm sorry to have to say that many attitudes expressed in this thread have the appearance of being sinful, untrue, rude, proud, and a major hindrance to the gospel. What's been said will rightly and justly anger and disgust anyone who knows many honest, upright atheists. IMHO, what is called for is public repentence on the part of a number of those who have posted.

I am, indeed, ademant about the truth of the Gospel. I think that not believing in God does great harm. I want to convince people who don't know Christ to follow Him. I think that Christ's work and person and victory over sin is the most beautiful thing in all creation, and the only thing that saves us. I'm terribly distressed by the rise of atheistic ideas in our society.

But it does not help to go about making broad-guage statements about large classes of people which are rude and untrue, as this thread has done.




In my original post, I posted a scripture - Romans 1:19-20. If you feel I am reading this scripture in the wrong way, please let me know. It could be that I am. Please let me know know how I am reading these verses wrongly and how I should be reading them. In my original post, I said "It seems to me from these verses that God has shown every man that He is real". Notice I said the word seems and was in no way being dogmatic about it.



(1) Many sincere people do not believe in God. I know many such people. This has included members of my family, and close friends. Some have tried hard to believe in God, and just can't convince themselves that the existence of God is true.

The kinds of generalizations people are making about atheists here are careless and untrue. The Bible says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."





However sincerity is no guarantee for truth. My original intent for this thread was to make us better witnesses not worse. I also know many sincere people (and even some family members) who say they are atheists. You said some have tried to believe God but can't. Have you ever considered that there may be some greater spiritual forces at work. The verse I quoted in my original post seems to suggest so. I believe that if the bible says that God has showed it to them, God must have showed it to them. I guess there could be multiple reasons for someone saying they don't believe in God when the word says God has showed in unto them. In some cases it could be even be demonic forces at work which can only be overcome by the name of Jesus Christ and prayer. To be better witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ, sometimes we need to see through the facades and get down to the heart of the matter (whatever that may be as every case is not going to be the same.) Jesus Christ in His ministry always seemed to have a way of getting down to the heart of the matter. He wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowlege of the truth. Again the intent of my post was to make us be us better witnesses not worse.

(
2) Going around calling people liars is not a Christian practice. Instead, the Bible tells us that we are to speak with non-believers with gentleness and respect.

Peter (I Pet. 3:15-16) tells us that we should "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and reverence (πραύτης, prautēs, pronounced "prah-oo-tace", meaning mildness and suggesting humility, and φόβος, phobos, meaning fear, but implying respect and reverence): Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." Paul (in Acts 17), encountering Pagan thought on the Aeropagus (Mars Hill), speaks with respect of the Athenian traditions and sages, to win over their hearts. Jude (1:9), speaking even of those who corrupt the Christian community, makes the point that the Christian way is not to use harsh and reviling language -- that's how perverters of the truth act! -- noting that even "the archangel disputing with the devil about the body of Moses did not presume to bring a railing accusation against him ..."


Neither Paul nor Jesus Christ always treated non-believers with gentleness. With repect yes. With gentleness - not always. However they both seemed to have a way of getting down to the heart of the matter.



3) Contrasting others' bad motives with one's own good motives seems arrogant and self-justifying.

The overall impression created by speaking about those who disbelieve as having "just chosen not to obey or follow Him" is to contrast those willfully wicked unbelievers with the poster's implied self-image as willfully virtuous and truthful. It suggests self-righteousness, pride, and a general "holier-than-thou attitude.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of talk that causes others to think Christians are self-righteous hypocrits always criticizing others, and oblivious to their own faults.

Jesus tells us not to try to remove the speck from another's eye before we've got the log out of our own.
(Matt 7). Paul tells us that we should consider others better than ourselves, rather than being puffed up with pride. (Phil. 2, etc.) Proverbs tells us that "a soft answer turns away wrath."


I have been saved not because of my good choices, but by the grace of God to me, a sinner.




Now this certainly sounds like like false accussation to me.



(4) Christians talking trash about others does incalculable harm to the gospel. It causes those who don't know God to turn away and not listen. When people who disbelieve have heard this kind of trash talk it seals them against Christianity. When they finally encounter a godly person who speaks of our hope in Christ in a way that they could have understood, they start off deeply prejudiced against it by the rude, thoughtless talk of people who have spoken ill of them.

Talking rudely and mean and falsely about atheists -- to say nothing of Christians who accept the theory of evolution -- turns others away from the gospel.


I have not seen any thrash talk in this thread. I have seen some posters because of their reverence for their creator confront trash talk against God and those who believe in Him. I don't know if you have noticed this but there is alot of trash talk going on in the world against God and those who believe in Him. When God in His word tells me He has shown men that He is real, and they come to me and say they do not believe He is real, I have to make a choice concerning whom I believe is lying. I choose to believe God is not lying. Yes, people who say there is no God are speaking some pretty horrible trash against the creator.



5) Let's stop being conformed to this world, and be transformed by the renewing of our minds

We do not have to sin in this way. The Bible severely warns us against causing others to stumble.

Let's go learn how the Bible tells us to treat others -- with respect, love, honesty, compassion, truthfulness, scrupulous fairnees and gentleness


Is causing others not to stumble saying to those who arrogantly talk trash against our creator "that's ok". I feel to somehow justify atheism could cause some young Christians to stumble. No I do not believe being politically correct in every situation and patting unbelief on the back is "not being conformed to this world." Actually the suggestion that we should not confront unbelief, or that we suggest that unbelief is o.k., or saying that the unbelief of others is the fault of Christians - that is conforming to this world. Jesus Christ in His ministry continually confronted unbelief and people's hardness of heart - and He was not always "gentle" about it.

Righton
May 15th 2007, 04:47 AM
Like some have said, evolution is the new religion. The anti-Goders have to have SOMETHING to believe on faith! Religion is as needful for mankind as food and drink. We all need it, we all need something to believe in.

Have you noticed they speak of evolution in godly terms? "Evolution has given us," they say. They speak of evolution as though it's a guiding force, a presence, you might say.

In plain English, evolution is simply rebellion, that's all.

davidturtledove
May 16th 2007, 07:30 PM
one of the things that makes no sense is that evolution places mankind at the top of the charts. The ultimate living product of evolution thus far! Yet mankind has so few answers to a universe whose order contains so many wonderful mysteries! So by their way of thinking the universe though devoid of intelligence has thus far outstripped what they themselves can even imagine by mere happenstance!
Ironically they claim their theory to be a sign of their intelligence yet by their reckoning the concept of intelligence is greatly overwhelmed by the concept of ignorance since virtually none of the secrets of the universe are known to mankind and the whole of existence is nothing more than a great mystery indecipherable by every living being.
They make no explanation for the life that animates us and sets us apart from inaminate creation. In fact they essentially seek to subject living beings to a larger order that occurs naturally yet is devoid of living guidance. So by their thinking the life has actually very little esteem since it comprises so little of the universe.
In Christianity we know the life to be God. We also know God is love! The reason for life is fully explained and we know and comprehend that the living soul transcends inanimate creation!

ThinkingFaith
May 22nd 2007, 11:40 PM
If you want to be able to share your faith with atheists, you must be able to talk to them with respect.

On this thread (as Scruffy Kid pointed out) there are many assumptions being made about atheistís motives, "true" inner beliefs, etc. Would any of us want to be told by an atheist what we "really" believe? Wouldn't we assume the atheist couldn't possibly know what we believe "deep down inside"?

I have been able to share the reasons for the hope I have with many atheists and have been able to do so at their request. I treated them and their personal commitments and thinking with respect and pointed out why I choose to differ.

There are those on both sides (Christians and Atheists) who have a vested political and/or financial reason for making this a culture war issue. For most of us there isn't any real culture war going on. The atheist you work with may believe the propaganda of activists just as much as many Christians believe the propaganda of Christian activists, but chances are you are both pretty much the same aside from faith.

You both have a mortgage, take the kids to soccer and are ticked off every time you go buy a gallon of gas.

All Christians aren't illogical, ignorant rednecks and all atheists aren't baby killing, evolution preaching servants of Satan. Most all of us are just regular people.

I don't know if I can tell you what Rom 1 means. The reason is because the atheists I know have come to much of their conclusions about God by looking at the natural universe--the very things pointed to in Rom 1. In the first century (when Paul wrote Romans) there was no question the number of unanswered questions certainly pointed everyone to a belief in a higher power.

Now we see natural explanations for many things first century people had no clue about.

For the atheist they make the assumption that, just as we have been able to explain many previously inexplicable events through study, so we will eventually be able to explain virtually all events through study.

You and I don't accept or believe that, but we have to understand the basis of their lack of faith if we are ever going to be able to win them to Christ.

I am a firm believer in the reality of the living God. I do not believe simply because I read an ancient text telling me about this God. There are many ancient texts talking about many Gods. I believe because, as I sought the God of one particular ancient text (the Bible) I found a living God who I have seen work miraculously in my own life and the life of others around me.

When I talk to atheists, that is the faith I share--the reasons why I believe God exists today and is active. They ask hard questions and sometimes I don't have a good answer or any answer at all, but in most cases I do.

If you love atheists, you'll have opportunity. If you persist in rhetoric driven by political power-seekers and exploitive preachers for profit, you'll likely never have the opportunity.

steadfastfaith
May 23rd 2007, 01:27 AM
I believe in God and evolution. Weird eh? I do not believe that we evolved from apes, but I do believe in evolution because you can see it take place; species have to evolve in order to survive. There are countless examples of how animals adapt or evolve and it is easy to see how humans do the same especially now with global warming.

~ Carol Ann

thomas36
May 23rd 2007, 01:34 AM
Why Evolution?
Dr. D. James Kennedy


Why did evolution catch on so quickly? The answer may surprise you.
One night years ago I was sitting in our family room watching an interview being conducted with Sir Julian Huxley. The person who was questioning him said, "Why do you think evolution caught on so quickly?"

This is what he said: "I suppose the reason we leapt at The Origins (The Origin of Species) was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

"Because the idea of God . . ."

Oh, you mean, it is not purely a scientific thing. You mean it was an anti-religious, anti-God motive right from the beginning


Sir Julian Huxley One of the greatest defenders of Darwin says that evolution caught on because it removed God from the picture.

GothicAngel
May 23rd 2007, 01:55 AM
I believe in God and evolution. Weird eh? I do not believe that we evolved from apes, but I do believe in evolution because you can see it take place; species have to evolve in order to survive. There are countless examples of how animals adapt or evolve and it is easy to see how humans do the same especially now with global warming.

~ Carol Ann
Do you mean you believe in microevolution, and not macroevolution?

Anyways, my 2 cents on what I have read of this thread....

Evolution is just science... to say that you are a Christan and dont believe in evolution, makes the pro evolutionists think Christianity is anti science... and thats my :2cents: I know you wanted it

steadfastfaith
May 23rd 2007, 02:04 AM
Do you mean you believe in microevolution, and not macroevolution?

I suppose you could say that. You cannot deny things that you can clearly see happening. Regardless of what you call it, evolution does exist. As a Christian I chose to believe that we were created by God and we adapt in order to survive the ever changing world in which we live. Adam and Eve evolved when they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and were forced out of the garden. They had to in order to survive.

~ Carol Ann

ThinkingFaith
May 23rd 2007, 02:10 AM
Why Evolution?
Dr. D. James Kennedy


Why did evolution catch on so quickly? The answer may surprise you.
One night years ago I was sitting in our family room watching an interview being conducted with Sir Julian Huxley. The person who was questioning him said, "Why do you think evolution caught on so quickly?"

This is what he said: "I suppose the reason we leapt at The Origins (The Origin of Species) was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

"Because the idea of God . . ."

Oh, you mean, it is not purely a scientific thing. You mean it was an anti-religious, anti-God motive right from the beginning


Sir Julian Huxley One of the greatest defenders of Darwin says that evolution caught on because it removed God from the picture.

I am wondering where you pulled this information, do you have a reference? The reason I ask is DJK has been widely criticised for his sincere but probably over-reaching conclusions in his "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" video.

I don't think he intentionally tried/tries to mislead, I think he truly believes what he presents are honest connections. More neutral observers have a tough time seeing these "clear cut" connections.

Luke34
May 23rd 2007, 03:57 AM
As a previous post said, the title of this thread conflates atheism and evolution, the truths or falsities of which are unrelated to each other. One is a religious belief (actually lack thereof), and one is a scientific principle of descent with modification. That some people have used evolution to justify atheism does not mean that they are actually related; if you don't accept most other things these people say, why do you automatically believe them that descent with modification supports the claim that a higher power does not exist?
By the way I think this thread may get more varied reponses in the Controversial Issues section. Theistic evolutionists such as myself are not allowed to discuss those beliefs here, so most of the answers you're going to get related to anything like that are going to be fairly one-sided. Unless this is actually what you want, you may consider starting threads that touch on theistic evolution to the Controversial section.

EEReversible
May 28th 2007, 05:24 AM
"Christians that focus on things in their discussions such as evolution, age of earth, stars, how the planet came to be, or even the literal character of OT stories, are agreeing these are essential questions for humanity. They arenít.The essential question for humanity is God revealed thru Christ."You are right, about the essential question being God revealed through Christ.But, if we do not address some foundational issues about the true nature of creation.....then we allow the enemy to teach our children, that creation wasn't creation, but just random purposeless chance.....if our children are taught there is no creation.....then they will believe there is no creator.....no God revealed through Christ....When I was a teen, I was taught naturalism......the so called scientific fact......it convinced me that nature did not require a creative agent......Later I discovered that it was no more than a lie.Let us be wise as serpants, but as gentle as doves.....learn and know the truth....so that when the enemy attacks with his only weapon...lies....we answer with loving truth.I guess what I'm trying to ask is.....(and doing an terrible job), is if the lord of lies convinces someone that the creator doesn't exist.....how can we tell him the good news?

Studyin'2Show
May 28th 2007, 01:41 PM
I have no trouble with science. I love science. I agree on all the testable data. What I disagree on is the conclusions that are drawn from the data. Teach the data to students. But to teach unproven conclusions is just plain wrong.

God Bless!

Luke34
May 28th 2007, 04:08 PM
I have no trouble with science. I love science. I agree on all the testable data. What I disagree on is the conclusions that are drawn from the data. Teach the data to students. But to teach unproven conclusions is just plain wrong.
God Bless!
How are elementary, middle and high school students supposed to be scientifically educated enough to draw useful conclusions from raw data? Would you give them Einstein's numbers and leave them to figure out the theory of general relativity?

Studyin'2Show
May 28th 2007, 05:30 PM
How are elementary, middle and high school students supposed to be scientifically educated enough to draw useful conclusions from raw data? Would you give them Einstein's numbers and leave them to figure out the theory of general relativity?I don't think there are many elementary, middle, or high school children qualified to study Einstein's theory on anything more than a very rudimentary level. It is something that isn't really delved into until a student reaches the college level as they begin to study in more career specific detail. That seems to be the point. Many evolutionists say that it is not necessary to study this issue until college.

teddyv
May 28th 2007, 06:06 PM
I don't think there are many elementary, middle, or high school children qualified to study Einstein's theory on anything more than a very rudimentary level.

I recall doing Special Relativity in Grade 11 physics. General relativity certainly seems limited to college/university level.


Many evolutionists say that it is not necessary to study this issue until college.

Can you clarify what you are referring to in this statement? I read it as evolution (in detail) is not required study until college/university level.

Luke34
May 28th 2007, 09:03 PM
I don't think there are many elementary, middle, or high school children qualified to study Einstein's theory on anything more than a very rudimentary level. It is something that isn't really delved into until a student reaches the college level as they begin to study in more career specific detail. That seems to be the point. Many evolutionists say that it is not necessary to study this issue until college.
It was just an example. But even in college, very few people are geniuses, which means very few could draw the same conclusions from the mathmatical data as Einstein did. Are they supposed to be ignorant of the theory just because to teach it is to teach a scientist's "interpretation" of the facts?

Studyin'2Show
May 28th 2007, 10:02 PM
How are elementary, middle and high school students supposed to be scientifically educated enough to draw useful conclusions from raw data? Would you give them Einstein's numbers and leave them to figure out the theory of general relativity?

I recall doing Special Relativity in Grade 11 physics. General relativity certainly seems limited to college/university level.

Can you clarify what you are referring to in this statement? I read it as evolution (in detail) is not required study until college/university level.That is quite the point. The comment on Einstein's theory was in response to Luke34's post referenced above. As to your question, many evolutionists believe evolution is done a disservice by teaching it so ineffectively before the college level. If it is going to be taught, let it be taught with the details necessary to understand the theory. At that point, students are in a position to more effectively separate fact from supposition.

The topic of this thread is based on the tie between evolutionary thinking and atheism. I don't think there is an assumption that everyone that believes in evolution is an atheist. Not at all. I believe most are well aware that many believers follow evolutionary thinking. However, what seems crystal clear is that almost without fail atheists seem to be ardent evolutionists. When you look at reactions like that of recent school shooters, who seem to completely misunderstand the concept of evolution thinking they are somehow, 'helping evolution along', do you think it may be a wise thing to hold off on teaching this concept until students get to advanced studies? Some advanced students may reach that level in high school, like you learning about special relativity, or me taking trigonometry or calculus; but the fact is that most will never need to learn trig, or calc, or evolutionary theory.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 28th 2007, 10:24 PM
The topic of this thread is based the tie between evolutionary thinking and atheism. I don't think there is an assumption that everyone that believes in evolution is an atheist. Not at all. I believe most are well aware that many believers follow evolutionary thinking. However, what seems crystal clear is that almost without fail atheists seem to be ardent evolutionists.

I would agree with that. Short of being in woo-woo land, an atheist by default would have to subscribe to evolutionary theory.


When you look at reactions like that of recent school shooters, who seem to completely misunderstand the concept of evolution thinking they are somehow, 'helping evolution along', do you think it may be a wise thing to hold off on teaching this concept until students get to advanced studies?

Who are you attributing the quote "helping evolution along" - the shooter themself or commenters about the shooter? (I have not done much reading on the VT incident). If this comment is attributed to the shooter I would not take that as a failing of education. It sounds more like a colloquial use, much as the "Darwin Awards". Unless you can supply some source of the quote with context.


Some advanced students may reach that level high school, like you learning about special relativity, or me taking trigonometry or calculus; but the fact is that most will never need to learn trig, or calc, or evolutionary theory.

God Bless!

Just because you don't use in daily life does not mean you should be ignorant of it. This is what really bothers me. In some Christian circles there seems to be a willful ignorance of science, and some almost seem proud of it!

Studyin'2Show
May 29th 2007, 12:00 AM
Who are you attributing the quote "helping evolution along" - the shooter themself or commenters about the shooter? (I have not done much reading on the VT incident). If this comment is attributed to the shooter I would not take that as a failing of education. It sounds more like a colloquial use, much as the "Darwin Awards". Unless you can supply some source of the quote with context.

Just because you don't use in daily life does not mean you should be ignorant of it. This is what really bothers me. In some Christian circles there seems to be a willful ignorance of science, and some almost seem proud of it!Actually, I wasn't referring solely to the VT shooting although he did make references to the Columbine shooters, one of which wore a t-shirt on that fateful day declaring 'Kicking Natural Selection up a few notches' which pretty much speaks for itself. I would link to a transcript of their video diaries but they are extremely vulgar so I won't nor do I think it's necessary to read them. My point is not that evolution is 'to blame' for the rise in school shootings, it is simply to notice the connection between those who have done this thing and their common misunderstandings concerning this topic.

No one has said that it is necessary to be ignorant of things we don't use everyday. BTW, most people never take triginometry or calculus. You seem to have the misunderstanding that all those who do not accept evolutionary conclusions have an aversion to science. I love science, and so do many others who do not accept evolutionary conclusions. There are geneticists, and biologists, and astronomers, and medical doctors, and many other post doctoral individuals that hold differing opinions from that. Please don't make comments that seem to imply that those who don't hold to your position somehow have a willful ignorance (your words) to science as this is just not true.

God Bless!

Luke34
May 29th 2007, 02:33 AM
Some advanced students may reach that level in high school, like you learning about special relativity, or me taking trigonometry or calculus; but the fact is that most will never need to learn trig, or calc, or evolutionary theory.
God Bless!
Evolution is such a central concept to biology that it would be pretty tough to get through even a basic high school biology class without the students at least having a rough idea of it, much less AP bio. They don't have to go into punctuated equlibrium debates or whatever, but they should at least know basically how evolution works and what its role has been in the planet's history.

teddyv
May 29th 2007, 02:43 AM
Actually, I wasn't referring solely to the VT shooting although he did make references to the Columbine shooters, one of which wore a t-shirt on that fateful day declaring 'Kicking Natural Selection up a few notches' which pretty much speaks for itself. I would link to a transcript of their video diaries but they are extremely vulgar so I won't nor do I think it's necessary to read them. My point is not that evolution is 'to blame' for the rise in school shootings, it is simply to notice the connection between those who have done this thing and their common misunderstandings concerning this topic.

No one has said that it is necessary to be ignorant of things we don't use everyday. BTW, most people never take triginometry or calculus. You seem to have the misunderstanding that all those who do not accept evolutionary conclusions have an aversion to science. I love science, and so do many others who do not accept evolutionary conclusions. There are geneticists, and biologists, and astronomers, and medical doctors, and many other post doctoral individuals that hold differing opinions from that. Please don't make comments that seem to imply that those who don't hold to your position somehow have a willful ignorance (your words) to science as this is just not true.

God Bless!

I was trying not to imply what I obviously did imply to you. I was spending some time trying to craft a reply that was not too broad, but obviously I failed. I can see in your words that you do love science. It was why I stated "in SOME Christian circles".

Anyway, this whole thing will probably justed turn into a heated agreement, and I think I've probably strayed well off the thread topic.:giveup:
Cheers.

watchinginawe
May 29th 2007, 04:11 AM
Evolution is such a central concept to biology that it would be pretty tough to get through even a basic high school biology class without the students at least having a rough idea of it, much less AP bio. They don't have to go into punctuated equlibrium debates or whatever, but they should at least know basically how evolution works and what its role has been in the planet's history.:hmm: How can biology classify some matter as living without implying a cause for how it became living in the first place? Is life just a natural state of matter? Can you answer this?

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
May 29th 2007, 01:14 PM
Evolution is such a central concept to biology that it would be pretty tough to get through even a basic high school biology class without the students at least having a rough idea of it, much less AP bio. They don't have to go into punctuated equlibrium debates or whatever, but they should at least know basically how evolution works and what its role has been in the planet's history.Why? What need will my accountant need to know of this theory as he does my taxes? Or my mechanic as he fixes my car? The fact is that biology should teach the data. The things that are known. The things that are reproducible. The organs, the blood, the skeletal systems of all the known species. Photosynthesis, pollenation, all the different species of plant life. Fungi, cell structure, cell division, there are so many factual things to teach concerning biology that have nothing to do with conjecture. There is no lack of information to teach. Truth is that the average biology class spends so much time dealing with evolution and leaving students more confused than they began, that they have to leave off very important studies to have room for it. Teach what's real! Teach what we all know, and leave the conjecture for the advance college labs.

Hey, teddyv. I am enjoying the dialogue and am in no way offended. I would genuinely like to know you're opinion on why so many who 'go off' tend to have a great misunderstanding of evolution that gives them a skewed view on the value of life. Do you think that saving the theory to be taught to those in advanced study who can better process the information might avoid this trend of misunderstanding a very complex theory?

God Bless!

teddyv
May 29th 2007, 03:52 PM
Hey, teddyv. I am enjoying the dialogue and am in no way offended. I would genuinely like to know you're opinion on why so many who 'go off' tend to have a great misunderstanding of evolution that gives them a skewed view on the value of life. Do you think that saving the theory to be taught to those in advanced study who can better process the information might avoid this trend of misunderstanding a very complex theory?

God Bless!

S2S,

I was starting to be a bit concerned that thinks might be moving into the controversial realm.

I'm sorry, but you will have to clarify the second sentence for me.

I will try and respond to this later as I've got to get some work done.:)

Cheers.

Studyin'2Show
May 29th 2007, 04:27 PM
I'm sorry, but you will have to clarify the second sentence for me.I'm trying to think of how to put it concisely. It seems uncanny how many of those people who are the shooters, have a skewed understanding of what the theory is about. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach all those things I mentioned like, organs, blood, cell structure, photosynthesis, etc. to the masses and save the theory of origins to those who choose to study on an advanced level? That would avoid much of the misunderstanding that is prevalent amongst the masses.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 29th 2007, 07:54 PM
I'm trying to think of how to put it concisely. It seems uncanny how many of those people who are the shooters, have a skewed understanding of what the theory is about. Wouldn't it be more effective to teach all those things I mentioned like, organs, blood, cell structure, photosynthesis, etc. to the masses and save the theory of origins to those who choose to study on an advanced level? That would avoid much of the misunderstanding that is prevalent amongst the masses.

God Bless!

OK, now I see what you were stating.

I really can't offer much because I don't know what the Columbine/VT, etc. etc. shooters really thought. I don't know if we can say they felt they were implementing some sort of natural selection. I think most of these people were generally disturbed, paranoid, bullied and were seeking revenge on the world. It could be summed up by the saying "kill them all and let God sort it out".

Your idea of saving the teaching of the complexities of evolution for higher education, which I would say already exists, is pointless due to the presence of the media, be it TV documentaries, movies and the internet. I think I would prefer my child to get the knowledge from school than from the internet. Further, education doesn't stop there. As parents we should be very involved in helping our kids understand what they learn from a Biblical view.

Finally, although I didn't take much biology during school/university, what I did take focussed on the things you think we should focus on (genetics, physiology, etc.). I do not even remember what was discussed with respect to evolution in my Biol 101 course. So ultimately I think your concern is not borne out in practice.

Joyfilled
May 29th 2007, 10:53 PM
Do people really believe the lie that we came from nothing and that there is no creator or are they just putting up a facade for some reason such as not wanting to follow or obey Him.

Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It seems to me from these verses that God has shown every man that He is real and hence people who say they believe there is no creator are really lieing and just putting up a front for some reason. Could it be that many of us Christians have fallen for this lie that they believe there is no creator when in fact they know there is a creator (for God has shown it unto them) and have just chosen not to obey or follow Him.

Yes, most people actually believe that monkeys can breed human descendants. :rofl:That just shows "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. " And indeed it is. ;)

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2007, 12:26 AM
Your idea of saving the teaching of the complexities of evolution for higher education, which I would say already exists, is pointless due to the presence of the media, be it TV documentaries, movies and the internet. I think I would prefer my child to get the knowledge from school than from the internet. Further, education doesn't stop there. As parents we should be very involved in helping our kids understand what they learn from a Biblical view.

Finally, although I didn't take much biology during school/university, what I did take focussed on the things you think we should focus on (genetics, physiology, etc.). I do not even remember what was discussed with respect to evolution in my Biol 101 course. So ultimately I think your concern is not borne out in practice.Did you go to school in the US? Just curious. I went to Catholic school and got plenty. I absolutely agree that parents should be involved in helping our kids understand such things, which my hubby and I do. Unfortunately, many parents are not educated in a way to be able to do that effectively. That's why I like being able to share information in this forum. I believe education is the key to dealing with these issues.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 30th 2007, 02:08 AM
Did you go to school in the US? Just curious. I went to Catholic school and got plenty. I absolutely agree that parents should be involved in helping our kids understand such things, which my hubby and I do. Unfortunately, many parents are not educated in a way to be able to do that effectively. That's why I like being able to share information in this forum. I believe education is the key to dealing with these issues.

God Bless!

I'm Canadian. I went to a small Christian elementary school (Gr 1-7), then public school for Gr 8-12.

Luke34
May 30th 2007, 03:27 PM
Why? What need will my accountant need to know of this theory as he does my taxes? Or my mechanic as he fixes my car?
You could probably say the same thing about almost any subject in the world.


The fact is that biology should teach the data. The things that are known. The things that are reproducible. The organs, the blood, the skeletal systems of all the known species. Photosynthesis, pollenation, all the different species of plant life. Fungi, cell structure, cell division, there are so many factual things to teach concerning biology that have nothing to do with conjecture.
One of them is evolution. (Evolution technically refers to the facts, such as development over time in living things, which the various theories of evolution attempt to explain. The one with practically universal scientific acceptance is of course Darwin's.) And evolution is neccessary to teach because many other things in biology are explained by it. If you're studying the anatomy of a whatever, if some kid asks why it has such-and-such a structure or feature, the answer is often because it evolved for some specific purpose. You can't just say that and then not explain what it means.


Yes, most people actually believe that monkeys can breed human descendants. That just shows "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. " And indeed it is.
I wouldn't say "most," but the people who do believe that do not understand evolution. If they attempted to start a discussion about how "monkeys had human descendents" with an evolutionary biologist, he would laugh at them. Heartily.

Studyin'2Show
May 30th 2007, 05:28 PM
You could probably say the same thing about almost any subject in the world.

One of them is evolution. (Evolution technically refers to the facts, such as development over time in living things, which the various theories of evolution attempt to explain. The one with practically universal scientific acceptance is of course Darwin's.) And evolution is neccessary to teach because many other things in biology are explained by it. If you're studying the anatomy of a whatever, if some kid asks why it has such-and-such a structure or feature, the answer is often because it evolved for some specific purpose. You can't just say that and then not explain what it means.

I wouldn't say "most," but the people who do believe that do not understand evolution. If they attempted to start a discussion about how "monkeys had human descendents" with an evolutionary biologist, he would laugh at them. Heartily.I disagree. We use the majority of our secondary elementary subjects in our adult life. We use everything from algebra to physics in everyday life. Most definitely! Everything from choosing the quickest route to get to work to knowing what cleaning supplies should and should not be used together. How we analyze current events hinges closely on our understanding of historical events, even our appreciation of art and music. That is the point of our education on that level; making us into well rounded individuals. It is not until, most times, our second or third year of college that we begin to study more specialized subjects that pertain solely to our desire course of advanced study.

Biology we would need to be well rounded would be a basic understanding of how things function; how the circulatory system works, different skeletal systems, cell properties, different plant and animal groups, etc. These are the things we ALL agree on. Why do we agree? Because these things can be tested, observed, studied, and repeated. This is true science. When we get to the point where evolution comes in, we have moved to conjecture. For example, we when we look at this data and at that data, it leads us to the conclusion .... As I have said before, we agree on the testable data, where we disagree is in the conclusions that are drawn from that data. As to how to answer if a child ask, for example, why we have five fingers, would be to say that why the hand is structured in such a way is so that we can pick stuff up :lol:. Seriously though, I know what you're asking. Tell them the truth; it's debatable! Most scientists believe such and such, while many others believe thus and so. No problem. ;)

Your last comment is quite the point. There is much too much misunderstanding. Save it for those who choose to specialize in evolutionary biology.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 30th 2007, 07:34 PM
...snip....
Seriously though, I know what you're asking. Tell them the truth; it's debatable! Most scientists believe such and such, while many others believe thus and so. No problem. ;)

Are you suggesting there is scientific debate on the issue? I don't think there is much debate on the theory, but rather on the details. If you can point out a specific alternate scientific theory to that of evolution (and I don't mean Intelligent Design).



Your last comment is quite the point. There is much too much misunderstanding. Save it for those who choose to specialize in evolutionary biology.

The misunderstanding is a big problem and your proposition to only deal with it in advanced studies will not address further misunderstanding because the information is always going to be flowing to others who don't understand it (which was a point I brought up earlier).

It makes sense to teach it earlier with proper critical analysis to kids when they are younger so they can be prepared when they invariably run into a lot of nonsense out there, especially on the web.

aliensyndm
May 30th 2007, 10:35 PM
I'm quite sure there will be plenty nonsense about evolution in text books and schools without having to resort to the web. (Yes I know you actually meant creationists talking nonsense about it.)
People aren't taught to think critically about it. They are taught "It definitely totally absolutely completely happened, now lets just talk about some of the details."
The line of thought people are taught is never to question the theory.
When a bit of evidence arises they are never taught to assess if it casts doubt on evolutionary theory, they are taught how to try and make evolution account for that piece of evidence.
There's no critical thinking there at all.

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2007, 03:00 AM
Are you suggesting there is scientific debate on the issue? I don't think there is much debate on the theory, but rather on the details. If you can point out a specific alternate scientific theory to that of evolution (and I don't mean Intelligent Design).

The misunderstanding is a big problem and your proposition to only deal with it in advanced studies will not address further misunderstanding because the information is always going to be flowing to others who don't understand it (which was a point I brought up earlier).

It makes sense to teach it earlier with proper critical analysis to kids when they are younger so they can be prepared when they invariably run into a lot of nonsense out there, especially on the web.If there are people with multiple doctorates in scientific fields like astronomy, biology, genetics and many, many other fields and they say they do not buy evolutionary thinking...I'd say that means the theory is debatable. In all actuality you would need only one qualified dissenter to qualify the issue as debatable and, fact is, there are thousands. Scientist who disagree, 'nuff said.

They teach it to kids from kindergarten on up. I know, I have one in kindergarten and one that just graduated (tonight, by the way :D). What are you talking about, they need to teach it earlier. I think you're missing the point completely. Here in the US they already have been teaching it forever and still mass confusion. Give it up! Save it for advanced college studies because truthfully, most people really don't care.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 31st 2007, 03:50 PM
If there are people with multiple doctorates in scientific fields like astronomy, biology, genetics and many, many other fields and they say they do not buy evolutionary thinking...I'd say that means the theory is debatable. In all actuality you would need only one qualified dissenter to qualify the issue as debatable and, fact is, there are thousands. Scientist who disagree, 'nuff said.

I don't want to be overly contentious, but all you have told me is that some scientists disagree, not why, and what other competing theory is out there. Disagreeing is one thing (that's the easy part), proposing something else is another thing.


They teach it to kids from kindergarten on up. I know, I have one in kindergarten and one that just graduated (tonight, by the way :D). What are you talking about, they need to teach it earlier. I think you're missing the point completely. Here in the US they already have been teaching it forever and still mass confusion. Give it up! Save it for advanced college studies because truthfully, most people really don't care.

Congrats on the graduations.

Maybe its a US thing, as I just do not see the same issues cropping up in the Canadian schools, both Christian and public. It certainly isn't part of the public debate as it has been in several US states. This may be a reason for our obvious different take on things.

Luke34
May 31st 2007, 05:04 PM
People aren't taught to think critically about it. They are taught "It definitely totally absolutely completely happened, now lets just talk about some of the details."
That's actually true: The whole of evolutionary biology is devoted to investigating the mechanisms, etc., of evolution, not whether it happened.


The line of thought people are taught is never to question the theory.
When a bit of evidence arises they are never taught to assess if it casts doubt on evolutionary theory, they are taught how to try and make evolution account for that piece of evidence.
That's what science is. If a piece of evidence arises that a current theory does not account for, you modify the theory to account for it. This makes for a better theory. It's not like "evolution" is some fixed concept that's never supposed to change, and if you do change it, you're cheating.



