And Science Says Our Gap Theory Is Bad.....

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. . . . Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendentby NAS [National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)] natural scientists. . . . Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). . . . As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools. . . . NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise." — Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. 1998 (Jul 23). "Leading scientists still reject God." Nature 394:313. <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf>

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"Haeckel says that Darwin's theory of evolution leads inevitably to Atheism and Materialism. In this we think he is correct. . . . We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism." — Charles Hodge (Princeton theologian). 1994. (Originally published in 1874.)What Is Darwinism? (Edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone.) Grand Rapids: Baker Books. pp. 114, 156.

You can start with these two.

 

[River Jordan]

What exactly do you think those two demonstrate? The NAS has about 2,000 members and Haeckel died about 100 years ago.

 

[Born_Again]

Im ubers impressed this one is still going LOL

 

[Barrd]

I think it has to do with how stubborn some of us can be :unsure:

 

[River Jordan]

I still don't understand. If the position you guys are being "stubborn" about is "evolution = atheism", how you account for 1) me, 2) prominent scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, 3) The Clergy Letter Project, 4) the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) teaching and supporting evolution, and 5) the data showing that in most of the developed world most people who accept the reality of evolution are not atheists?

And how does anyone think "One German scientist said evolution = atheism over 100 years ago" trumps all that?

It looks to me like "stubborn" is better described as "If I believe something is so, I'll stick to it no matter what, even if reality clearly shows I'm wrong".

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Personally, I'm not impressed by you, Collins, Miller, or the Catholic Church. So, those examples mean little to me. As for your number 5, I already showed that your research referenced and your conclusion do not match. You answered but very weakly, so I ignored it.

By not impressed, I mean I cannot tell if the individuals are believers or not. It's not personal. We know that Atheism is increasing. We know there is a falling away (at least in mainline denominations). We know there are biblical issues with Catholic Church Doctrine and the extra biblical practices associated therewith.

 

[StanJ]

Evolution does seem to turn many Christians into unbelievers. A famous example is the distinguished Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson. Evolution gave him a profound sense of intellectual liberation from his Baptist upbringing in the South. Evolution also makes some people secular evangelists for the Darwinist cause. Michael Shermer was an evangelical Christian studying at Pepperdine University when his study of evolution convinced him to give up his faith. Shermer is now the editor of Skeptic magazine. (Dinesh D'Souza - Christianitytoday.com)

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

" 'Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism,' [says Cornell biology professor William Provine]. Attempts to join evolution with God are futile, as seen in beliefs that God is simply natural law itself or that God created but now is silent. 'Those gods, frankly, are worthless,' Provine says. 'They don't give life after death, they don't answer prayers, they don't give you foundations for ethics. In fact they give you nothing.' " — Larry A. Witham. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 23.

If you can reference one individual, so can I.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"Natural selection [is] an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications. . . . The radicalism of natural selection lies in its power to dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought, particularly the notion that nature's benevolence, order, and good design, with humans at a sensible summit of power and excellence, proves the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent creator. . . . To these beliefs Darwinian natural selection presents the most contrary position imaginable." — Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard paleontologist and leading evolutionary spokesman in North America until his death in 2002).1997 (Jun 12). "Darwinian Fundamentalism." The New York Review of Books, XLIV(10):34.

Gould is one of your heroes of the "faith"

 

[StanJ]

Personally, I'm not impressed by you, Collins, Miller, or the Catholic Church. So, those examples mean little to me. As for your number 5, I already showed that your research referenced and your conclusion do not match. You answered but very weakly, so I ignored it.

By not impressed, I mean I cannot tell if the individuals are believers or not. It's not personal. We know that Atheism is increasing. We know there is a falling away (at least in mainline denominations). We know there are biblical issues with Catholic Church Doctrine and the extra biblical practices associated therewith.

I think it would help greatly if you quoted those you are responding to CJ, as you and them are NOT the only ones following this thread and I have her on ignore. Thanks

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I think it would help greatly if you quoted those you are responding to CJ, as you and them are NOT the only ones following this thread and I have her on ignore. Thanks

Will do. Thanks.

 

[River Jordan]

Personally, I'm not impressed by you, Collins, Miller, or the Catholic Church. So, those examples mean little to me.

So you're sticking to "evolution = atheism" and all the examples of non-atheists being "evolutionists" don't count because, um.....reasons! Well done CJ.

As for your number 5, I already showed that your research referenced and your conclusion do not match.

No you didn't. You complained that they didn't include a few other countries, but didn't give any reason why doing so would change the outcome and turn the conclusion from "most evolutionists are not atheists" to "essentially all evolutionists are atheists". I'd say "nice try" but......well, you know.

