Hi guys!!!! I have a question that I would like to pose to you all. The scientific community generally agrees that change is to embraced. In one of Richard Dawkins’ films, he tells the story of an elderly scientist who had believed a certain scientific belief all of his life, but then a young up and coming scientist comes to him and tells him that the particular scientific belief that the elderly scientist had spent his whole life defending was completely wrong. To this the elderly scientist responded with joy, and he embraced the young scientist, thanking him for the new discovery he had made. Dawkins then goes on to say that this is what the scientific world is all about. It’s about embracing new scientific changes, even when they would completely overturn scientific laws that have been in place for years. So, my question, then, is why doesn’t the scientific community respond like this whenever a challenge to evolution is brought forth? Why aren’t the new theories that are brought forth studied, and then either accepted or rejected based on their teachings, rather than everything that isn’t evolution simply being rejected simply because it isn’t evolution, which apparently can not be wrong. The Christian community has put forth the Creation theory, and it has plenty of evidence to make it scientifically valid. But the scientific community, without even studying this theory, automatically rejects it simply because it is a belief held by Christians who are apparently incapable of rational thought because they believe in Jesus Christ (according to many scientists). Why don’t scientists at least study the theory before automatically rejecting it? It’s because this isn’t a scientific battle for scientists. It is a philosophical battle, and if evolution is overturned, it doesn’t just mean that evolution was wrong, but it means that the lifestyles of those who embrace evolution would have to change completely. As long as evolution holds true, people can live their lives however they want without any fear of any punishment because we can’t be held responsible for what we’ve evolved into right? I mean we’re just doing what protoplasm does in this environment at this temperature (as Pastor Douglas Wilson puts it in his debate against Christopher Hitchens in the documentary film entitled “Collision”), right? But if evolution is overturned, then we may actually have some moral responsibility to a creator, which evolutionists would say is a ludicrous idea. Not only do scientists and evolutionists not study our theories, but they outright attack Christianity. Christians subscribe to the Creation Theory, and they defend the creation theory. Many scientists subscribe to evolution, yet, rather than spending their time defending evolution, they spend the majority of their time attacking Christianity (or any other group that even hints at the idea that there might be something other than evolution). Ben Stein’s documentary film “Expelled” is a great example of this. Why doesn’t the scientific community at least study into the Creation Theory if they are so embracing of change? You know what I think on the issue. Now let me know what you think. I know that was really long, but thanks for reading this guys, and I look forward to discussing this question with all of you soon. Have a blessed day!!!!
I see a major problem with your statement in that there are many, many christians who embrace evolution as scientific evidence and have no problem with the interpretation of the scriptures. I’m not 100% sure, but I understand the catholic church accepts evolution in plenitude, from the pope down!
I understand what you’re saying I AM. Many Christians subscribe to what is called creation evolution. It is based on a misinterpretation of the scriptures, namely, Genesis 1:24 which says, “Then God said,‘Let the EARTH BRING FORTH the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’;and it was so.” (emphasis added) Christians who believe in this theory also use Genesis 2:19 which says,“OUT OF THE GROUND the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.”(emphasis added) Also, creation evolutionists try to say that God used evolution as a tool to create the world by pointing out that in Genesis 1:20-22 we see that life on earth started in the water (as evolution also claims). However, the life that started in the water is in no way shown in the Bible to lead to the life that was on the land. As I pointed out earlier, Genesis 1:24 says that the land animals were created out of the earth, not out of the water animals. Also, man is in no way shown to have been evolved out of the animals. Man was also created out of the dust of the ground, as Genesis 2:7 tells us, not out of other animals. Now, my point in my first post, however, was not to say that ALL Christians believe in the Creation Theory, but to say that there are a good number that do, and, more importantly, to say that the Creation Theory is a valid scientific theory with valid evidence and explanations that the scientific community will not even look at simply because it’s associated with the word “Christianity.” You are right, though, I AM. There are many Christians who accept evolution or creation evolution as perfectly accurate scientific evidence that doesn’t contradict the Bible in any way. I do not believe that myself, and there are many other Christians that believe the same way I do in the matter (that is to say, they believe in the Creation Theory). But my question is not about whether or not there are Christians that believe in evolution. My question is why won’t the scientific community even validly look at other scientifically valid claims if they in any way contradict evolution if the scientific community is supposed to be one that embraces change in the pursuit of knowledge? I mean, after all, the theory of evolution is only a theory, right? It’s called a theory for a reason, because it is possible that it could be wrong. So why aren’t scientists looking into these other scientific claims, and why aren’t they even defending what they teach any more (evolution) rather than attacking those who come against them? Those are still my questions, and whether or not there are Christians that believe in evolution, it still doesn’t answer the question of why the scientific community that is supposed to embrace change won’t investigate other scientifically valid claims that oppose (or even merely suggest something other than) evolution. Thanks for your input I AM, and I hope I’ve helped explain better to you what evolutionist Christians believe. Have a blessed night!!!!
Your question ... why won’t the scientific community even validly look at other scientifically valid claims if they in any way contradict evolution if the scientific community is supposed to be one that embraces change in the pursuit of knowledge?
The reason is that the scientific evidence proofs beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is fact, that is it’s not just a theory and I guess that for the scientific community it’s not worth the time to even consider creation theory.
The problem with creationists is that they tend to interpret the bible too literally and that leads to some real problems. For instance, the narration of creation that appears in Chapter 1 in Genesis is different from Chapter’s 2; now which one is the right one? It seems to me you give too much importance to the wording in the bible and that takes value out of the real message which respect to creation I guess it would be something like ” somehow, and it doesn’t really matter how, god created the Universe and man at his own image and he saw it was good.
As opposed to the quram, the bible is not supposed to be written by god, but inspired to different people who belonged to a tribe in the desert, 3,000 or more years ago. So I think there is no need to interpret literally but looking in whatever message supposedly god intended to give.
. . . Not only do scientists and evolutionists not study our theories, but they outright attack Christianity. Christians subscribe to the Creation Theory, and they defend the creation theory. . . .
Not all Christians subscribe to your particular Creation Theory, NotAnAtheist. You could say that some Christians subscribe . . . etc., but the way you’ve stated things is in error.
Intelligent Design lacks legitimacy in the eyes of most scientists, and you don’t know why? Scientists do vet ID claims. Lots of web sites as well as books can be found on the subject of descent-with-modification vs. Intelligent Design. For some, such as devout-Christian Kenneth Miller, such vetting is what they do for a living, at least in part.
@IAMWHOIAM: But scientists can never make such a claim to have absolute fact because, as we have seen over the ages, scientific theories and even scientific laws have been overturned several times. Evolution wouldn’t even be here if Darwin didn’t challenge the scientific laws of his day. There was a time when the scientific community would have dogmatically told their students that the world was flat. There was a time when the scientific community would have dogmatically told their students that the earth was at the center of the universe. All of these scientific theories and laws that were so staunchly defended by the scientists of their time were proved to be wrong and overturned, and this was only found out because other theories were studied. So, while a scientist may be able to say,“Based on our current knowledge, this is the best understanding we have of how life was created.” that doesn’t give them the license to say,“We have no need to study other theories ever again.”
@nonverbal: Yes. My wording was incorrect. I was not trying to imply that every Christian in the world believes in the creation theory and/or intelligent design. Many Christians do believe in it, and many others subscribe to creation evolution or simply accept the teachings of evolution. I explained these things more fully in my first response to IAMWHOIAM in post number three of this thread. But, whether it is some Christians or all Christians who believe in creation theory and/or intelligent design, it still doesn’t change the fact that most of the scientific community won’t even touch them with a ten foot pole to see if they even might be scientifically valid. Many scientists, evolutionists, and atheists look at the church and point at events like the crusades, or like “Pastor” Fred Phelps (and I use the term “Pastor” very loosely when I put it in front of his name) who praises God for events like the Virginia Tech shootings because he believes it is the wrath of God being shown on our country to punish us for our sin, and they then say,“The church is to dogmatic and crazy, and these events are what this kind of “blind” faith and dogmatism lead to.” Now trust me, I’m just as much against these psychotic Christians as everyone else in the world is (and so are most other Christians). But there are also plenty of rational Christian thinkers, theologians, apologists, and scientists. Also, as I talked about in my response to IAMWHOIAM posted above, scientific theories and laws have been proved wrong many times, but most Christians (at least, this is how I and many of my own Christian friends feel), don’t say,“One times scientists believed that the earth was the center of the universe, so they must be wrong about everything else since they were wrong that one time.” On the contrary, I believe science is right about a great deal of things. But I still can’t understand why more scientists don’t look into other valid scientific theories (like intelligent design) that could overturn evolution. Also, you mentioned that there are those scientists who have actually looked at what intelligent design teaches and have judged that it was an invalid theory. But tell me then, how is evolution any more scientifically valid than intelligent design. Charles Darwin went and observed some birds in the Galapagos Islands, and he noticed that some birds on one island that had went to another island had changed slightly, and his theory from that observation was that a one-celled organism eventually turned into a man? What kind of sense does that make? What Charles Darwin discovered evidence for was microevolution, but not macroevolution. What evidence is there for macroevolution? Even today, the evidence that we have points toward microevolution (small changes within the SAME SPECIES overtime based on their environment), not macroevolution (one species evolving into another species). Intelligent Design not only makes more sense from a Biblical point of view, but it makes more sense based on how the world we live in actually works. When we go to the grocery store to buy our groceries, we gather that the groceries on the shelves were created somewhere else and shipped to the grocery store for our consumption. We don’t think that the groceries evolved onto the shelves until hot dogs that were best suited for our consumption finally arrived. No!!!! The world we live in does not work that way today, nor has it ever. God designed the world and created everything in it, and, we treat the world in the same way. We create the groceries on the shelves, the watches on our wrists, the tissues in the boxes, etc. What evidence is there for macroevolution?
Thanks for your responses guys, and I look forward to communicating more with you in the future!!!! Have a blessed day!!!!
It depends. If by magical thinking you mean Christian thought, then no. There is nothing wrong with having faith in an intelligent designer (God) even though we have never physically seen Him with our eyes. As a matter of fact, almost everyone in the world has faith in at least one thing they haven’t ever seen. We can’t physically see oxygen, yet almost everyone would agree that it’s what we breathe into our lungs every day. We believe in many stars, planets, solar systems, etc. that many people have never seen (not even in pictures) simply because a scientist who says he has more knowledge than us says that he can prove them. If you think about it, that’s almost no different than Christianity (people trust that their ministers, pastors, etc. are well versed in what God’s Word says and they trust that they are receiving the truth from them). However, if by magical thinking you mean literally magical thinking that is completely and utterly ridiculous (which is completely different than the thought process of MOST Christians (there are crazy and erroneous Christians just like there are crazy and erroneous scientists)), then I suppose macroevolution might be better than that, although believing that the earth is the center of the universe would be better than that even though it is completely wrong. The idea of intelligent design is in no way “magical”, but rather, as I explained in my last post, it is exactly how the world works, by design. Everything we see is designed. Now, you still haven’t answered my question. What kind of hard, concrete evidence exists for macroevolution?
Thanks again for your response nonverbal, and a have a blessed evening!!!!
For theories to be proved valid we need scientific evidence and this evidence comes out of the observation of the world we live in.
And just look around, our DNA resembles very closely to that of most creatures; look at embryos, their development is just like seeing through the evolution process and they all look so similar. If we are so different from other species, yet we were supposedly created unique, how come our DNA is so similar, and our physiology is so similar even to a rat’s.
And then there is the studies done by naturists through which we see evolution taking place as the same specie adapts to different environments over time; I have been to the Galápagos and it’s pretty amazing. And there is evidence for this everywhere; denying evolution is like denying gravity ! We can’t see it but certainly we can prove it exist just by observation.
But then, what is the problem with accepting evolution? Does this knock down god’s revelation in the bible? I don’t think so. By the way you have not answered how come there are 2 different narrations about the creation of the universe in the bible. They both cannot be true; Or how you deal with this one, Leviticus 11,2 when god tells moses what to eat and what not to eat: ” the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you;” lucky to be a hare then.
You could say that that was a different type of hare, but it seems to me a hare is a hare now and then.
So again, the problem is taking the bible literally; instead you should hold to more important ideas, for instance, knowing you were created at god’s own image! Happy you if you can say that and you live with that!
I know that there are uses of metaphor in the Bible, but we must take it literally when it speaks in literal terms and metaphorically when it speaks in metaphorical terms. For instance, Psalm 19:1-2 says,“1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows his handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.” But this does not mean that each day is literally speaking words to the next day, nor does it mean that each night is teaching a lesson to the next night. But, through the use of metaphor, it is saying that God’s glory is so prevalent throughout his creation it as if you could hear the days speaking about His glory, and it as if you could hear the nights teaching about His glory. This is metaphorical speech. But when Genesis 1:3-5 tells us that God created the light and the darkness and the evening and the morning were the first day, there’s nothing metaphorical about that sort of speech. That’s a straightforward presentation of facts. We, as humans, do this ourselves. If I were to say,“My girlfriend Susy’s a real peach” (because that’s how everyone refers to their girlfriend lol), no one in their right mind would think that I was saying that Susy was a slightly fuzzy fruit that grew on a tree. People would realize that what I meant was that I thought Suzy was sweet in a similar manner to a peach. We would know that I was speaking metaphorically. But if I were to say,“Today I went to the grocery store and spent five dollars” we would know that was a straightforward, literal interpretation of the facts, and it would be ridiculous to ponder that perhaps by five dollars I meant five million dollars. I used straightforward terms to indicate the facts. We use both metaphorical and literal speech in our everyday lives, and so does God, and when God says He does something in a day, He means He did something in a day. If we don’t take the Bible literally where it is meant to be taken literally, then we could convince ourselves that when God tells us not to steal, in fact, he only meant not to steal large amounts of money from prominent people, but a little bit of money stolen from our parents every once in a while is o.k. No!!!! When God said not to steal, He meant for us not to steal!!!! Again, we must take the Bible literally where it speaks in literal terms, and the creation story is definitely one of those instances. As far as Genesis 1-2 telling two different creation accounts, they don’t. If you read it closely, you see that Genesis 2 is actually a summary of Genesis 1 (Genesis 2:1-7), and it takes a closer look at the life of mankind, plants, and animals in the Garden of Eden. So Genesis 1-2 do not contradict each other at all. Genesis 2 simply summarizes the events in Genesis 1, and gives us a closer look at God’s creation. Concerning Leviticus and all of the foods that God said His people could not eat, this was because those foods were literally UNCLEAN. God said that they were unclean, and He meant that they were unclean. These foods would literally have killed anyone who ate them because they didn’t have the proper methods to treat them as we have now. Pork, for instance, comes from pigs that wallow in the dirtiest muck and mire all day long, and if you didn’t have the proper techniques to clean them, you would definitely die if you consumed them. So, these foods were LITERALLY unclean (see how often God is literal in the Bible). Now, as far as our DNA looking similar to other creatures, the Bible does say that both mankind and animals were created from the dust of the earth. So I’m sure since we both are made from dust (not from monkeys or fish) I’m sure there may be many similarities between us, but this in now way implies that we evolved from one another. I may look and act very similar to many of my friends, but this in no way indicates that we have the same parents. What it does mean is that we were similarly designed. My parents procreated to create me, just as my friends parents procreated to create them, and life was born. We were both designed in a similar manner. Similarly, in all life on earth, we can see traces of the same designer. Also, concerning the Galapagos Islands, I’ve talked about them already, and what is provided to us there is proof for microevolution (changes within the SAME SPECIES over a period of time due to a change in environment) not macroevolution (one species becoming another species). Also, how can we say that humans evolved from other animals if it has been proven that we could not live with any of our vital organs? We could not breathe without lungs. We could not circulate blood without our heart. We would die without these organs. So how can we say at some time we lived without them? Also, I’m very overjoyed to know that I was created in God’s image, but to be able to take joy in that, we have to realize that it was God who created and designed us, and not random chance, as evolution states.
Thanks again for your response IAMWHOIAM, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon!!!! Have a blessed night!!!!
I would like to get back on the idea of literal interpretation of the bible:
Genesis Chapter 1
God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day.
Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear.
God called the dry land “the earth,” and the basin of the water he called “the sea.” God saw how good it was.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened:
Then God said: “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years,
and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth.”
Then God said, “Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.” And so it happened:
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened:
Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
And then rested (does god need to rest)
Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—
NO SEVN DAYS HERE!
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,
DIFFERS FROM CHAPTER 1, THE EARTH IS ALREADY SEPARATED FROM THE WATERS
but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground—
the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.
DIFFERS FROM CHAPTER 1, WHERE MAN IS CREATED LAST Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed.
Out of the ground the LORD God made various trees grow that were delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
DIFFERS FROM CHAPTER 1 SINCE TREES APPEAR TO BE CREATED BEFORE MAN
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
NO GARDEN OF EDEN IN CHAPTER 1
The LORD God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
THIS IS PRETTY IMPORTANT STUFF YET IS OMITTED I CHAPTER 1
The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”
So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM CHAPTER 1, ANIMALS ARE CREATED BEFORE MAN AND NOT BECAUSE OF MAN’S NEED FOR COMPANION.
The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.
So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
NO RIB STORY IN CHAPTER 1, MAN AN WOMAN APPREAR TO BE CREATED AT THE SAME TIME
the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”
So you can see the stories are different, they could be complementary, but the differ vastly.
And with respect to what you can eat or cannot, I talked about the prohibition to eat hares because the chew the cud; well they don’t.
So I think it is a mistake to interpret the bible literally; by doing so I think you overlook its real values.
No problem the with evolution Cody, may it is god’s way to carefully nurturing man to life and to his place in the universe??
There was a time when the scientific community would have dogmatically told their students that the world was flat. There was a time when the scientific community would have dogmatically told their students that the earth was at the center of the universe.
Actually it was RELIGION that taught those things, scientists of the time, if they went along with the teaching at all, only did so because they would have been tortured and/or killed by religionists if they did not.
When did any scientist ever threaten to kill people if they did not go along with a theory?
Not so fast though; there are certain pretty amazing things religions have done for science; for instance, it was a catholic priest (G Lemaître) who came up with the concept of the big bang, yes a catholic priest and his work was praised but Einstein himself; also the catholic church in the dark ages was pretty much the custodian of science and culture. The problem with organized religion is that often it has been used and abused by the political power of the moment. This doesn’t happen any more with christianity where in most western nations there is a clear separation between the church and the state. And it seems not to be the case in countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia where not only there isn’t a separation, but the political power and the religious power feed on each other to perpetuate themselves in power.
The other phenomena which is difficult to understand is creationists’ literal interpretation of the bible which seems to be Cody’s position (he started this discussion). Once they change this position they will accept evolution and the fact the universe started some 14 billion years ago.
And I understand creationists are a minority among christians.
But we have to be careful about tagging all religious people as fundamentalists when they talk about science.
But we have to be careful about tagging all religious people as fundamentalists when they talk about science.
Indeed we do, however my problem is that all religion is based on ‘the holy books’ and religionists HAVE to ‘believe in the book’ otherwise their religion falls apart.
This, to me, says that the books are fundamental to belief and the books say that god did it all so how can anyone claim to be a Christian (for example) and yet align themselves with the discoveries of science? To do so would HAVE to be a negation of belief.
Either god did it or he/she/it didn’t.
If god didn’t do it then all references to ‘god did it’ should be taken out of the holy books and get rid of all the confusion, not going to happen of course because all religionists hang onto their holy book like a talisman, no matter how often they state there is a place both for god and science.
On the current understanding of ‘fundamentalist’ they are understood to be a fringe of the centre of religion, it seems to me that if there were no centre, there would be nothing to be on the fringe of and they would have to go play in another sand box.