Key points of Evolution

If I understand correctly, this thread is dealing with what should be taught in schools regarding the subject of evolution. It seems that it is being promoted that evolution can be taught in such a way that it will not be offensive to those who believe in creation.Since I am interested in the "Theory of Evolution," and I am also interested in the welfare of children in the United States of America, I think I will attempt to participate in this discussion.It seems that Razd is saying there is a factual process that can be observed directly at the present time which supports the theory of biological evolution.Razd says: I agree that this process is supported by evidence which can be observed in the present, and therefore should be taught as fact in schools.Razd then says: That is quite a leap (you might even say a leap of faith). How can we say that observing small changes in the hereditary traits of populations is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth. There appear to be way too many unknowns to promote this as an acceptable theory. I really have a problem with the word sufficient.We should teach that hereditary change occurs in population over time. That is a fact.We should teach that it is a theory that these changes may result in the population changing to the extent that a parent population can give rise to two separate populations that are considered different species. They no longer have the ability to interact in such a way to produce offspring. This is a theory, and should be taught as such.However, to make the statement that these hereditary changes are sufficient to explain all of the diversity in life on the earth today does not even appear to be close to a supportable theory. This should not be taught as a theory that is supportable by the evidence. It should not be taught in such a way that students would get the impression that it is a scientific fact. It could be taught that some scientists promote the idea that these changes that we see in organisms could explain the diversity in life that we see on this planet. It could also be taught that others promote the view that the diversity we see in life is due to supernatural causes that are no longer taking place on the earth today.How can we teach that our observations are sufficient to support this theory of evolution. Scientifically, we do not even have a solid theory for the origin of life. After its origin there does not seem to be solid theories to explain many of the changes that would have to take place from a single cell asexual organism to the diversity of life that we see on this planet at the present time.Would it not be more reasonable to teach the facts as we know them. This would encourage children to have the desire to seek out the truth. Scientifically we have no reasonable explanation for the origin of life, or the diversity we see here on earth. We have a theory that explains change in organisms. It is hoped that this theory will be developed in the future to sufficiently explain the diversity of life on earth. However, this theory is not sufficient at the present time to explain many of the changes that would have needed to take place for the diversity and complexity of life that we see today.Should biological evolution be taught in schools? YesShould the theory of evolution be taught in such a way that it is understood to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth today? NoShould students be taught that there are various views related to the diversity of life that have not been scientifically proven including some that suppose that supernatural events took place? YesThis would give the student the same opportunity that you and I have. To seek out the truth!Thanks

---

"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

Hi platypus,I am sorry but I have not read the book so I am not qualified to respond on whether it is promoting evolution in a manner that is Christian friendly.I do believe that a theory of evolution could be taught in a manner that is not in contradiction to the Bible (not the theory that I have read on this thread).I do not believe that the theory of evolution will be taught in a manner that is in agreement with the Bible by most scientists.A scientist who understands and believes in the Bible, and who is willing to teach the truth under the threat of censorship by his peers could accomplish this task. It is not likely to happen very often!Thanks

---

"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

Phalanx says: What exactly does the scientific community accept as scientific fact?I agreed that we can observe changes in the populations of organisms in the world today. That is a fact. I am sure that the scientific community is in agreement with this fact.However, my point was that these changes were not sufficient to explain the diversity of life as it exists on the planet today.I do not believe the scientific community is in agreement that natural evolutionary causes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on the earth today. It may be taught that they are in agreement. This may be what you were taught. But, I do not believe that to be true.First, I have read numerous theories by different scientists that contradict one another. Some of these theories deny that abiogenesis is possible. No life - no evolution. Some of these theories deny that complex changes are possible. No complex changes then no sufficient explanation for the diversity of life. Do you see where this is leading?Second, I looked on the internet to see what scientists believe. Do you realize that only 55% of scientists believe in evolution by natural causes. The other 45% believe that their were supernatural explanations. Forty-five percent of scientists polled believe in creation or theistic evolution.You say: If you are going to eliminate the supernatural from evolution then you need to eliminate 45% of the science teachers.But what this really tells us is that 45% of scientists do not believe that the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet.Here is a link to the Gallup Poll information: Many Scientists See GodIf almost one-half of scientists do not believe the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, then why in the world would we teach this as a fact to our children?We really need to evaluate what are schools are teaching as fact!ThanksEdited by Admin, : Shorten link.

---

"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

Granny says: It appears to be an independent survey of scientists based upon Gallup Poll questions that were asked to a sample of all Americans about their views on evolution. If you read the rest of the article, you will see that the other five percent believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible for the creation of mankind.With the 40% that believe God helped out the evolution process, that gives us a total of 45% that believe that God was involved in the process that resulted in the diversity of life that we see on this planet today.That is my point!Therefore, the statement that the scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution as stated is false. According to this survey, 55% of scientists believe in the theory of evolution as stated. 40% of scientists believe the diversity of life on earth is explained by a combination of supernatural causes and natural causes. And, the other 5% of scientists believe the diversity of life on earth is explained by supernatural causes.If God is required to be involved in the process, then we cannot say that these scientists believe that evolution (natural causes) is sufficient (in and of itself) to explain the diversity.I have stated that I believe that changes (evolution) are taking place at the present that we can observe. However, I would place myself with the 45% of scientists that believe that God is involved in the process that explains the diversity that we see today. Therefore, it would be incorrect for you to group me with those that that believe natural causes are sufficient for the diversity. It would be dishonest for you to state that I am in agreement with those who believe in the theory of evolution as stated in this thread.If the argument is to be made that the scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution as stated in this thread (that natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity), then we need not ignore the voices of those scientists.The voices say that scientists are divided on the question of whether natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity in life that we see today. Even if the survey is not statistically accurate (which you have not given any evidence to show that it is not), the results would indicate there is a division. And it would appear that this division is close to the middle - 55%/45%.If we are to teach people, we should teach them the facts!

---

"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

Phalanx says: Maybe this can explain why there is so much division in the scientific world related to the origin of life, and the theory of evolution. Not much value is given to the opinions of those that disagree.

---

"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

Hello Annafan,Thanks for the link. I will most certainly look through the information.As I have stated before, I do not deny the theoretical process of evolution. I believe that changes do occur over time, and given significant time these changes could be significant. However, I am not convinced that this natural process is sufficient to explain the diversity that I see in the world today.I will listen to the opinion of anyone, and evaluate any evidence that is presented. However, that does not mean that I will jump on the "evolution answers all questions" bandwagon until I become convinced by the evidence. As of now, I am not convinced by the evidence.Thanks again

---

"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

Taz says: I do not forsee any beneifit that can be derived from us exhanging evidence, ideas or opinions. It is apparant that my intellect has not evolved to the point of yours.

---

"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

Thank you for your response to my post.I am not ignoring your response.Based upon a member's suggestion, I have decided to read the document on the talk origins website related to the evidence for macroevolution before I continue with this disscussion.Thanks

---

"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

Annafan says: and you say: and you say: It sure appears that you are targeting me since I was dealing with this question only five posts earlier.I attempted to gather and show evidence (information) for the division that appears to exist between scientists. I thought that was what discussion was all about. I show evidence that there is division. If someone disagrees with that evidence or my conclusion, then they should provide evidence that shows my research is incorrect, or that my logic is flawed. I am not a scientist, but that sounds kind of scientific to me.No offense intended. I truly appreciate your input and guidance!Thanks

Percy says: Thank you for helping me find an alternative study related to what scientists believe about evolution. Could you please give me the source for these statistics?Thanks

It appears that you are misquoting the study, so I do not think you should go with the 95% figure.If you are going to use the figures that I presented then let us attempt to get the facts correct.The study says that:

quote:

---

55% "hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man."

---

You found this quote and used it effectively.I quote the article as saying:

quote:

---

"While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness"

---

The correct conclusion would be that 40% believe that a creator "guided" evolution that resulted in human beings possessing a soul.One of these individuals said, and I once again quote the article:

quote:

---

"I believe God could work through evolution," a South Carolina mathematician wrote in a marginal note on the survey "Bell shaped curves describe how characteristics are distributed.. . so I think that God uses what we perceive to be 'random processes.'"

---

What did this man say? God uses what we perceive to be "random processes." If God is using these processes, then it is not natural. It is supernatural by definition. We only perceive it to be natural.This is a far cry from the naturalistic evolution that science appears to be proposing.It seems you are attempting to take this 40% that believe in theistic evolution, and drop them into a category that says God started it, and then evolution took over. That is not what the survey says. These people believe that God started the process, God guided the process, and the result were human beings that are different than animals. Human Beings that possess souls.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.Edited by Wumpini, : I have rethought portions of this post

---

"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

teen for christ says: I thought the theory of evolution was supposed to be a natural process.Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution?It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms.Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective?Edited by Wumpini, : Added quote by teenforchrist

---

"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 sorry for getting personal.It seems that at times things are very obvious to me, and I cannot understand why others do not see. I have nothing personal against you, just frustration that others cannot see what I see.My original plan was to study some of the evidence for evolution so that I may better understand your point of view.I think I will revert to that plan now.

---

"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

Dr Adequate says: It seems that I have been confusing the theory of evolution (that over time populations change) with the mechanics for evolution (what causes this change). As I study more, it is becoming evident that I need to separate the two.In the statistical survey that I quoted, I was not looking at them separately.Let me try to explain how I was thinking.Evolution appears to be defined as a natural process (still occurring naturally today) where changes occur in populations of organisms over time that results in the diversity of life that we see today.Based upon the study that I quoted, I make the following conclusions:It seems that 95% of the scientists believe that the process of evolution is occurring today, and has occurred in the past, and is responsible for the diversity that we see in life today.It seems that 55% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has always been completely natural. In other words, there was never any supernatural intervention at any time.It seems that 40% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has been aided through supernatural intervention. This supernatural intervention could have been as simple as God created the process and let evolution take it's own course. Or, it could be that God assisted the process throughout. I do not know what these scientists believe, but it does not appear that they believe the process was entirely natural. I am sure that many of them are convinced that God has instilled in humans a spiritual existence (soul if you will) that they do not attribute to evolution.The remaining 5% appear to believe that a supernatural process created these organisms in their complete form within the last 10,000 years. I would think that even these men believe in evolution in the sense that changes are continuing to occur today.I hope that this explains why I stated that these scientists should not be grouped together. Yes, they all believe in evolution, but they believe in different mechanisms that started the process or moved the process along.I hope that you can see how I was looking at things. I was stating that there was division among the scientists. It did not occur to me until later that we were not talking about the same things. I was talking about the mechanism, while everyone else was talking about the result.Therefore, my conclusion would be that most scientists believe in evolution. They believe that changes have occurred in populations in the past, and are continuing to occur in the present. Most of these scientists (the 5% excluded) would say that this process is responsible for the diversity that we see in organisms on the earth today. There appears to be little division between scientists that changes are occurring in organisms, and I agree. ( I do not concur as of yet that evolution is responsible for the diversity we see in life.)However, it would appear that only a little more than half of the scientists believe this process was completely natural. Almost one-half of the scientists would attribute a supernatural influence (God if you will)to the mechanism that resulted in the diversity we see today. There appears to be division in the scientific world related to the mechanism of evolution. A significant portion of this division are scientists who are of the opinion that a supernatural influence was involved in the process. This is where I saw the division among scientists.I am truly trying to see your side of the picture. I am not making arguments only for the sake of argument. If I say something, it is because, at the time, I believe it to be true. If I find later that what I believe is false based upon the evidence (regardless of whether it conflicts with my theological beliefs), I will change what I believe, and make that fact known.Therefore, I concur that almost all scientists believe in evolution. Whether they all have the same definitions, or different definitions, I do not know. I also am convinced, until the evidence shows otherwise, that scientists are divided about the mechanism responsible for these changes, and many scientists believe that a supernatural element (God) is somehow involved in the process.I will continue to attempt to come to a better understanding of this subject.

---

"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

Catholic Scientist says: I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same.However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?It seems it would be wise to consider the implications even if they could not be scientifically predicted.

---

"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