How do Christians explain the evolution of man?

[Lissa]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *
**OH really? Do you think Evolution is taught much at those Fundamentalist Muslim “schools”, where the only book is the Koran?:dubious: You think the “Abo’s” are teaching their kids Darwin? Some American Indian tribes are making a point of only teaching their myths, or so I have heard.
**

Aren’t these * private * schools? You can teach practically anything you want to at a private school. (When I was in private school, we didn’t even have to take the state profeciency tests. Our school was not state accredited–a fact they were actually * proud * of.)

It’s when people start to try to push their mythology into the public schools that I get upset. If you want your kid to remain ignorant of evolution, that’s fine. Send them to a Christian (or Muslim, etc.) school, but don’t try to inflict your beliefs on my child.

[Clive_Staples_L]

I don’t feel like I’m qualified to debate scientific matters. I am more given to metaphysics than physics (my father, however, was a biology hs teacher with a master’s and doesn’t believe in evolution). I did, however, want to post up a few links by people smarter than me arguing my POV, although I’m guessing that’s probably not very good GDMB etiquette. My reason for doing this is that webman’s posts are brash and easily dismissed as noncredible, and I think that this debate shouldn’t be so one-sided. Here is a link to a page dedicated to the idea of intelligent design, or the design theory. The theories aren’t tied to a 6,000 year old universe and don’t start with the unscientific assumption that the God of the Bible created the Universe, but rather by asking the question, “How did we get here?” As opposed to the evolutionists usual thesis, “How did we, as complex creatures, evolve from simpler organisms?” There is a paper by Professor Victor J. Stenger called “Intelligent Design: the New Stealth Creationism” that argues that Intelligent Design is just the old Creationism arguments rehashed. A rebuttal to this paper can be found here.
The best argument I’ve seen that’s on the design side is the biochemical argument, presented in “Darwin’s Black Box.” If you don’t have the time to read a whole book right now, here is a brief review of it and “Climbing Mount Improbable.” The review is by Phillip E. Johnson, a conservative professor at Berkely (Berkely?!).
Last item I’ll add. I agree with those who say that the theory of evolution, if accepted, doesn’t disprove Christianity. However, it is a convenient way to try to remove God from the equation. I’d argue that even if you accept evolution, evolution that is exclusively naturalistic is flawed, as has been argued by brilliant men like C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias, and rather lamely by me here (6th from the bottom). So I guess this point is obviously for another thread (that one). I’ll end this post by saying that if you’re seriously interested in looking into what non-evolutionist scientist, who are increasing in number daily by the way, think about origins, check out the intelligent design site.

[tomndebb]

*Originally posted by Clive Staples L *
Here is a link to a page dedicated to the idea of intelligent design, or the design theory.
. . .
The best argument I’ve seen that’s on the design side is the biochemical argument, presented in “Darwin’s Black Box.”

And here is a presentation indicating several flaws in Darwin’s Black Box: The Flagellum Unspun and another presentation destroying several of the claims made by Behe: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? (This latter site notes that Behe claimed that no one had addressed the issues he was raising, when, in fact, multiple papers had already addressed the issues even before he wrote his book.)

I am sure that, as a student of the metaphysical, you are much taken with Johnson’s critiques of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, Johnson is a law prodfessor who enjoys arguing that evolution is “philosophically” improbable, while ignoring (as strenuously as he can) the actual scientific evidence. I find that unpersuasive. (Johnson reminds me of the people who followed Aristotle, using his arguments to “prove” that various things could not exist, all the while ignoring the evidence that they clearly did exist.)

[TVAA]

Evolutionary theory is, at its most basic, derived from the same concepts as evaporation.

Given certain assumptions about the nature of the world, it’s not necessary to prove that a bowl of water left exposed to the open air would evaporate; to the contrary, it would be reasonable to demand proof that it wouldn’t evaporate.

Evolution is similar: given that life exists, it is an inevitability, unless it is somehow prevented. Its lack is not the norm, but the exception.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Clive Staples L *
The best argument I’ve seen that’s on the design side is the biochemical argument, presented in “Darwin’s Black Box.” If you don’t have the time to read a whole book right now, here is a brief review of it and “Climbing Mount Improbable.” The review is by Phillip E. Johnson, a conservative professor at Berkely (Berkely?!).

A couple things to note, here, Clive:
First, Behe has been debunked time and again here, and elsewhere. Do a search here in Great Debates, look for “Behe” or “Intelligent Design” and you’ll get lots of hits.
Second, Phillip E. Johnson’s, er, “ideas” have likewise been dismantled on a fairly consistant basis here (and elsewhere). A review of Behe by Johnson is about as biased as it is possible to be (both Johnson and Behe are proponents of ID, so it should come as no surprise that they agree completely with one another). For a more impartial review, I’d suggest this site, which has numerous book reviews by critics of Darwin of all flavors: creationists, IDers, evolution proponents, etc. You’ll find reviews of Johnson there, too. If one examines Intelligent Design in anything more than a cursory fashion, one finds that it is plain old creationism dressed up all purty for the ball, and little more.

**

Last item I’ll add. I agree with those who say that the theory of evolution, if accepted, doesn’t disprove Christianity. However, it is a convenient way to try to remove God from the equation. I’d argue that even if you accept evolution, evolution that is exclusively naturalistic is flawed, as has been argued by brilliant men like C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias, and rather lamely by me here (6th from the bottom).**

Ultimately, whether evolution is viewed as exclusively naturalistic is entirely in the mind of the beholder. The theories say nothing about which metaphysic makes them so. A naturalistic methodology is used in investigating evolution (and, indeed, all science), but that methodology itself makes no statement as to how things operate in the metaphysical realm.

As far as evolution is concerned, God is excluded as a necessary cause, but can never be excluded as a possible cause. Science can only provide naturalistic explanations; thus, that is what it strives to do.

[Lissa]

Clive, (or anyone else who may be interested,) I don’t want to get into a “duel of the links” but here are a few which might be of interest.

This one directly addresses Behe’s assertions

This one addresses many Creationist theories.

This has excellent resources. (You can even download Darwin’s books in their entirety.)

This has many anti-Creationism links.

Clive, I don’t know how educated you actually are in evolution. If you aren’t, these links might at least be enlightening as to what the evolutionists true viewpoints are.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

Interestingly, Lissa’s first link restates many of the arguments made here against webman’s claims.

[hardcore]

Originally posted by Clive Staples L
However, it is a convenient way to try to remove God from the equation. I’d argue that even if you accept evolution, evolution that is exclusively naturalistic is flawed

I have NEVER understood why people continually make this mistake. What on earth would make evolution different from every other branch of science? Do you make this same statement concerning gravity? Chemistry? Physics? Anything?

Of course not. You, and others making this argument, only do so because evolution concerns our history, and we like to consider ourself special, such as the product of divinity. It is the same egotistical viewpoint that drove the belief in a custom-made 6000 year old universe and geocentrism. Nothing more than a childish refusal to accept facts which do not appeal to our vanity.

“What a man desires, he also imagines to be true.” - Demosthenes

[McDuff]

Clive
Can I just ask something?

(my father, however, was a biology hs teacher with a master’s and doesn’t believe in evolution).

What was his masters IN? You say he taught biology at High School level, and that he had a masters, but, although it is possible to understand High School biology without believing in evolution, you simply could not get a masters in biology without doing so. The principles of evolution form the basis for all biological research over the past hundred or so years.

“How did we get here?” As opposed to the evolutionists usual thesis, “How did we, as complex creatures, evolve from simpler organisms?”

Actually, this is wrong. There are a number of observed phenomena in the world, such as ring species and retrogenes. Evolution is a cohesive theory which explains how these things can exist. No other theory comes close to explaining the observed phenomena. As such, it is good science, something no creation science I have seen so far is.

It is also the basis for a quite good metaphysics. Enjoy!

[bo989]

!!! webman PLEASE READ !!!

I wish to discuss your argument of probability. I’ll make every effort to stick to that specific topic and to discuss logically and fairly. Although the topic has strayed from your original assertion, I think much would be gained from simply discussing probability.

I will admit that I do not agree with your understanding of probability and to the conclusions you’ve drawn from the numbers. I wish to discuss this specifically. You can explain your understanding of probabilities and how they lead to your conclusion, and I will explain my perspective.

I would be very happy to see some constuctive debate in this thread after 3 pages.

[smiling_bandit]

OH really? Do you think Evolution is taught much at those Fundamentalist Muslim “schools”, where the only book is the Koran? You think the “Abo’s” are teaching their kids Darwin? Some American Indian tribes are making a point of only teaching their myths, or so I have heard.

But they do not attempt to “disprive” evolution with bogus arguments here on the board.

Of course not. You, and others making this argument, only do so because evolution concerns our history, and we like to consider ourself special, such as the product of divinity.

I believe in evolution and I believe humanity is special. Of course, as far as design goes, I think foxes are much better suited for survival, so I suppose God was having a bit of a joke at our expense, neh?

It is the same egotistical viewpoint that drove the belief in a custom-made 6000 year old universe and geocentrism. Nothing more than a childish refusal to accept facts which do not appeal to our vanity.

