Namaste Bandit,
thank you for the post.
Bandit said:
currently understood, is not exactly the same way it was taught to us in school.
currently understood by whom?
i will grant that highschool evolutionary theory is, to say the least, hardly the same as college level study of the various disciplines involved in aspects of evolution.
nevertheless, as beings that seek after, hopefully, as much truth as we can grasp, would it not seem to be wise to seek out other sources of information, even ones that challenge your view, to make sure that you are understanding and then disagreeing with, what is being presented? without this knowledge, what you disagree with may not actually be part of the theory.
for instance. in the discussion of evolution, one nearly always finds some poster that asks something along the lines of "how did the first molecule get here?" or "how did life start?" which have nothing to do with evolution. properly, those question belong to the field of study called Abiogenesis.
Evolution starts with the a priori assumption that "life exists". it doesn't care how life got here, since that is not the question it is trying to answer. the question it is really trying to address is the cause of the diversification of life on the planet, not how said life came to be.
big difference there & it is no wonder why the Christians refused to uphold it then.
there is no reason for a Christian not to accept evolution that i am aware of. evolution does not say anything, one way or the other, concerning the nature of God or if God exists or anything like that. the only way that i can think that a theist, of any flavor, could have a religous objection is if they also feel that God is continually creating new species on the earth.
if this is their belief, then there isn't much use in discussing evolution, i'd submit.
one little girl gets her test score wrong because one scientist & one teacher tells her Aunt Lucy came from a tadpole & that is the answer she was made to put down even when she did not believe it & those people are still alive as we speak.
so... a little girl is given a biology test and the scientist told her that the correct answer is that apes and reptiles are the same and they are her common ancestor? if this is what folks are being taught, no wonder you don't believe it!
i'm not aware of a single text book or reputable scientist that believes that evolution works as has been described here.
if you have access to the text which teaches that humans come from tadpoles, i would sure love to see it... you could excerpt just a bit from it... i am sure it would be good reading
i am not against the theory of it Vajradhara,
not to belabor a point, Bandit, however, what you have described is not evolutionary theory as anyone that i know understands it. we are using something called the Modern Synthesis, have you heard of it? basically, it is described thusly:
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in
Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
more information can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
I am sorry there, but if you wish to believe that Aunt Lucy was an ape as a common ancestor, that is up to you as well, but that answer is also not going down very well with Christians even to this day & is not an obligated fact or answer as far as I can see.
despite your assertion, there are thousands of Christian scientists that accept evolution. of course, you may say that they are not True Christians if they accept evolution. that is, of course, your right to say.
i'm not sure what you mean when you say ".... as far as i can see." facts are the universes data and theories are structures of ideas to explain facts. the facts do not go away when scientsts debate rival theories. when Einstein overturned Newtonian Gravity, apples did not suspend themselves in mid air pending the outcome.
i know this is your specialty & a belief,
it is neither. i'm autodidatic with regards to evolution and it requires no belief on my part, per se. well, no more belief than i have regarding the revolutions of the earth and the sun rising as a consequence.
so I am not going to try to hinder your efforts on this & i think you should search it out for yourself.
i am not sure i understand your meaning here... i've spent a fair amount of time learning about it so that i could understand it and then decide if i accepted it or not. based on the evidence thus far presented, i am compelled to accept it until such time as new evidence is presented which falsifies it.
many great claimed christians also destroyed bibles & murdered thousands of people which is not very Christ-Like. IMO
ah... yes... the "no real Christian" fallacy. perhaps this article will be of some interest:
Paul Rothrock and Ray Grizzle
Dept. of Environmental Science
Taylor University
Upland, IN 46989-1001
During one week this summer, severe thunderstorms boomed through our county every evening. Weather bulletins reported 3/4" hail. The local papers pictured property damage - fallen limbs and broken glass - and called the damage an "act of God." These crashing storms were followed by mornings bright and benign. These too were an act of God along with the ensuing flush of new growth in our pastures and fields of corn. Psalm 104 unequivocally says that all of these and more are the works of God's hand. He brings forth food from the earth, gives breath to each living creature, and, when he takes his breath away, returns them to dust.
In these observations is an important point. Some acts of God have yielded much of their mystery to human investigation. By studying the atmosphere, we can predict rain. We can compute the movements of the earth and sun. We have discovered the chemical pathways that cause corn to grow and that maintain the life of animal cells. As Christians, we realize that naturalistic explanations do not negate the fact that God is at work in his creation. Instead, scientific explanations potentially complement those derived by revelation. Each kind of explanation has its own purpose and focus. Each is arrived at through different avenues. Each is a necessary part of fully understanding the world in which we presently live.
