or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

christians-evolution - Page 2

post #21 of 118
The theory of evolution does not discuss how the world began. Evolution discusses change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next and how this process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Abiogenesis is the study of the question of how life may have began from non-life. The big bang theory is a model of the universe that shows how the universe started and expanded, and created the solar system, our galaxy, etc.

Pretty much all of biology and natural sciences base their studies on the theory of evolution. Big Bang is mostly a field of study for astronomical and mathematical scientists. (in other words, for the really nerdy ) Abiogenesis is a field of study for the natural scientists. All three are mind bending in nature, and require years of study to truly comprehend, because they are so immense, especially the study of evolution. These just aren't theories you can learn in a day, week or semester.

I just wanted to clarify what evolution is, because I've heard soooo many people say that evolution explained how life or the universe began or how the world was created, and that's not what it's about at all. They are seperate fields of study. HTH
post #22 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
The theory of evolution does not discuss how the world began. Evolution discusses change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next and how this process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Abiogenesis is the study of the question of how life may have began from non-life. The big bang theory is a model of the universe that shows how the universe started and expanded, and created the solar system, our galaxy, etc.

Pretty much all of biology and natural sciences base their studies on the theory of evolution. Big Bang is mostly a field of study for astronomical and mathematical scientists. (in other words, for the really nerdy ) Abiogenesis is a field of study for the natural scientists. All three are mind bending in nature, and require years of study to truly comprehend, because they are so immense, especially the study of evolution. These just aren't theories you can learn in a day, week or semester.

I just wanted to clarify what evolution is, because I've heard soooo many people say that evolution explained how life or the universe began or how the world was created, and that's not what it's about at all. They are seperate fields of study. HTH

Amen.
post #23 of 118
Thread Starter 
yeah, i know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
The theory of evolution does not discuss how the world began. Evolution discusses change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next and how this process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Abiogenesis is the study of the question of how life may have began from non-life. The big bang theory is a model of the universe that shows how the universe started and expanded, and created the solar system, our galaxy, etc.

Pretty much all of biology and natural sciences base their studies on the theory of evolution. Big Bang is mostly a field of study for astronomical and mathematical scientists. (in other words, for the really nerdy ) Abiogenesis is a field of study for the natural scientists. All three are mind bending in nature, and require years of study to truly comprehend, because they are so immense, especially the study of evolution. These just aren't theories you can learn in a day, week or semester.

I just wanted to clarify what evolution is, because I've heard soooo many people say that evolution explained how life or the universe began or how the world was created, and that's not what it's about at all. They are seperate fields of study. HTH
post #24 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
Where is this science proving the world is 5,000 years old? I'd like to see it. Thanks.
answersingenesis.com has a lot of information about young earth creation, if you would really like to see it.
post #25 of 118
subbing :
post #26 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffanie3 View Post
answersingenesis.com has a lot of information about young earth creation, if you would really like to see it.
Well, she asked about the science, and answersingenesis.com is anything but. Sorry.
post #27 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbeth View Post
Well, she asked about the science, and answersingenesis.com is anything but. Sorry.
How's that?
post #28 of 118
I'll have to disagree that answersingensis does not have scientific information on their website. They have plenty of other stuff, too, but the site is dedicated to helping Christians answer the question "How was the world created" scientifically. They go to great lengths to use science to prove their points.

This might be the worse possible analogy but here goes. When I started reading about birthing, about how interventions (EFM, vag. exams, etc.), even seemingly innocuous interventions were unnecessary and potentially harmful it came together in my mind so easily. I read that I could birth w/o being in the hospital w/a needle in my back AND w/o a dr.! It just made sense! I bought it all hook, line and sinker. Plus, the research was there to prove that I was making good, safe choices for me and the baby. So I have my babies at home w/mws. However, I'm in a minority with my birth choices. Even if you birth in a hospital w/o meds you are in the minority. The masses simply don't buy into most of our (on MDC) line of logic REGARDLESS of the research.

So then I came to creationism w/homeschooling. What to do? I'm a Christian but who honestly can believe that God whipped everything up in six days, end of story? I began to read and question. My mom was less than thrilled that I would question the authoratitive text of The Bible but I need facts sometimes. For a second I thought maybe she was right. I believe, I have faith, but I just love it when archaeologists or scientists find something that can only be explained by a divine creator or that proves that an event in The Bible happened just as it is written, yk? I think questions are great and I believe the answers are in the Bible and science. I don't find the two contradictory at all. Sure, there are some over zealous Christian scientists who are reaching w/their data BUT there are other Christian scientists who have studied, researched, and written excellent books on the topic.

So my point is there is scientific research to support creationism. However, b/c the scientific community would implode if they recognized a Divine Creator, they prefer to continue to tell the masses Christian scientists have it wrong - their quacks or their research is actually not as "scientific" as theirs is. And that's just not true. It's actually very similiar to what an MD might tell a first time, uninformed mother - No honey, you don't want to pass up the epidural, etc. You have to dig. The information is there.

And in the end - we're still not all going to agree I look at my education as a continuum - I read, experience, learn, question, then something else comes along and turns it upside down again. That happened with my birthing, too.

April
post #29 of 118
I haven't read the entire thread but as a Roman Catholic, I have not conflict between natural selection and my Faith. Faith begins where reason ends and these days that is empirical science... and I accept evolution.

Remember there are two versions of the creation story in the bible--

So our Holy story isn't factual but literary by design.

Faith begins where reason ends. Period.

I don't have a problem teaching evolution to my children. It doesn't change the fact that God picked up some earth and Breathed his Life-Breath into and and Created man.

And if you want to be really fundamental about it, then read it in Hebrew. Then come back and talk to me about it.
post #30 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfinbaby View Post
I'll have to disagree that answersingensis does not have scientific information on their website. They have plenty of other stuff, too, but the site is dedicated to helping Christians answer the question "How was the world created" scientifically. They go to great lengths to use science to prove their points.
Again, there is no science on that website. It's a crock of lies and misinformation meant for people who never learned real science (or who tried to learn it but their parents kept them ignorant). You want REAL science? You'll find it here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery
These are the databases/programs that real scientists use everyday.

I'm sorry, but as a former researcher in genetics, it makes me steamed to hear about children whose curiosity leads them to want to learn science, but instead their parents feed them answersingenesis CRAP. I just want to cry.
post #31 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfinbaby View Post
So my point is there is scientific research to support creationism. However, b/c the scientific community would implode if they recognized a Divine Creator, they prefer to continue to tell the masses Christian scientists have it wrong - their quacks or their research is actually not as "scientific" as theirs is. And that's just not true. It's actually very similiar to what an MD might tell a first time, uninformed mother - No honey, you don't want to pass up the epidural, etc. You have to dig. The information is there.
April
This is entirely incorrect. The scientific community would not implode if they recognized a divinity. Many, many scientists in the past and now are devout, religious people. Galileo was a devout Catholic who has the misfortune of using his brain, making a discovery and then telling people about it. He was silenced and had to live out his last years under house arrest under the Inquisition. It took the Catholic Church until 1992 to express regret for his treatment, and that yes, his heliocentric theory was correct. Copernicus was a Catholic priest, and made significant strides in astronomy and mathematics. His work was censured during Galileo's time. Benjamin Franklin was a deist. Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, was a devout Anglican until her death, and even help draft much of the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. Rosalyn S. Yalow, a Jewish woman, won the Nobel prize for her work in nuclear physics.

From http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/science.htm :
Quote:
Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.
and:

Quote:
There is a tremendous tradition of distinguished scientists who were and are Christians. I hope that my work is considered sufficiently outstanding to fall into the distinguished among that category. I also hope I have given you enough evidence that you will never again believe that it is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian.
post #32 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Ultimately, when my children are old enough to understand, I will teach them the philosophy behind secular science as a whole, and how it is fundamentally flawed. Rather than just focussing in on evolution, I will show them how secular science of any kind, when challenged, cannot philosophically defend itself, and how on the other hand Christianity provides a cohesive worldview through which most scientific theory and practice can be logically and philosophically justified. A complicated task, which will be much more demanding than simply saying 'We're Christians, we don't believe this' or flinging them a copy of Creation magazine; but a necessary one, I think. Most Christians are simply not philosophically competent, which leads them to think in secular terms and believe that the evidence for 'the other side' is overwhelming.
Would you mind sharing how secular science cannot philosophically defend itself? I'm ridiculously curious.
post #33 of 118
Quote:
Would you mind sharing how secular science cannot philosophically defend itself? I'm ridiculously curious.
Basically, because it takes empiricism as its epistemological foundation (which is self-refuting), and then claims that using empiricism and induction (which is logically flawed, as Hume has shown) it can produce knowledge (according to the Platonic definition), which is simply not the case.
post #34 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Basically, because it takes empiricism as its epistemological foundation (which is self-refuting), and then claims that using empiricism and induction (which is logically flawed, as Hume has shown) it can produce knowledge (according to the Platonic definition), which is simply not the case.
Can you please use simpler words, give examples, things like that? I'm too lazy to use a dictionary. :
post #35 of 118
Again, sugarbeth, I'll politely disagree. Regardless of your description of people who believe in Christian scientists and texts that are available on answersin genesis, I consider myself an intelligient, thoughtful, and discerning reader. There's nothing to cry about. I spent alot of time figuring this out for myself and I'm both happy and comfortable with the conclusion I have reached.

Equuskia, of course there are Christian scientists that may not have a problem operating in the scientific community. I may have misspoke. However, I think there are plenty of Christian scientists who support creationism that are not respected in the scientific community. Am I mistaken that the examples of scientists you gave have been honored for their research in other areas? Not in creation science?

It's okay that we disagree or that someone thinks I'm ignorant for believing creation as God wrote it. I don't mind. I have found my truth and it didn't come from my Sunday school teacher. I read and studied and prayed.

April
post #36 of 118
Fallacy of Language - Technical Jargon:

Use of specialized terms to undermine another's ability to understand you and, therefore, be able to disagree with you.

When someone asks a question, do you always feel the need to make your response as inaccessible as possible, or should I consider myself special?

I am not a philosopher, but rather a budding mathematician. Thus, the only logic of which I have a firm understanding is symbolic. That being said, I do have a dictionary. As such, I am going to do my best to rephrase your argument in layman's terms:

You can never really know anything.
post #37 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by elfinbaby View Post
Equuskia, of course there are Christian scientists that may not have a problem operating in the scientific community. I may have misspoke. However, I think there are plenty of Christian scientists who support creationism that are not respected in the scientific community. Am I mistaken that the examples of scientists you gave have been honored for their research in other areas? Not in creation science?
April
Many of these scientists were not honored at the time of their research/discoveries. Many were scorned, ridiculed, silenced and even killed. And most of this scorn and ridicule was not from the scientific community, but from the Church and/or govt.

And let's take Darwin, since he is the subject of debate here. Now, Darwin was not the first to propose that species evolve. Greek and Roman atomists, one of the most notable being Lucretius, who wrote On the Nature of Things, which in part explained atomic matter. On to Democritus, who refined the atomic theory and proposed that creatures were made of these atoms. Sextus, amongst other philosophers, blamed Democritus for the idea that it was man that created gods, and not the other way around.

Quote:
Some people think that we arrived at the idea of gods from the remarkable things that happen in the world. Democritus ... says that the people of ancient times were frightened by happenings in the heavens such as thunder, lightning, ..., and thought that they were caused by gods. (Sextus)
Now, in Medieval times, Christians had complete faith in the biblical recount of creation (which, really is not original because there are similar accounts from prior cultures, but that's another beast for another time), including the belief of "created kinds" (Baraminology). After the Protestant reformation and the invention of the press, which allowed wider access to the bible, more literal interpretations were used. Naturalists such as Carolus Linnaeus categorized an enormous number of species, and a new belief was developed that God created an original pair of every species, and that nature and social order was fixed. Nothing just happened naturally or spontaneously.

Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, proposed that species were of common descent, and acquired "new parts" to adapt to stimuli and passed these on to its offspring. During this time, Robert Hooke was discovering fossils and linking them to extinct species. Strides were made in geology thanks to James Hutton and his uniformitarian theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory similar to Erasmus Darwin and named it transmutation (avoiding the word evolution, which had a different meaning at the time).

Now England was starting to get real unhappy, because it was threatening the hierarchical social order. Natural history in English universities was dominated by clergy trained by the Church of England. Some of these theories, like Hooke's fossils, were modified to fit in with biblical accounts.

So, in comes Charles Darwin. He studied the theories by Lamarck and his grandfather Erasmus. He also studied theology and was convinced of William Paley's argument of "design" by a Creator. He studied many other works as well, before his famous trip to the Galapagos and the discovery of the finches. He published his findings, which were pressed and sold various times.

Darwin was severely ridiculed (complete with cartoons) because of his theories. Some considered his theories tantamount to atheism, and Charles Hodge stated that evolution did not seem to originate from a divine source. Notice that Darwin never stated what was the source, it is other people who stated that his theory was atheist. "Survival of the fittest" is another phrase that is attributed to Darwin, but was printed in his fifth edition and credited to philosopher Herbert Spencer. It is also important to separate Darwin's work from Alfred Wallace's work, who did similar studies and also wrote a book titled The Origin of Species.

The historian of science Peter J. Bowler has suggested that many of the "implications" attributed to Darwinism had little to do with Darwin's theories themselves. Many of the so-called "Darwinists" of the late-nineteenth century, such as Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel, were actually very non-Darwinian in many aspects of their thought and theory, and even the biggest supporters of Darwin, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, were suspicious as to whether natural selection was really what caused evolution. Nevertheless, Darwin became quickly identified with evolution in general and hailed as the figurehead of many conceptual changes in both science and society, whether or not all of these ideas were stated explicitly or at all in Darwin's work itself.

Darwin's achievements were fourfold: Firstly, to propose a credible mechanism (natural selection); secondly, to provide a great deal of new evidence for evolution; thirdly, to present his ideas in a compelling book; and fourthly, to ally with other highly motivated and influential biologists and philosophers in a concerted effort to publicize and advocate his ideas. On every point, Darwin was successful.

About 99.8% of natural scientists acknowledge that there are scientific theories that support evolution. It is considered a fact as well as a theory. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:

Quote:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
post #38 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equuskia View Post
Many of these scientists were not honored at the time of their research/discoveries. Many were scorned, ridiculed, silenced and even killed. And most of this scorn and ridicule was not from the scientific community, but from the Church and/or govt.

And let's take Darwin, since he is the subject of debate here. Now, Darwin was not the first to propose that species evolve. Greek and Roman atomists, one of the most notable being Lucretius, who wrote On the Nature of Things, which in part explained atomic matter. On to Democritus, who refined the atomic theory and proposed that creatures were made of these atoms. Sextus, amongst other philosophers, blamed Democritus for the idea that it was man that created gods, and not the other way around.



Now, in Medieval times, Christians had complete faith in the biblical recount of creation (which, really is not original because there are similar accounts from prior cultures, but that's another beast for another time), including the belief of "created kinds" (Baraminology). After the Protestant reformation and the invention of the press, which allowed wider access to the bible, more literal interpretations were used. Naturalists such as Carolus Linnaeus categorized an enormous number of species, and a new belief was developed that God created an original pair of every species, and that nature and social order was fixed. Nothing just happened naturally or spontaneously.

Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, proposed that species were of common descent, and acquired "new parts" to adapt to stimuli and passed these on to its offspring. During this time, Robert Hooke was discovering fossils and linking them to extinct species. Strides were made in geology thanks to James Hutton and his uniformitarian theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory similar to Erasmus Darwin and named it transmutation (avoiding the word evolution, which had a different meaning at the time).

Now England was starting to get real unhappy, because it was threatening the hierarchical social order. Natural history in English universities was dominated by clergy trained by the Church of England. Some of these theories, like Hooke's fossils, were modified to fit in with biblical accounts.

So, in comes Charles Darwin. He studied the theories by Lamarck and his grandfather Erasmus. He also studied theology and was convinced of William Paley's argument of "design" by a Creator. He studied many other works as well, before his famous trip to the Galapagos and the discovery of the finches. He published his findings, which were pressed and sold various times.

Darwin was severely ridiculed (complete with cartoons) because of his theories. Some considered his theories tantamount to atheism, and Charles Hodge stated that evolution did not seem to originate from a divine source. Notice that Darwin never stated what was the source, it is other people who stated that his theory was atheist. "Survival of the fittest" is another phrase that is attributed to Darwin, but was printed in his fifth edition and credited to philosopher Herbert Spencer. It is also important to separate Darwin's work from Alfred Wallace's work, who did similar studies and also wrote a book titled The Origin of Species.

The historian of science Peter J. Bowler has suggested that many of the "implications" attributed to Darwinism had little to do with Darwin's theories themselves. Many of the so-called "Darwinists" of the late-nineteenth century, such as Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel, were actually very non-Darwinian in many aspects of their thought and theory, and even the biggest supporters of Darwin, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, were suspicious as to whether natural selection was really what caused evolution. Nevertheless, Darwin became quickly identified with evolution in general and hailed as the figurehead of many conceptual changes in both science and society, whether or not all of these ideas were stated explicitly or at all in Darwin's work itself.

Darwin's achievements were fourfold: Firstly, to propose a credible mechanism (natural selection); secondly, to provide a great deal of new evidence for evolution; thirdly, to present his ideas in a compelling book; and fourthly, to ally with other highly motivated and influential biologists and philosophers in a concerted effort to publicize and advocate his ideas. On every point, Darwin was successful.

About 99.8% of natural scientists acknowledge that there are scientific theories that support evolution. It is considered a fact as well as a theory. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:
post #39 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmel23 View Post
I haven't read the entire thread but as a Roman Catholic, I have not conflict between natural selection and my Faith. Faith begins where reason ends and these days that is empirical science... and I accept evolution.

Remember there are two versions of the creation story in the bible--

So our Holy story isn't factual but literary by design.

Faith begins where reason ends. Period.

I don't have a problem teaching evolution to my children. It doesn't change the fact that God picked up some earth and Breathed his Life-Breath into and and Created man.

And if you want to be really fundamental about it, then read it in Hebrew. Then come back and talk to me about it.
I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school from pre kindegarten to university. We learned evolution. Being Christian does not mean you cannot believe in evolution.
post #40 of 118
Thread Starter 
I dont belive in evolution. thats the point of the thread.

I belive evolution is a religion in itself due to the way its preached. :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › christians-evolution