You answered but very weakly, so I ignored it.

LOL! Ok then.... :wacko:

By not impressed, I mean I cannot tell if the individuals are believers or not.

You mean you have no idea if Francis Collins, Ken Miller, the Pope, and people who are part of The Clergy Letter Project aren't atheists? No idea at all? Really CJ? :blink:

We know that Atheism is increasing. We know there is a falling away (at least in mainline denominations). We know there are biblical issues with Catholic Church Doctrine and the extra biblical practices associated therewith.

So you really think it's possible that the Pope and all Catholics are actually atheists?

As far as atheism increasing and Christianity declining, I wonder if you appreciate your own role in that? Think about it for a second....you're insisting that "evolution = atheism", right? That's the argument you're adamantly defending as truth, no matter what counter examples or survey data you're given. If we grant your position as true, that means you've set the stage where evidence for evolution = evidence against God, and more reason to not be a Christian. Every time a new transitional fossil is found, a new experiment demonstrating the evolution of a new trait is conducted, a new genome is published and compared to others (the entire field of comparative genomics is about evolution), a new species is observed to evolve....

....every time any of that happens, it's one more reason to not believe in God or be a Christian.

Now personally, I think that's ridiculous. But those are the terms you're insisting on. You're setting the terms as "if evolution is true, there is no God and Christianity is false". And I guarantee some young people are hearing that and going "Ok then, guess I'm not a Christian". And then when you look around and see young people leaving the faith in droves, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[River Jordan]

I think it would help greatly if you quoted those you are responding to CJ, as you and them are NOT the only ones following this thread and I have her on ignore. Thanks

It cracks me up how Stan feels the need to tell everyone "I'm ignoring RJ!!!!!!" all the time. Pretty telling IMO, <_<

 

[Wormwood]

I agree that evolution does not = atheism. However, one would have to have their head in the sand to argue that evolution has caused many to dismiss Scripture or that evolutionists do not actively attack religion as "superstition" or a means of perpetuating ignorance. People used to use science as a means of praising God and discovering His handiwork. Now science is pitted as antithetical to religion, especially in our universities. I don't think it is the Christian primarily who has set religion up against evolution or science in general (the two were never seen as juxtaposed, but complementary). No one blinks an eye if a biologist suggests there is no such thing as God in the classroom and we can explain everything "naturally" without the "God hypothesis.' Yet if God is mentioned in the classroom as an explanatory force for first things or maybe a catalyst to explain the complexity of these systems it is seen as "imposing religion" on students and a violation of their "rights." I find quite a double standard here and it is one that certainly favors the atheist or naturalist. Just saying that the notion of the poor scientists getting beat up by all these fundamentalists when they are just trying to explain how the world works is a nice theory, but isn't what is taking place in the real world or our university classrooms. I attended about 4 secular universities and have taught at one. I have never heard of a professor trying to influence students to become a Christian, but almost every college student I have talked to has told me of at least one professor has discredited the Bible or their faith during the course of their undergraduate work.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"So you're sticking to "evolution = atheism" and all the examples of non-atheists being "evolutionists" don't count because, um.....reasons! Well done CJ. "

I'm stating that Atheism is contingent, and evolution is one necessary factor.


"No you didn't. You complained that they didn't include a few other countries, but didn't give any reason why doing so would change the outcome and turn the conclusion from "most evolutionists are not atheists" to "essentially all evolutionists are atheists". I'd say "nice try" but......well, you know."

Your study focused solely on the United States, Europe, and Japan. It's your referenced study, its not my fault you twisted the results for your own point. Par for the course! I simply listed some countries left out. I could list many more but I don't want to beat a dead finch. Basically, what you are saying is that adding more variables to an experiment cannot change the conclusion???? And you claim to be a biologist..................

Your last point is so poor that I'm not even going to quote it. Basically, it's my fault that people are leaving Christianity. You preach random universe, random life, errant scripture, people can rise from the dead after three days in the grave, but God can't create fully formed organisms, but its my fault people leave. This is why I only return during 40 inch snowfalls. The entertainment is better than Netflix.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Wormwood,

It is paramount to define evolution. We've tried here for months, years maybe, and get no results so I'm not revisiting those threads. RJ has backed herself into a corner (again) and will try to get out of it any way she can. Evolution is a necessary condition for atheism, it provides comfort for the God's not fair atheist, a hiding place for the agnostic. She knows all of this, but it's the fundamentalists fault.

RJ denies the ID movement like the black death. Yet, that is exactly what she argues for. The reason she denies ID, is because she refuses to acknowledge God as creator. What do you call a person who refuses to acknowledge God?

The defense rests.

 

[River Jordan]

one would have to have their head in the sand to argue that evolution has caused many to dismiss Scripture

Why would evolution cause anyone to dismiss Scripture?

or that evolutionists do not actively attack religion as "superstition" or a means of perpetuating ignorance.

You're lumping all "evolutionists" into a single, anti-Christian group. Does the Pope attack religion as superstition? Do I? The signatories of the Clergy Letter Project? Francis Collins?

I think what you mean to say is "atheists actively attack religion as superstition".

People used to use science as a means of praising God and discovering His handiwork. Now science is pitted as antithetical to religion, especially in our universities.

Any actual support for you claim about universities?

I don't think it is the Christian primarily who has set religion up against evolution or science in general (the two were never seen as juxtaposed, but complementary).

Then the problem here is your lack of awareness. One of the largest Christian creationist organizations in the world, Answers in Genesis, regularly teaches that something as basic as "millions of years" isn't compatible with scripture and Christianity.

The show kids things like this...

....and in their "museum" they depict acceptance of scientific reality as a sort of wrecking ball that destroys not only Christianity, but society!

I could go on and on with this for a while, but to suggest that it's not Christians who are pitting Christianity against science is naive at best.

No one blinks an eye if a biologist suggests there is no such thing as God in the classroom and we can explain everything "naturally" without the "God hypothesis.' Yet if God is mentioned in the classroom as an explanatory force for first things or maybe a catalyst to explain the complexity of these systems it is seen as "imposing religion" on students and a violation of their "rights."

Do you have an actual example of a setting where a biology instructor is allowed to say God doesn't exist, but not allowed to say God does exist?

I find quite a double standard here

I think you should demonstrate it first. All you've done so far is say it exists.

Just saying that the notion of the poor scientists getting beat up by all these fundamentalists when they are just trying to explain how the world works is a nice theory, but isn't what is taking place in the real world or our university classrooms.

Sorry, but your unsupported say-so isn't really persuasive.

I attended about 4 secular universities and have taught at one. I have never heard of a professor trying to influence students to become a Christian, but almost every college student I have talked to has told me of at least one professor has discredited the Bible or their faith during the course of their undergraduate work.

How so?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

"Do you have an actual example of a setting where a biology instructor is allowed to say God doesn't exist, but not allowed to say God does exist?"

Watch the movie expelled. You'll see many.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm stating that Atheism is contingent, and evolution is one necessary factor.

And we should just go with your baseless say-so because..........?

Your study focused solely on the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Which constitutes most of the developed world. Thus, we can say that in most of the developed world, the vast majority of those who accept the reality of evolution are not atheists.

It's your referenced study, its not my fault you twisted the results for your own point. Par for the course! I simply listed some countries left out. I could list many more but I don't want to beat a dead finch. Basically, what you are saying is that adding more variables to an experiment cannot change the conclusion???? And you claim to be a biologist..................

I'm saying exactly what I said....you've given no reason to think that including a few more countries in that data set would flip the results from "most evolutionists are theists" to "most evolutionists are atheists".

All you've done is say "But they didn't include these countries, therefore..........something".

Your last point is so poor that I'm not even going to quote it. Basically, it's my fault that people are leaving Christianity.

The data I've posted here before clearly shows that one factor in youth leaving Christianity is the perception that the faith is "hostile to science". Your framing of this issue as "if you accept the reality of evolution, you must be an atheist" only adds to that.

You preach random universe, random life, errant scripture, people can rise from the dead after three days in the grave, but God can't create fully formed organisms

No I don't.

but its my fault people leave.

Kids have told us one of the reasons they're leaving is that they see Christians being hostile to science. Now, what do you think your posts in this forum promote....a pro-science or anti-science view? Hmmmmm......not really a mystery, is it?

It is paramount to define evolution. We've tried here for months, years maybe, and get no results so I'm not revisiting those threads.

What in the world are you talking about? :wacko:

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Understand?

RJ has backed herself into a corner (again) and will try to get out of it any way she can. Evolution is a necessary condition for atheism, it provides comfort for the God's not fair atheist, a hiding place for the agnostic. She knows all of this, but it's the fundamentalists fault.

So you seem to be saying that any scientific explanation for things is a necessary condition for atheism. Plate tectonics, erosion, ionic bonding, evolution....all of those are natural process that explain things, and there's nothing fundamentally different about evolution in that regard. It's just as naturalistic as erosion, and is taught as such.

Nice job CJ. You've set the stage to where all of science is now anti-Christian. :unsure:

RJ denies the ID movement like the black death. Yet, that is exactly what she argues for. The reason she denies ID, is because she refuses to acknowledge God as creator. What do you call a person who refuses to acknowledge God?

When you get anywhere near what I actually believe, let us know.