Science generally seeks to understand how things work and under what conditions an activity will take place. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to answer even more difficult, ultimate questions related to our place and purpose as humans. Why are we here? Who made us? And how should we live? So, as an initial response to the question, "Can a Christian believe in evolution?" we suggest that evolutionary explanations answer specific questions from a naturalistic perspective. These answers should be viewed as complementing, not competing with, those derived from the Bible.
Of course, a debate over creation versus evolution cannot be solely answered on the basis of the different roles played by scientific investigation and religious revelation. We need to ask at least two additional questions: (1) "Is there adequate scientific evidence for evolution?" and (2) "What limitations does God's inerrant verbal revelation, the Bible, place on science?"
Regarding scientific evidence, our experiences in plant taxonomy and invertebrate zoology have led us to broadly agree with the vast majority of scientists. They see descent with modification as a clear pattern in the diversity of living things. Populations and species are remarkably dynamic in their behavior and genetic program. Many families of organisms are bewilderingly rich in species and, at times, the individual species seem less different than two popular cola drinks.
Conversely, we sense a profound misunderstanding of the natural world in much Christian writing. Popular publications expend an inordinate amount of time inadequately characterizing the fossil record. They fail, e.g., to carefully evaluate the fascinating transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. They disregard how incremental changes within the horse family, seen in a well-preserved fossil record, ultimately result in a very large difference between early and late equid species.
Even without a fossil record, a powerful case for descent with modification can be made by examining the pattern of characters exhibited by the many millions of presently living forms. Careful comparisons of structure allow taxonomists to classify organisms into genera, families, and other categories based on their degree of structural and genetic similarity. To use a familiar but remarkable example, we classify whales as mammals, not fish. Why? Whales have lungs instead of gills. They also possess complex mammalian structures such as hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, a placenta, and a sophisticated brain. Even the bone structure of the flukes and skull as well as the protein chemistry and DNA are mammal-like. Connections with land mammals are confirmed by remnant hind-limb bones and pelvis.
In short, we believe that data from the study of nature indicate that successive episodes of speciation have led, over time, to very great changes in the forms of organisms. This conclusion harmonizes with the overall scientific picture of the natural world from astronomy, geology, and physics.
But what does the Bible teach about evolution? What limitations does the Bible demand from Christians in our interaction with science? To answer this we offer four observations derived from Genesis 1.
In interpreting Genesis, people often focus on how long it took God to create and whether he performed miracles or used natural processes to complete his creation. However, these questions divert attention from the central message of this portion of God's Word. The question people across the ages have needed to be answered is: "Who is God?" We learn that God is eternally existing. Unlike the pagan gods, he is neither a heavenly object, an animal, nor a human. This one, true God made all these things.
- God is portrayed as creating by speaking. The creation "hears" and obeys God. He molds order out of chaos. This has not changed, since God's Word continues moment by moment. It is what sustains all things (Heb. 1:3) and is an expression of his faithfulness and love to the creation.
- The creation was good in God's sight. It had no darkness or moral falleness. These only entered the creation through humankind's rebellion.
- In creating humans in his image, God ordained a special relationship with humans even though, as revealed in Genesis 2, we are made from humble earthen matter.
Within these points lie the limitations for the Christian in interpreting evolutionary science. There must be a Creator, and something does not come from nothing. Because there is a Creator, the processes of nature - the regularities observed by scientists - reflect nature's obedience to God's commands and are not accidental. For the Christian, nature exhibits God's wisdom and is fulfilling his divine purposes. And finally, humans, as God's image-bearers, potentially can know their Creator. In part we can know him through studying the mysteries of nature, whether thunderstorms or biological processes.
But for scientists and non-scientists alike, this earthly wisdom is never enough. Our sinful nature gets in the way. The greater part of knowing God is by faith in a most unfathomable mystery - God's gift to us of his only Son.
Suggested reading: R. T. Wright,
Biology Through the Eyes of Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1989), 298 pages.
For more information, request a copy of ASA's booklet,
Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, for teachers and others, on how to deal with the creation-evolution controversy.
American Scientific Affiliation
P.O. Box 668
Ipswich, MA 01938-0668
(978) 356-5656
carol@asa3.org
