Key points of Evolution

I truly appreciate your post. It gives me a better understanding of how those who believe in God have reconciled their beliefs to the Theory of Evolution (and other theories on origins I assume). I would only like to make a couple of comments. I don't think I have ever been able to clarify this comment. The overwhelming evidence that I am referring to is the presumed evidence for evolution, not the evidence for the existence of God. My point was that these scientists, just as you have, looked at the evidence for evolution, and it did not eliminate their belief in God. They concluded that God exists, not as a result of the overwhelming evidence, but in spite of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I would think that would be a more friendly way to teach evolution in the classroom than some of the suggestions I have heard. You could teach that, "they can have their beliefs even if evolution is real." This is not compromising the facts or the evidence. It is not belittling the beliefs of the students. And, it would teach that the theory by scientific definition could change in the future if evidence is provided that requires that change.Would you recommend that our public schools require classes on comparative religions? This would seem to help the population understand the belief systems of others. Obviously, these would not be science classes.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It is my Dagomba name. I live among a tribe of people in Africa called the Dagombas. Actually, it is the only name that many of the people here know me by. Its meaning is "God's Gift." A woman who had difficulty conceiving who finally has her first child would give the child the name "Wumpini." Someone gave me the name, and I kind of liked it so I kept it. I am only now learning what the difference is between an IDist and a Theistic Evolutionist. I don't think I can be categorized so easily. I definitely want anything that has been proven in science to be taught as such. However, I would surely want us to be careful that we are not teaching something as proven which has not reached such an elevated status. This is especially true if it could affect an individual's faith. I believe with your background that you can understand my concern. I believe if we look at the history of science there are instances where something was taught as fact and later learned to be untrue. So we know the possibility exists.I am using the term proven even though it is my understanding that a scientific theory can never be proven, it can only be falsified. However, regardless of the words we use, we need to be careful. I can assure you that what you said was not stupid. Remember that you should not discard something you believe to be true only because those who appear to be intellectuals argue against it. You seem to be intelligent, and you have faith. Those who are arguing against you could have no understanding of Biblical inspiration. Their understanding may be limited to logic and science. Review the evidence and make your own decision. Don't jump on the bandwagon based upon someone else's opinion.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This overwhelming evidence has really become a thorn in my flesh. It keeps coming up and seems to have evolved from when it was first brought up by someone else. First, I never said that there was overwhelming evidence for evolution. Rahvin said that and here was my response in Message 182: Second, my original point was that even though scientists were aware of this supposedly overwhelming evidence for evolution, it did not, for many of them, eliminate their belief in God as the Creator. It only seemed to change the method that they said that God used in Creation.Even though I don't believe I have argued, as of yet, that the evidence (or the interpretation of that evidence) for the Theory of Evolution can affect someone's belief in God, I believe that to be true. Listen to what Bluejay says: Obviously, when presented with the evidence for evolution Bluejay's faith was seriously compromised. I did not become a Christian until later in life, and when I made that decision, I had to go back and seriously review those scientific facts that I had been taught in my younger years that conflicted with the Bible. Solid-state electronics and gravity have nothing to do with the belief that people have in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The Theory of Evolution can have an affect on a person's view towards the Bible. That is why this entire dispute between Creation and Evolution exists. If Genesis Chapter One said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and man through the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Evolution" then this website would not exist. I do not think that most of science would have an affect on a person's belief in God. If a person has based their belief in God upon a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, as many do, then many areas of science could affect their faith. This would include Cosmological Origins, Abiogenesis, Evolution, Geological Theories relating to the Age of the Earth or a Global Flood, or any other area of science that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.It would be interesting to study the statistical relationships of belief in God for scientists in different disciplines to the population in general. I have not had time to do this.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It is not any "overwhelming evidence" that is a thorn in my flesh, but the fact that people seem to keep attributing your comment to me. Sometimes it is seen as evidence for evolution, and at other times it is seen as evidence for the existence of God. This one statement really has created a lot of confusion. Maybe you should consider retracting it.As for looking into the scientific evidence for evolution, I have been attempting to do that. I don't see where I was confused. Actually, No!God Wrote the Bible, and God Created the world.You really give man way too much credit. I think that has been the problem from the beginning. Man has always wanted to be God. This statement is only true for those who have chosen to adapt their religious beliefs to agree with the Theory of Evolution as you stated you have by taking a non-literal view of the Bible. Look, Rahvin. Here's the deal.I am sure that you are totally convinced that all of the scientific conclusions that have been made in the field of biological evolution are true. However, look at the history of science, and the times they have had to completely change their view as a result of new evidence. If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of evolution that could completely change the view of what has happened in the past then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in the theory than the truth.I agree with you completely that we should teach the observations of biological evolution in the present as fact. If scientists see the process of mutation and natural selection occurring in the world today then teach what they observe. However, to interpolate this data which is presently being observed millions of years into the past, and treat it as fact, is going beyond what it seems this field of science allows. I don't know where the line should be drawn. However, I believe it is a serious consideration since the faith of many people could possibly be compromised. Then teach the observations. No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Why? Were you there? That is an interesting statement.I think maybe it is time for me to end this discussion. It seems to have reached a point of diminishing returns.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Isn't there a difference between 2+2=4, and 3.5 billion years ago this organism turned into that organism? One seems like cold hard facts, and the other seems like supposition. You need to understand that there are different theories related to the Synoptic Gospels, and you are most likely hearing only one view on this website, and that view probably leaves out inspiration. Even though scholars have been aware of the similarities between these gospels for over 1800 years, it has only been recently that these new hypotheses have been presented. Here is a quote from the book of a University Bible Professor (RC Foster) titled, "Studies in the Life of Christ: Introduction and Early Ministry." This book was written in 1966.

quote:

---

The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible. The theory of evolution is the accepted basis of measurement for the “intellectuals" of this generation and everywhere is seen the blind and ruthless rejection or alteration of the facts in order to fit the preconceived hypothesis.

---

Then, believe the Word of God when He says "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16).

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

The feeling is mutual. But, I do like the poster. I would say it is profoundly unlikely that pigs are going to fly.I have been trying to understand the way scientists use different words to help me communicate with them. Especially, words like fact and theory. I am trying to study that now.I have been reading a middle school textbook on evolution which I kind of like even though it probably isn't very accurate. It is only about 100 pages long and mostly pictures (pretty cool pictures) so it is easy to read.I have a college textbook I found on evolution but it is a lot longer with more words (big words like transcriptase), and it has less pictures. So if I start using big words about evolution, they are probably coming out of this book. I read the first chapter, and then went back to my little book. I consider that progress.I am having a little difficulty in my mind understanding how all of these different eras, and ages, and index fossils came into being. I may have to go look in my big book to figure it out. It kind of seems like that jumbled up mess you are talking about.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I agree that we should use deductive reasoning. I am not arguing that there is no evidence. This evidence can be observed and tell us something about the past. All I have been trying to say is that the conclusions that are made could be wrong. The evidence is all circumstantial.It is the same in a criminal investigation. All of the evidence could point towards someone being guilty, and that person is innocent. Even evidence in a criminal investigation becomes colder and more difficult to follow after a period of time. Would it not be the same in this situation? We are talking about billions of years. Any conclusions made on evidence that is that old would seem to be questionable to me. Since you cannot repeat the event, it does not appear that there is any method to test these conclusions.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I am not sure that I understand the comparison between the observation of the effect of an electron in the present, and the inability to observe an evolutionary event in the past.The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.Am I missing something here?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I am very limited on any books that I can find on the subject of evolution in this part of the world. I found these only because an orphans' home a hundred miles from where I live received these used textbooks from America to sell to support their orphans. It is very doubtful that I could find a new book on evolution anywhere in this country, and that is including the university level. Most university students here do not buy books anyway. They can't afford them so they copy the parts they need. Copying copyrighted books is big business here.As for my college level textbook on evolution. It is titled "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman and Jon Herron. The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play. Actually, I have no problem understanding the mechanisms and process for the evolution of the HIV virus, or anything else for that matter.In addition to these books, I bought a lot of other textbooks from these people relating to different fields of science that I thought would be helpful. They were cheap so I said why not. I may not read them all but I figured I could use them for reference later. Here is what I have now:College Level Textbooks (Qty)1 Evolutionary Analysis ("big book")
5 Life Science or Biology
1 Early Life on Earth
2 Microbiology
1 Implantation Biology
1 Biology of Marine Life
1 Medical Parisitology
2 Chemistry
1 Principles of Biochemistry
1 Basic Neurochemistry
2 Genetics
1 Human Genetics
1 Experimental Methodology
1 Statistics (for Engineers and Scientists)
1 LogicHigh School and Middle School Textbooks1 Evolution ("little rubbish book")
3 Physical ScienceUnfortunately, I could not find any books on Geology. Maybe geologists don't sell their used textbooks.Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology.Other Books and MagazinesAt least 50 copies of PNAS from 2004 and 2005 that discuss topics like Binocularity and brain size evolution. I am really not sure that these are going to be very useful to me anytime in the near future.So I am serious about trying to find out what you guys believe to be true, and how you came to that belief, as it relates to the origins and diversity of life. I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Let me try to explain where I am having difficulty here.If you test for the effect of an electron in an atom, you can reapeatedly test over and over again the same element and compare the results. Therefore, you can confirm your theory.Now let us say we are dealing with an evolutionary event that is supposed to have happened billions of years ago. I would agree that if the earth existed billions of years ago, and if life existed at that time then it is most likely that evolution as it is being observed today would have been taking place at that time. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons.First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case.That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present. It would appear that whatever evidence appeared in nature, no matter what direction was taken, it would never disprove or falsify the present theory of evolution.I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago.Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

RC Foster writes in his book:

quote:

---

The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible.

---

I really have not learned how to stay on topic very well. I appreciate the latitude that the Admins have given me in this area.I would think that Foster is trying to say that a naturalistic world view has had an effect upon Biblical Criticism. In other words, many are trying to separate the author (God) from the book (The Bible) by ignoring inspiration (because of their preconceived naturalistic view). I would doubt Foster is talking about biological evolution, and I would also doubt that at that time a Bible Professor had much knowledge of the subject anyway. Evolution was probably a much more divisive issue in the intellectual (university) world back in 1966 than it is today.If anyone wants to discuss this subject more than it would probably be best to start a new thread.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I am definitely a Creationist. I believe with all my heart that God is the Creator of all that we see, and all that we are. Even the New Testament confirms this fact.

quote:

---

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

---

However, I am also a truth seeker which means I will seek out the truth.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

The list I gave were not titles of books but subjects. I have five college level biology or life science textbooks with the following titles and dates.Biology: A Custom Edition for Anoka-Ramsey Community College - 2005 - (Campbell; Reece)
Inquiry Into Life - 2003 - (Sylvia Madder)
Life: The Science of Biology - 2001 (Pruves; Sadava; Orians; Heller)
Biology: Exploring Life - 1994 - (Brum; McKane; Karp)
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life - 1992 - (Starr; Taggart)Like I said, they were cheap, and I did not know which, if any, were any good.The Community College textbook is the newest and the shortest. I do not know how dated evolutionary material would be.I am very short of time so it would be best if I could spend my time wisely. Do you still recommend "Life: The Science of Biology?" It does not appear that the book I have is the same as the one you are talking about. Part Three is "Evolutionary Processes." Maybe your book is a different edition, this is the Sixth Edition.As for web links, sometimes I can spend five minutes or more just bringing up one page on your website. The fastest my link would ever be is about 6 or 7kbs. It is possible if one website has a lot of unbiased information that I could attempt to find a faster link and download the website.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid.(It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.) Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org? Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce