Should A True Christian Teach Evolution In School?

[Grat]

... and that evolution is the theory that animals change over time and by genetic and environmental factors....which has since been proved a fact. What has not been proved a fact is abiogenesis.

I must have missed that somewhere along the line, I didn't think that they had.
They had proved that an organism will change within a pre-defined genetic variation and proved that to move beyond that is usually fatal, but I did not know that they had finally managed to observe a mutation (without the involvement of man) that actually resulted in a positive outcome.
Also, again by my understanding, I thought that they had not yet identified a mutation that resulted in the increase of genetic material (that is allow the organism to develop in more ways then it use to be able). I thought all recorded mutations resulted in an organism with less ability to adapt then it use to be able to.

 

[brionne]

I must have missed that somewhere along the line, I didn't think that they had.
They had proved that an organism will change within a pre-defined genetic variation and proved that to move beyond that is usually fatal, but I did not know that they had finally managed to observe a mutation (without the involvement of man) that actually resulted in a positive outcome.
Also, again by my understanding, I thought that they had not yet identified a mutation that resulted in the increase of genetic material (that is allow the organism to develop in more ways then it use to be able). I thought all recorded mutations resulted in an organism with less ability to adapt then it use to be able to.

what evolutionists today call a 'mutation' is the difference between the parent to the offspring. So a black dog produces a black and white dog then that is a mutation. Its sneaky i'll agree, but thats the way of evolution today.

They've very quietly changed what the terminology means without really explaining why its changed. Kind of like whats happened in christianity with regard to the original hebrew and greek words and the modern english meanings of words lol.

What evolutionists have proved is that animals change over time and therefore evolution is factual. Creationists should be able to accept that because humans have changed over time. Originally they were of middle eastern appearance, but today we see a huge variety of features within our species. We are all different colors and shapes and sizes. Yet no biologist would dare say we are all different species (thats what they used to think before they discovered DNA)

We will never agree with abiogenesis but evolutionists try to say that has nothing to do with evolution...its a science apart from evolution. I guess they had to do that because there is no way to test abiogenesis...they've been trying for long enough to know its not possible to produce life from chemical compounds.

 

[pastorlesofm]

Like a previous thread I posted recently, evolution is another effort by science to place God in a box, hoping He will be quieted. Many times I've told those who talk about man evolving from an ape or chimp, that if they are that sure of evolution someone better head for the zoo and bail out their relatives. Like so many pastors I know, who set a goal to build the church that all of God's Kingdom will come to. God is too big for a box or a building. Anyone who watches the Discovery Channels see how determined they try to scientifically explain how untrue the Bible must be, while convincing viewers of aliens landing on earth, or how real and good witchcraft is fighting crime or how certain genes cause sexual identity problems, which gets sin out of the way, now science has made it a condition instead. Sin loves to be excused, todays colleges and institutions is helping big time, explaining sin away. A criminal turns out to be a serial killer because they grew up on the wrong side of town, you wonder how that will fly in front of the Judgement Seat of Christ because their told it wasn't sin nor their choice. Without confession and repentance, it's like a lead balloon. Sadly there are churches today buying the excuse theory. The Lord have mercy on them. I've seen churches sending a young girl in trouble to Planned Parenthood instead of a Teen Pregnancy Center, how sad for the girls and their unborn children. Mislead Church saddens and angers the Heart of Jesus I'm sure.
How did Adam and Eve fall in the Garden of Eden? Satan used his doubt tactic against God's Word. Science and Media have and are using the same tactics. Let me be clear not all, but quite a bit though. The Bible has been made fiction, not to be used in schools, but Harry Potter is real and required reading in a lot of schools. Should we as christians be surprised? If one is than maybe Bible Study 101 would be needed.

 

[kiwimac]

Is it right for a christian college lecturer to lecture on evolution in biology?

Why would a Christian not want to teach the truth? Evolution is how God brought all things into being.

Nope because its not in Gods word. It is said that darwin himself denied the false theory on his death bed.

Nope, Darwin did no such thing. You are repeating a myth there.

Check Here


And Here

ike a previous thread I posted recently, evolution is another effort by science to place God in a box, hoping He will be quieted. Many times I've told those who talk about man evolving from an ape or chimp, that if they are that sure of evolution someone better head for the zoo and bail out their relatives. Like so many pastors I know, who set a goal to build the church that all of God's Kingdom will come to

Evolution does not teach that humans descended from Apes or Monkeys rather it says that modern humans and Apes and Monkeys have a common ancestor and the DNA of humans and chimps confirms this fact.

 

[Grat]

... Evolution does not teach that humans descended from Apes or Monkeys rather it says that modern humans and Apes and Monkeys have a common ancestor and the DNA of humans and chimps confirms this fact.

I'm going to regret weighing in here, but I can't let that comment go without noting three of the many fallacies contained in it.

Firstly, evolution is a theory. Regardless of how good or bad a theory, it is firstly a theory. Unlike some other items in science that are considered fact, since it is by definition impossible to observe the process in its entirety (unless any of you happen to have been around for the last billion years or so).
Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius when it is at 1 atmosphere pressure. This is a fact. Why? Because you can demonstrate this reliably and there has never been a recorded instance of it being false. How long will it be a fact? Until water is observed not to boil under these conditions.
The Earth is 4.55 billion years old? This is a theory. Why? Because it is not based on observed, repeatable experimentation, it is based on a whole series of assumptions which may or may not be true. I am not going to argue whether things like the speed of light has changed, decay rates have changed, etc. I am just going to say that to the best of generally held current scientific understanding the estimate of the Earth’s age by the use of isometric decay measures is 4.55 billion years (give or take about 45.5 million years (1%). This value does not necessarily agree with other methods of dating. It is interesting however that the other methods of dating, especially the ones that arrive at different values, are very difficult to find out about.

Secondly, the DNA does NOT confirm the “fact” of shared ancestry of Monkeys and Humans. All it shows is a common amount of shared programming. This is consistent (more or less) with Evolution and is consistent with Creation. In fact, the commonality of structure is more consistent with Creation then it is with Evolution.

Thirdly, my biggest gripe with the teaching of evolution is the same as my gripe with the teaching of Creation and large slices of theology. People present one side as scientific fact instead of presenting both sides as theories/views and the reasons for and against. Most of the time to discover the problems with Evolution (or creation) you have to really dig. If it is true, why the secrecy? I remember reading a testimony of a girl who became a Christian in the Soviet era because she determined that the State would not have applied the amount of effort they did to say it was a lie unless it was true. Regardless of whether she was justified, the point remains.

This is why I don’t fear truth in any of its forms – in fact I welcome it. I have met Truth, and He’s far more real than any theory.

 

[Martin W.]

The theory of evolution has gained a majority following because it keeps the Creator out of the picture and that is what the world desires.

When Christians follow and defend this world view it troubles me.

As Christians we have a rather weak argument which states ..... "The Creator did it all" .... and we do not have all the answers.

The evolutionist employs a magic formula 'millions and billions of years' to substantiate his claims. That magic formula underlies everything he builds upon. Remove that magic formula and his model falls apart every time.

Magic formulas are NEVER employed in science until it comes to evolution , then you find it in used in every paragraph.

All of nature has to be in place for it to function properly. You can not fraction it up and spread it over billions of years and have it work. Science will tell you that.

The formula stating "billions of years" can "build everything out of nothing" is the biggest fairy tale ever told on the face of the earth , unless of course you believe in the magic formula.

At that point it is no longer science.

 

[truthquest]

I received an "F" on an essay in junior high school science class on evolution and creation because I used the bible as my source of information. I have no regrets and would do the same thing again.
Maybe if my science teacher had been a christian, I would have at least received a "D".

 

[fivesense]

I'm going to regret weighing in here, but I can't let that comment go without noting three of the many fallacies contained in it.

Firstly, evolution is a theory. Regardless of how good or bad a theory, it is firstly a theory. Unlike some other items in science that are considered fact, since it is by definition impossible to observe the process in its entirety (unless any of you happen to have been around for the last billion years or so).
Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius when it is at 1 atmosphere pressure. This is a fact. Why? Because you can demonstrate this reliably and there has never been a recorded instance of it being false. How long will it be a fact? Until water is observed not to boil under these conditions.
The Earth is 4.55 billion years old? This is a theory. Why? Because it is not based on observed, repeatable experimentation, it is based on a whole series of assumptions which may or may not be true. I am not going to argue whether things like the speed of light has changed, decay rates have changed, etc. I am just going to say that to the best of generally held current scientific understanding the estimate of the Earth’s age by the use of isometric decay measures is 4.55 billion years (give or take about 45.5 million years (1%). This value does not necessarily agree with other methods of dating. It is interesting however that the other methods of dating, especially the ones that arrive at different values, are very difficult to find out about.

Secondly, the DNA does NOT confirm the “fact” of shared ancestry of Monkeys and Humans. All it shows is a common amount of shared programming. This is consistent (more or less) with Evolution and is consistent with Creation. In fact, the commonality of structure is more consistent with Creation then it is with Evolution.

Thirdly, my biggest gripe with the teaching of evolution is the same as my gripe with the teaching of Creation and large slices of theology. People present one side as scientific fact instead of presenting both sides as theories/views and the reasons for and against. Most of the time to discover the problems with Evolution (or creation) you have to really dig. If it is true, why the secrecy? I remember reading a testimony of a girl who became a Christian in the Soviet era because she determined that the State would not have applied the amount of effort they did to say it was a lie unless it was true. Regardless of whether she was justified, the point remains.

This is why I don’t fear truth in any of its forms – in fact I welcome it. I have met Truth, and He’s far more real than any theory.

Outstanding post Grat.

fivesense.

The theory of evolution has gained a majority following because it keeps the Creator out of the picture and that is what the world desires.

When Christians follow and defend this world view it troubles me.

As Christians we have a rather weak argument which states ..... "The Creator did it all" .... and we do not have all the answers.

The evolutionist employs a magic formula 'millions and billions of years' to substantiate his claims. That magic formula underlies everything he builds upon. Remove that magic formula and his model falls apart every time.

Magic formulas are NEVER employed in science until it comes to evolution , then you find it in used in every paragraph.

All of nature has to be in place for it to function properly. You can not fraction it up and spread it over billions of years and have it work. Science will tell you that.

The formula stating "billions of years" can "build everything out of nothing" is the biggest fairy tale ever told on the face of the earth , unless of course you believe in the magic formula.

At that point it is no longer science.

I see this post as bulletproof.

fivesense

I received an "F" on an essay in junior high school science class on evolution and creation because I used the bible as my source of information. I have no regrets and would do the same thing again.
Maybe if my science teacher had been a christian, I would have at least received a "D".

A"D"? Wow! This is a scary thought. It has to be an indictment, at least it should be.

fivesense

 

[truthquest]

A"D"? Wow! This is a scary thought. It has to be an indictment, at least it should be.

fivesense

:lol:I didn't mean it as an indictment. I think what I was trying to say was at least I would have passed the essay.

 

[brionne]

Evolution does not teach that humans descended from Apes or Monkeys rather it says that modern humans and Apes and Monkeys have a common ancestor and the DNA of humans and chimps confirms this fact.

the small similarities between humans and chimps does not confirm that we decended from the same ancestor....that is a speculation.

In fact, the more they study the dna of chimps and human the further apart they appear to be.

 

[kiwimac]

the small similarities between humans and chimps does not confirm that we decended from the same ancestor....that is a speculation.

In fact, the more they study the dna of chimps and human the further apart they appear to be.

The DNA of Humans and chimps is in the 90th percentile for similarity. Perhaps you can point us to scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed papers proving that " the more they study the dna of chimps and human the further apart they appear to be" please.

I'm going to regret weighing in here, but I can't let that comment go without noting three of the many fallacies contained in it.

Firstly, evolution is a theory.

It is obvious that you do not understand the word 'theory' in the phrase 'theory of evolution', please note the following from Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The "theory of evolution" is the framework that best explains observed changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences.The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made that contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

 

[Paul]

....
It is obvious that you do not understand the word 'theory' in the phrase 'theory of evolution', please note the following from Wikipedia:
...

Actually, k, quoting from Wikipedia does not do much for your argument since anyone can write them and the aren't "peer-reviewed."

 

[brionne]

The DNA of Humans and chimps is in the 90th percentile for similarity. Perhaps you can point us to scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed papers proving that " the more they study the dna of chimps and human the further apart they appear to be" please.

its interesting that you say 90% similar... only 20 years ago they said we were 99% similar

Its possible that in another 20 years they may find we are only 80% similar.

 

[free thinker]

Actually, k, quoting from Wikipedia does not do much for your argument since anyone can write them and the aren't "peer-reviewed."

He still has a point though. A theory has to be supported by all evidence and rejected by none, otherwise it wouldn't exist. In fact, gravity is still only a theory.

its interesting that you say 90% similar... only 20 years ago they said we were 99% similar

Its possible that in another 20 years they may find we are only 80% similar.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
That is an article regarding the genetic similarities between humans and chimps. Data does change as experimental methods improve, but not as drastically as you suggest.

 

[Martin W.]

We can spend a thousand hours studying the world view of how the earth and everything got here.

Or we can study Moses for one hour and get a glimpse of the creator.

It is your choice. Personal Choice has always been the most profound thing about Christianity.

Sometimes it is everything.

Choose carefully.

Martin.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually, k, quoting from Wikipedia does not do much for your argument since anyone can write them and the aren't "peer-reviewed."

Couple of points: I was incorrect in quoting the 90% figure, it is actually 96%. Link here is to an abstract of an article by the Genome Research folk entitled

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack

As for Wikipedia, I agree that they are not peer-reviewed but to discount what they say in an area as hotly contested as this when numerous eyes from both scientists & non-scientists watch the articles is to be a little disingenuous IMO. However, here is a definition of 'theory' from the American Heritage Dictionary

[sup]1[/sup] Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. American Heritage Dictionary

[font="tahoma][size="3"]
[/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="3"]You might also be interested in what the following site has to say as well.
[/size][/font]

 

[Paul]

Couple of points: ...
You might also be interested in what the following has to say as well.

No thanks, not interested.

He still has a point though. A theory has to be supported by all evidence and rejected by none, otherwise it wouldn't exist. In fact, gravity is still only a theory.
...

Well ft, if you have ever fallen out of a tree you have found out that gravity is pretty much a fact.

I am going to give this topic a little longer and then will close it.

 

[free thinker]

Well ft, if you have ever fallen out of a tree you have found out that gravity is pretty much a fact.

Yes, and if you have ever gone through the fossils at the National Museum of Natural History, you have found that evolution is pretty much a fact. See, there are just a few abstract concepts in the deep cosmos that keep gravity from becoming a scientific law, just as there are a few abstract concepts in the Earth's deep biological history that keep evolution from becoming scientific law.

This links to the NMNH's geological timeline, which should explain many questions that people have about evolution.

 

[Paul]

I am greatly confused at this forum. From what I have seen, absolutely no one here believes in evolution as a scientific fact. I must ask why. Do you believe that you cannot be a Christian without taking every word of the Bible as an absolute truth?

This is absurd, some of the Bible has been lost in mistranslation, not to mention the fact that it was not directly written by God or Jesus. As far as creationism, it is also quite possible that God saw that revealing such an encompassing and beautiful theory upon such early civilization would have wreaked havoc. So it is indeed possible to be a "good" Christian while believing in evolution, I should know.

But here is the main point. Will the creationists here please explain how you can refute years of solid scientific evidence for a theory that lacks any logical explanation. And please do not simply say " 'cause the Bible says." I am trying to have an intelligent conversation about an extremely controversial topic.

On another note, it appears that my last topic was never posted. Could the moderator that reviews this please explain why? Thank you.

May God AND logic be with you.

You are partially correct with your first statement. I do not believe the “Theory” of evolution. Your statement on the Scriptures is incorrect though. It is also obvious to me that you have not read much of this forum. You see there are some Christians that incorrectly think that the Bible states that creation took place in 6 days. That assumption is incorrect because Scripture does not say creation took place in 6 days.

If you have a Bible, open it to Genesis 1: 1-2: This is what you will read (KJV)

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was* without form (H8414), and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now if you have a KJV you might see a period (.) at the end of verse one, and an asterisk (*) by the word “was” in verse 2. Between verses 1 and 2 there are millions of years. God did not create the earth “without form and void.” The asterisk might have the word “became.” You see the earth “became without form (H8414), and void;

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (H8414), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

And as for the days of creation, Peter tells us that for God, each days is as 1000 years, so 7 days, remember God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th.

Yes, and if you have ever gone through the fossils at the National Museum of Natural History, you have found that evolution is pretty much a fact. See, there are just a few abstract concepts in the deep cosmos that keep gravity from becoming a scientific law, just as there are a few abstract concepts in the Earth's deep biological history that keep evolution from becoming scientific law.
…This links to the NMNH's geological timeline, which should explain many questions that people have about evolution.

Most if not all of those fossils are real and they are fro the time period between Genesis 1: 1 and 2.

 

[brionne]

http://news.national...himp_genes.html
That is an article regarding the genetic similarities between humans and chimps. Data does change as experimental methods improve, but not as drastically as you suggest.

I have to say that speaking in such percentages is a little misleading for the reason that the article states
"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome"
When they start talking about individual DNA molecules, then it becomes numbers on a huge scale.

Also did you realise that the on the same page there is another article about our dna which sates
"Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material. The result is surprising, said David Nelson, a geneticist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, "in that it's more than twice as much difference as we thought" existed."

And again from the same journal in another article we are told that our genes are also very similar to dog genes.
"Scientists have completed a rough sketch of the canine genome. The results may explain why dogs are humans' best friend: Their genes are similar."

From one scientist to the next we get different results and conclusions...what does that tell us about the scientific method? And the fact is that we all have dna...we are all made up of the same matter with similar bodily functions and organs. But these similarities are certainly not proof that we evolved from existing animals any more then one building of similar nature to another is no evidence that it is an extension of that building. The similarities speak more of evidence of one designer using the same materials to create various subjects....just as a builder can use the same materials to create different structures.


I certainly do not view the similarities in dna as any indication that we have evolved from other species. If you think of a piano, every piano ever created contains a repetition of the same notes. Those notes can be played in so many different ways that a different song can be produced indefinately....i believe dna is similar and i dont believe it proves that we have evolved from other creatures. Rather i see evidence of a creator who is able to modify the dna in such ways so as to produce as many or as few differences as he likes in order to create a variety of species.