Key points of Evolution

I have recently been reading a book written by Dr. Joan Roughgarden. (Page not found : Stanford University) What I would like to focus on are some comments made by Joan in her recent book "Evolution and Christian Faith." (Amazon.com)This book is all about presenting Evolution in a Christian friendly manner. Joan breaks down Evolution into two key ideas that need to be taught as an integral part of Biology (p.24):1) One Family Tree unites all of life and
2) Species change through time and placeOn the first point, she says the following:

quote:

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless.

---

Maybe nothing new to the debate added there, but a nice source of imagery.Of these two points of evolution, Dr. Roughgarden makes two claims.1) These two ideas must be taught in every science curriculum.
2) Neither of these ideas are directly in conflict with the Bible.I tend to agree with this sentiment. Any objectors?Not sure where this should go, as this could be taken in any of several directions depending on where people disagree.

I'd like to agree with you on this statement, it is sad that we have to appeal to the Christian faith. Yet at the same time, our public educator Richard Dawkin's shock tactics seem to have been less than successful.

First of all, I agree with chiroptera, most of this isn't on topic, especially all of this nonsense about strawmen and credentials, I can't even follow who started that. But, there are two items brought up that are on topic, first why the points in the book should be taught in the classroom, and second, whether there is a conflict between the Bible and evolution.First, why should these points be taught in school? Because they are correct. I think this quite clearly state how trees and humans are similar. As for all the discussion of the big bang, I will neglect that, since evolution doesn't concern itself with the big bang. In fact the book in the OP doesn't talk about the big bang. The point is that you can very easily see that all life is related and that life evolves, without knowing where it comes from. The origin of the earth, life, and the universe is an entirely different question, and one that isn't even taught in a typical evolutionay biology lecture. By the way, who is "us?"As for the evolution conflicting with faith topic, now you have some explaining to do. You need to show how one of these two points: conflicts with your religious belief. That is the whole point of Roughgarden's book, that neither of these two statements actually contradicts any portion of the Bible. In fact, many portions of the Bible tend to support these statements. If God created both plants and animals, then aren't we all united in a big Family Tree? Isn't this actually a Christian message?

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

Hello Deftil,Welcome to EvC, and thank you for reponding directly to the topic. Actually, I would rephrase this slightly differently. I am not telling them that they must accept a particular interpreting, I am just telling them that there are certain interpretations that they cannot accept. They can choose from any number of possible interpretations except for the few that contradict evolution. Or they can choose an interpretation that contradicts evolution with the understanding that it is not factually true.As an example interpretation which makes bluegenes point, let's say we interpret the genesis story not as historically true, but as a story that contains moral truths. This is the same way we would interpret aesop's fables for instance. Even though the factual nature of a fable contains falshoods (wolves talking), the moral nature of the story does contain truth in a way (don't cry wolf). God may not have created the world in exactly the order presented in genesis, but he did create humans after most other things, when he could dedicate to them great care and love. This interpretation actually has more power and meaning than a historically factual one.

Randman,Please be more specific. What definition of evolution did you use, and why were you told it was wrong?

Seeking,I know things got sidetracked, any chance I can hear your response to my Message 23? I'm interested to hear your response.

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith