 Posted Saturday, February 05, 2005 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
In case anyone would like to pick up on the mention of evolution in the "Getting past hatred, getting on with life" thread, here's a place to do it.
From the "Getting past hatred, getting on with life" thread:
Do_Go_Be_Man Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:03 AM
Broncho,
These are all normal feelings. We were designed through evolution to have these feelings . . .
I agree that feelings are normal, but want to head off the "designed through evolution" issue. I'm probably not alone here in discounting evolution in favor of God's design . . .
Gail Saturday, February 05, 2005 11:57 AM
In all respect to Do-Go- I really don't feel that this thread ("Getting past hatred, getting on with life") is the proper place to start on the Evolution /God's design discussion.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 05, 2005 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Do Go be Man,
Your stance on evolution is a little vague to me. Evolution is a natural tendency of organisms to adapt to their conditionsk an established foundation of much of modern life sciences. It has past the tests, you can no longer do the life sciences without it.
If it is "design," God has wiped out the vast amount of species that have ever existed--a sort of biological Massacre of the Innocents.
Where is God in that?
Broncho
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 05, 2005 7:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Broncho,
Evolution is a natural tendency of organisms to adapt to their conditionsk an established foundation of much of modern life sciences. It has past the tests, you can no longer do the life sciences without it.
As a CSist, I subscribed to MBE's stance on evolution:
MBE did not seem to have much problem with evolution as an explanation for the mortal world - May not Darwin be right in thinking that apehood preceded mortal manhood? S&H 543:18-20
In its history of mortality, Darwin's theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories. Briefly, this is Darwin's theory,--that Mind produces its opposite, matter, and endues matter with power to recreate the universe, including man. Material evolution implies that the great First Cause must become material, and afterwards must either return to Mind or go down into dust and nothingness. - S&H 547:15-22
By the way, Louis Agassiz who was mentioned in the same paragraph as Darwin is known to have opposed evolution. Another MBE contemporary, Louis Pasteur, also strongly opposed the theory of evolution.
Modern life sciences in the time of Joseph believed the brain to be the only part of the body not worth preserving. Dr. Semmelweis was nearly laughed out of his profession when he suggested the link between hand washing and mortality rates in maternity wards. The fact that something is an established foundation holds little impact for me. The world is not flat nor is it the center of the universe, theories that once upon time passed every known test.
Evolution is a theory not a law. As a Christian and average thinking person, I cannot fail to marvel at God's designs. Sitting in a doctor's exam room the other day looking at some anatomy posters, I was fascinated by the incredible amount of intelligent engineering design represented by the human body. I have not been convinced that resulted from any kind of chaotic evolution regardless of the millenia involved.
One famous example of evolution, England's Peppered Moths was long used to demonstrate the truth of evolution. As the story is now known, evidence was faked and the impact of pollution was not accounted for. Scratch one proof.
I'm not a wild-eyed anti-evolutionist. I haven't, however, seen the evidence that would prove it to me though I have examined what has proported to be evidence. For example, where are the transitional species? Neither living species nor the fossil record account for the evolutional transitions that common interpretations of Darwin's work would indicate should exist or have existed. There is less variation in the DNA of every human that has ever lived than among a single tribe of chimps.
If you'd like to consider the possibility that the theory of evolution requires some critical thought, Answers in Genesis is a good place to start.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 12:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Do Go Be Man,
Part of my being a non-Christian Scientist is not having to deny away what is real. In the scientific world, evolution works, is useful, and is continually in the process of being refined. The nice thing about modern science, in contrast to earlier science is that things get in by empirical means--reproducible results. I used to tell my husband that I don't believe in science because it has been "wrong" through so much of the world's history; then, he would reply that it is self-correcting.
I heard a talk about literal interpretation of the Bible in our adult education at church. I think evolution may be important to some people because they use the Bible literally--even as a science textbook. I see it as a way to encounter God. I let the scientists do science.
Broncho
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Broncho,
Part of my being a non-Christian Scientist is not having to deny away what is real.
I don't want to see this issue become a great controversy or cause division (see Proverbs 11:29), but for the reason you stated I do encourage you to examine the alternatives to evolution. As I said, once upon a time I too believed it to be as good a way to explain life on Earth as any. I no longer believe that because I examined the alternative science that caused me to reconsider. Evolution does not answer simple questions like what happened to the transitional species.
Dinosaur study is an excellent example of how scientists constantly must revise their theories of evolution to adapt facts to theory. My concerns about the near universal acceptance of evolution initially had more to do with science and engineering than a literal acceptance of the Bible. I find it interesting, however, that after the near universal acceptance that dinosaurs were ancient lizards that many scientists now lean towards their kinship with birds. Note the first species named in Genesis - Genesis 1:20.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Do_Go:
This week's Newsweek has a section titled "Doubting Darwin" all about this new Intelligent Design theory. Sounds like gobbledegook to me. I'm sure you can get it on the net....and explain it all to us?
Nyoka
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Nyoka,
Thanks, I'm checking on it. In the meantime, here's the link for anyone interested - Doubting Darwin. Don't know yet if it's good or bad from any perspective.
A thought just occurred to me. When I read Origin of the Species for myself, I got a sense that Darwin doubted himself far more than his modern disciples.
I wonder why so many people are willing to acknowledge the beautiful design they call evolution and give the credit to "Nature" or chaos, but not to God.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Okay, I read the article. It's fairly lightweight. Essentially, Intelligent Design explains the observations interpreted by some to prove evolution using the factor of an Intelligent Designer (God). What's called Darwinism explains those observations through random force.
Perhaps you find it as hard to believe that it was God that created life as I do that all living things evolved from some primordial goo. As a Christian, I have to believe that God is the Creator that His design was intelligent and planned. I believe that God documented His Creation in His word. I find that explanation much easier to comprehend than some spark of energy hitting some ooze of the right mix of amino acids at just the right time, temperature, and pressure.
Natural selection as documented by Darwin is not much of an issue. Variation is part of God's design. The problem is explaining how species got from ooze to man without leaving evidence of the steps in between.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go Be Man posted that the biblical
"explanation much easier to comprehend than some spark of energy hitting some ooze of the right mix of amino acids at just the right time, temperature, and pressure."
Ockam's razor does not apply here. Whether we find something convenient or not to believe should not be the criteria for truth.
I wish people who talk about evolution would realize that Darwin's contribution is very old and, in the tradition of self-correction, has been superceded in many areas (catastrophism is now coming back into fashion for example) as more of the fossil record is revealed.
The new developments in DNA study promise to reveal a great deal about origins.
I am able to accept difficult, counter to Scripture ideas when they are presented as well as evolution has been. It is just not something that people outside of science discuss. It is only literal bible people who seem to be talking about it and their "science" is pretty weak.
I hope everybody realizes this is the question for religion in our time. I still find it hard to believe it is intelligent for so many species to belly up. How is that intelligent?
Broncho
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 06, 2005 2:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Bronco,
Evolution is a natural tendency of organisms to adapt to their conditionsk an established foundation of much of modern life sciences. It has past the tests, you can no longer do the life sciences without it.
If it is "design," God has wiped out the vast amount of species that have ever existed--a sort of biological Massacre of the Innocents.
Where is God in that?
I think I've missed part of the conversation on this. But, if the Bible is correct then evolution is false and both secular evolutionists and Christians who believe that God uses evolution to produce His creation are wrong. Evolution of species involves death. Yet Romans 5:12 tells us, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." For evolution to work, death had to be in operation before Adam sinned. So either evolution or Romans 5:12 is false. There's no mixing them together.
As far as not being able to do the life sciences without evolution, just ask all the six day creationists involved in those fields (like Bernard d'Abera - world's foremost authority on Butterflies; Raymond Damadian - inventor of the MRI medical imaging system; and Gary Bates - heart surgeon to name a few) if they agree! 
Evolution is a theory that has been unravelling very quickly since the late 1980's. It is now on the life support of wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|