Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Pentium? Sounds like your computer is slumming.

Can we head back towards "Evolution for Dummies and Christians?"This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-30-2005 08:54 PM

Certainly, but it's unfortunately true that these don't necessarily result from a degree in physics, or any other degree for that matter. And advanced study in mathematics is more likely, in my experience, to send folks down dead-ends of "specified complexity" and fake ideas about information than to a knowledgeable understanding of population genetics, bioinformatics, and other evolutionary fields appropriate for someone with a math jones.I think that both you and I would agree that an open mind best equips someone to learn about evolution; not an attitude of "if hundreds of scientists agree, they can't possibly be right."

There are a number of new people to the site all of the sudden and I have gotten some of you a bit confused.Please tell me that you aren't a Young Earth CreationistOne of the BIG debates with the YEC is about "how much faster" the rate of nuclear decay was in the time before and during the great flood.

Or creation, or God, or anything for that matter

Not yet, but I am toying with the idea.The first part of Genesis chap 1 verse 2 leaves room for an older earth.2 And the earth became formless and void.If it became formless and void, what was it before?

hehe ya.Most of us ToErs don't have a problem with Old Earth Creationists (at least in comparison) but those Young Earthers...The idea that you'd have a degree in nuclear physics and buy into variable decay had me worried.

Tell us what, *exactly*, you mean by "genetic diversity", then we can work on showing it to you.

Just maybe I have to plead guilty here... I added a link to EvC on the Wikipedia article about the Creation vs Evolution controversy... Maybe that could be the reason for all the new cannon-fodder (just joking )

quote:

---

Most of us ToErs don't have a problem with Old Earth Creationists....

---

That depends on what you mean by "Old Earth Creationist", Nuggin. Traditionally, an OEC is someone who accepts that creation is old but that the species (or at least the "kinds") were each specially created at the proper time. But I imagine that there is no sharp division between OEC and theistic evolution, which is what some people these days mean when they refer to OEC.

Yeah, you're right. I was combining Theistics and OEC. I guess we don't really hear much from the original OECs anymore, that's why there is some blur.But the two are distinctly different

just a note,I havent gone through all the answers, but I wondered the following. The title says "Evolution for Dummies and Christians". Ok, but what about non-judeo-christian faiths who don't base themselves on the Bible? It seems, from my studies on the History of Science, that the Great Debate stems directly from this Western conflict between it's religious foundation and it's own scientific growth. The two are not always incompatible in other cultures. So to apply this view I hope you specifically speak of christianity, because we do not find this conflict to be as pronounced in other important world cultures.It isn't all Bible against Evolution in the world outside the bounds of western society and culture.

Actually, there are Creationist movements in Islam and Hinduism, too.The key to these conflicts seems to be "revealed truth".. all of these religions have texts that are supposedly the word of the God(s).

The major difference though, is that Religion never came in conflict with scientific advancement in these civilisations. On the contrary. Because, let's be honest, science, whether you believe in God or not (I personally don't believe in no mystery god in the sky), isn't able to emphatically irradicate the possibility of God. Because it would depend on one's concept of God. Like Einstain, who believed in Spinoza's God. It simply established, particularely in the case of the Bible, that most of the "revealed" truths turned out to be either false, or...allegorical. Which, from a purely cultural standpoint, cannot be discounted either. Let's remember, that is was the Church authorities, motivated by "religious" and/or political and economic agendas told the masses these were hard facts. This is why scientists in Europe were persacuted in the Middle Ages for trying to explain that the earth is round for example. Science History 101 right? We dont find this scenario elswhere outside of Europe. Science in other more developped civilisations was not perscecuted as such. Asia, Africa and Ancient America never had this problem. Because of one simple reason, most of these religions allowed and encouraged allegorical meaning. The high use of symboles bares witness to this. It encouraged, in many cases, a more tolerant world view and gave science it's breathing space. In fact, without the Arab's desire to understand the way they could position themselves toward their Holy City from any given geographical point, we might still be in the dark ages. Mathematics, Egyptian (via Greek) philosophy, Astronomy and other sciences wouldn't have been resurrected, and we might still be in the dark ages. Because the advancements of the Rennaissance and the Ages des lumieres was highly tributary of this rebirthed knowledge from Baghdad to Andalusia in Spain during it's Moorish African Occupation. This is a case where religion, in the course of history, was useful to scientific progress.Put it this way, in the words of Stanley Lane Poole, in his book, the story of the Moors in Spain, the world might have been 500 years further then where it is had the Moors prevailed. Of course, this is nothing but a hypothesis. But the point being, there was no conflict. Religion and Science co-existed in those societies.
Case in point, the Great Pyramid. And remember, Creationist is a Western concept, which has roots in it's own history. The paradigm shifts when you try to apply this definition on other cultures. It has to be done on the basis of their own history in relationship to science. Otherwise, it's a rather unfair and biased comparison, don't you find?This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-06-2005 10:14 AM

The Hovind/Callahan debate page at Faith & Reason Ministries has been updated with expanded commentary, more pictures, and a video clip. The debate page is the ministries' most popular.So if you missed the original publication or wish to see the most recent version, don't miss the action: young Earth creationism (YEC) vs. theistic evolution. Included are the entire Dec-5-04 debate (mp3) and excerpts (mp3), a video clip (mov, wmv, mpg), photos, commentary and links (including links to Callahan's letter to Hovind and Hovind's radio response, Aug-26-04, mp3).See the Hovind/Callahan debate link at Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/