There's no critical thinking there at all.
Are schoolchildren supposed to "think critically" about scientific concepts they are taught in school that over 99% of qualified scientists in a relevant field accept as fact? What qualifies them to do this?

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2007, 05:52 PM
Are you suggesting there is scientific debate on the issue? I don't think there is much debate on the theory, but rather on the details. If you can point out a specific alternate scientific theory to that of evolution (and I don't mean Intelligent Design).

I don't want to be overly contentious, but all you have told me is that some scientists disagree, not why, and what other competing theory is out there. Disagreeing is one thing (that's the easy part), proposing something else is another thing.This is like saying, "What's your brother's name, and don't say Jason?" Then saying, "Why haven't you told me your brother's name?" :lol: Do you see the irony? Your original question was based on how I could call it debatable, not alternative theory. Think about it. Debatable means, still up for discussion; not - Hey, I've figured it all out. A definition that allows no discussion doesn't seem very scientific to me.

As far as I can see, the theories are on the same footing. Taking all the scientific data and using that data to state a theory. What seems to cause much confusion is that people think the ID theory is saying that an intelligent Creator designed every species as we see it today and that is not the case. Looking at genetics we can see there is much room for adaptation. However, when studying bacteria with a very short lifespans and therefore very short generations, that would easily equal millions of years of human time, we see that although there is much adaptation, it seems to simply go back and forth within certain parameters. Also, when looking at fossilized bacterium, we find that even in the fossil record there have no big jumps as would be expected if evolutionary theory were correct.

God Bless!

teddyv
May 31st 2007, 07:43 PM
This is like saying, "What's your brother's name, and don't say Jason?" Then saying, "Why haven't you told me your brother's name?" :lol: Do you see the irony? Your original question was based on how I could call it debatable, not alternative theory. Think about it. Debatable means, still up for discussion; not - Hey, I've figured it all out. A definition that allows no discussion doesn't seem very scientific to me.

As far as I can see, the theories are on the same footing. Taking all the scientific data and using that data to state a theory. What seems to cause much confusion is that people think the ID theory is saying that an intelligent Creator designed every species as we see it today and that is not the case. Looking at genetics we can see there is much room for adaptation. However, when studying bacteria with a very short lifespans and therefore very short generations, that would easily equal millions of years of human time, we see that although there is much adaptation, it seems to simply go back and forth within certain parameters. Also, when looking at fossilized bacterium, we find that even in the fossil record there have no big jumps as would be expected if evolutionary theory were correct.

God Bless!

I don't know if I can address this as I reviewed the rules in the sticky in this forum and I think we are drifting off the purpose of this forum and this particular topic likely belongs in the Controversial section. Since I'm still fairly new, I cannot access that forum.

Basically, I will say that I respectfully disagree that evolution and ID are on the same footing.

Cheers.:)

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2007, 10:15 PM
I don't know if I can address this as I reviewed the rules in the sticky in this forum and I think we are drifting off the purpose of this forum and this particular topic likely belongs in the Controversial section. Since I'm still fairly new, I cannot access that forum.

Basically, I will say that I respectfully disagree that evolution and ID are on the same footing.

Cheers.:)Too bad. I look forward to discussing the topic further once you have been a member for the required time period to access the 'Controversial Issues' forum. ;) So, let me see if we can steer this discussion back. The OP has to do with the LIE of evolution and atheism, right? So, if you are a believer, you would have to see God in evolution. Well, atheists don't. They see each of us as a random act of nature. Survival of the fittest simply means that the stronger kills the weaker, even on the human level. What always surprises me is that Christians who believe as you do, seem to see Christian who believe as I do almost as enemies. Whether we agree or not we should see each other as allies. We all need to focus on showing unbelievers that God is in the process. How do you think it would improve evangelism if believers on opposite sides of this issue would stop seeing each other as adversaries? Also, do you think it is necessary for believers to agree on this issue? Do you believe that if Christians all of a sudden stopped believing in literal Genesis creation that the world would come to Christ?

God Bless!

teddyv
May 31st 2007, 10:50 PM
Too bad. I look forward to discussing the topic further once you have been a member for the required time period to access the 'Controversial Issues' forum. ;) So, let me see if we can steer this discussion back. The OP has to do with the LIE of evolution and atheism, right? So, if you are a believer, you would have to see God in evolution. Well, atheists don't. They see each of us as a random act of nature. Survival of the fittest simply means that the stronger kills the weaker, even on the human level. What always surprises me is that Christians who believe as you do, seem to see Christian who believe as I do almost as enemies. Whether we agree or not we should see each other as allies. We all need to focus on showing unbelievers that God is in the process. How do you think it would improve evangelism if believers on opposite sides of this issue would stop seeing each other as adversaries? Also, do you think it is necessary for believers to agree on this issue? Do you believe that if Christians all of a sudden stopped believing in literal Genesis creation that the world would come to Christ?

God Bless!

Rest assured, I do not view "you" (or other Christians) as my adversary. I do not consider that believing in a literal 6-day creation, or whatever, is a salvation issue and no, the world would not suddenly repent and come to Christ.

If we as Christians, however can understand the boundaries of religion/faith and science and scientific inquiry, I think we would be able to better witness to atheists (especially scientists), who consider that attempting to scientifically explain a God-originated universe/creation is unscientific and futile. Right now, atheists are mocking the creationists and ID'ers.

I'd like to find some more information to more explain my issues with theories like ID, but I'll have to research a bit.

Cheers.

Studyin'2Show
May 31st 2007, 11:21 PM
Rest assured, I do not view "you" (or other Christians) as my adversary. I do not consider that believing in a literal 6-day creation, or whatever, is a salvation issue and no, the world would not suddenly repent and come to Christ.

If we as Christians, however can understand the boundaries of religion/faith and science and scientific inquiry, I think we would be able to better witness to atheists (especially scientists), who consider that attempting to scientifically explain a God-originated universe/creation is unscientific and futile. Right now, atheists are mocking the creationists and ID'ers.

I'd like to find some more information to more explain my issues with theories like ID, but I'll have to research a bit.

Cheers.I agree that anyone attempting to scientifically explain God has taken on an impossible task. Is that what you feel those who believe as I do are attempting to do? No, not at all. God's word is clear that it takes faith to please God, not scientific proof. I assure you, that is not what creationists and ID'ers are attempting to do. I even know of those who are ID'ers who are not believers. They do not question evolutionary ideas because of some preconceived religious belief but because they see evolution like a bad case of circumstancial evidence. But let me not take this back to the Contro discussion. You mentioned that atheists are mocking us. Did they not mock our Lord? I say it's good company. Curiously, do you not realize that when given the opportunity, they mock you even more? Although they think we are just too stupid to know any better, they feel you should be intelligent enough to know better. But who cares what they think. Those whom God calls will hear His voice. Believe it or not, there are many former atheists here and ironically, many are creationists now. Go figure!

BTW, I didn't move away from evolutionary belief to where I am now because of some preconceived religious notions; quite the contrary. I became a believer at 31 and did not move toward literal creation until 34 (I'm 39 now). Quite honestly, the more I study scientifically, the more I become firm in my understanding of creation. Not because the scientists tell me what I should get from the data, but because I look at all the data rationally and solely based on that data I have come to this conclusion.

God Bless!

cwb
Jun 1st 2007, 07:51 PM
The misunderstanding is a big problem and your proposition to only deal with it in advanced studies will not address further misunderstanding because the information is always going to be flowing to others who don't understand it (which was a point I brought up earlier).

It makes sense to teach it earlier with proper critical analysis to kids when they are younger so they can be prepared when they invariably run into a lot of nonsense out there, especially on the web.


The problem is that in alot of schools evolution is taught as a fact and not a theory. I know that is how my high school teacher taught it. He basically taught that evolution means that there can be no creator and anybody believing the bible are foolish and ignorant. There are many pre-college teachers who teach evolution in this manner. At least I have talked to quite a few people who have had the same experience as me from their high school biology teacher.

I would agree with you that it would make sense to teach it to kid with "proper critical analysis" when they are young. That is not what is being done though. Instead there are many atheistic science teachers shoving their own beliefs down kid's throats and I believe that is very unfortunate.

A Seeker
Jun 13th 2007, 06:14 PM
I even know of those who are ID'ers who are not believers. They do not question evolutionary ideas because of some preconceived religious belief but because they see evolution like a bad case of circumstancial evidence



interesting to hear you say that. Something i've always wondered about the Intelligent design vs Creationalist debate. Where are the scientists in the middle?

If there ARE big fat holes in the evolutionary model (which i think there are) why are there not loads of ATHEIST scientists who say "this theory does not work but i don't know why"? I have never come across anyone who has a problem with evolution who is NOT a Christian. And i know a LOT of scientists! I don't buy that this is because When they decided evolution did'nt work they ALL converted to Christianity. Finding a hole in a scientific theory tends to prompt people to find a new theory rather than instantly accept a supernatural explanation.

It seems slightly as if the Creationalist scientist community sits on one wall and the Evolutionist scienctist community sits on the other and almost nobody exists in the middle.


I also don't accept that all the Evolutionist scientists "toe the line" because darwinism is the dominant view. As a scientist (bio-mechanist actually) by trade i can say that as a rule scientists will try desparatly to disprove any theory. It's what we do best, we prove things wrong. Why are there no Anti evolution scientists who are not creationalists?

Just a thought:hmm:

BTW i liked what somebody said about this not being a crucial issue. Interesting yes, but i can't see anyone being turned onto or off of christianity on account of this.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 13th 2007, 08:33 PM
interesting to hear you say that. Something i've always wondered about the Intelligent design vs Creationalist debate. Where are the scientists in the middle?There actually are many who have varying ideas concerning origins. Alternate theories just don't get very much press. It's sort of like watching the evening news. You come away thinking that everything that's happening is bad when in reality for every person committing crimes there are thousands that are not.

Here's a link to an excellent documentary that shows many scientists who question the theory. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&q=unlocking+the+mystery+of+life It is easy to watch and either a scientist or a lay person will be able to stay interested in this film. It is put together in a most excellent fashion. It is 67 minutes but it doesn't bore at all and is well worth the watch. Plus you can always hit pause and come back to it.


Here's a link to a list of over 700 scientists who have had the courage to step out and publicly speak out against evolution. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Evolutionists have come out with a mock list of scientist named Steve who believe in evolution to distract from the issue. The FACT is that not every scientist buys into the party line.


Here a link to an article from Monday's Boston Globe titled 'Evolution and Dissent' http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/06/11/evolution_and_dissent/

The above article also makes a reference to Guillermo Gonzalez, a highly accomplished astronomer, who had been published at least 68 times in scientific journals and even wrote an astronomy textbook. However, he was denied tenure this year because he is an IDer. It's no wonder more don't come out of the closet, so to speak.


Here's a link to a story by NPR on an evolutionist that found himself blacklisted, not because he supported ID, but simply because he published an article by someone who is an ID proponent. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508

I hope you find the information interesting.

God Bless!

A Seeker
Jun 14th 2007, 04:29 PM
It's sort of like watching the evening news. You come away thinking that everything that's happening is bad when in reality for every person committing crimes there are thousands that are not


I hear that!

Thats some very interesting information S2S! Thanks for putting it up. I shall wade through it when i have the leisure. I've been enjoying www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) a lot. Don't agree with all of it but there's some good stuff very well laid out! Sometime "Christian Science" has an inferiority complex which makes its proponents a little too aggressive and it loses it's scientific respectability. For me Lee Stobel is a good example of this. It's nice to find some sources which avoid this trap.

Personally i have yet to reach a descision. I see good arguments on both sides and remain open minded.