Well, to be honest, these ideas were about as well supported in their day as evolution is today. We just have more evidence to judge upon. In fact, geocentrism in particular makes a lot of sense when the rets of the universe is nothing more than pinpricks of light in the night sky. No egotism about it.

[TVAA]

Actually, there are just as many problems associated with claiming humans have “souls”.

If souls somehow change according to our experiences, and influence our bodies, then they can be detected, created, and destroyed, just like everything else. This leads to some rather interesting complications.

If they can’t be influenced by the physical world, then they can’t really be responsible for our actions, can they? The same reasoning applies if they can’t influence the physical world. Either scenario requires that they violate causality, which is extremely problematic.

Belief in the human soul requires rejecting current physics, chemistry, all neurological sciences, a great deal of biology, mathematics, and logic. Saying “I believe in evolution, but I believe that humans are somehow supernaturally special” is just as inconsistent as claiming evolution isn’t valid but the other sciences are.

[prisoner6655321]

Originally posted by webman
I simply do not wish to waste days upon days to this debate. I do not have that kind of energy to put into such and unfruitful argument.

Webman, how can you call witnessing unfruitful? If you have some valid arguments to give your fellow creationists ammo then please share. If the arguments are truely valid, and you obviously think… no… KNOW that they are valid, then you should be able to convince the evolutionists that God exists, and then save their soul. That doesn’t sound unfruitful to me. Even sowing the seed of doubt, or planting the seed of doubt would be fruitful enough.

I am a creationist, but I believe that God allowed evolution to help the different species adapt to the varying conditions of the Earth. I haven’t done the research that you have obvioiusly done so my beliefs aren’t hard fast. If you want a chance to be fruitful then convince ME that evolution doesn’t hold water. Right now, it makes sense to me. I don’t see why creationism and evolution can’t live togethor in peace. Prove to ME that they are opposites. Prove to me how God could NOT have created evolution as a means for species to adapt. I would think that an unchangeable species wouldn’t stand a chance when climates change worldwide, plant species get wiped out, and let’s not forget Man’s fiddling with Nature. Evolution is the only means to protect these species from extinction. Man could be a means, but we have limited resourses and we can’t save them all. And we are the cause of many of those extinctions.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Clive Staples L *
**Last item I’ll add. I agree with those who say that the theory of evolution, if accepted, doesn’t disprove Christianity. However, it is a convenient way to try to remove God from the equation.

**

That’s what they said about the theory of universal gravitation- Newton was accused of being an atheist, because he didn’t believe that the hand of God was pushing the planets around.

Newton himself believed in the equivalent of ID: the motions of the planets were 99% gravity, but God gave them little nudges now and then, so He still got to use His hands.

**
I’ll end this post by saying that if you’re seriously interested in looking into what non-evolutionist scientist, who are increasing in number daily by the way, **

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp

Why should anyone, scientist or otherwise, believe a liar like Behe?

[hardcore]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**I believe in evolution and I believe humanity is special. Of course, as far as design goes, I think foxes are much better suited for survival, so I suppose God was having a bit of a joke at our expense, neh? **

I certainly feel humans are precious, albeit due to our own efforts. We are what we have made of ourselves, which is quite special enough without the need to resort to unfounded supernatural desires. If there is any design, I think the evidence indicates the designer is inordinately fond of beetles.

**Well, to be honest, these ideas were about as well supported in their day as evolution is today. We just have more evidence to judge upon. In fact, geocentrism in particular makes a lot of sense when the rets of the universe is nothing more than pinpricks of light in the night sky. No egotism about it. **

Your first two sentences contradict each other. Those old ideas were not supported by any evidence, just oral histories and the common-sense observation that it didn’t feel like we were moving through space. By contrast, evolution is supported by a wealth of evidence. Surely you realize there was strong resistance to the change from young universe to old universe theories, or geocentrism to heliocentrism, even when the facts indicated otherwise? If not, research Galileo and Bruno.

[DrDeth]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Behe has been conclusively “debunked” here, or elsewhere. And blithely disamissing him as a “liar”, especially based upon a small poll in Ohio, seems a bit strong. :rolleyes: Remember, we don’t “vote on the truth”. True, his thesis has some holes, and some dudes have given some good arguements that Behe may be incorrect. But he has hardly been debunked on the level of a Ponzi scheme, the Piltdown Man, voices from hell, the “missing day” or those “footprints” some fundie creationists like to mention. He has a good point, and one that was pointed out in my Bio & Zoo classes oh so long ago. The point is- altho perhaps not “irreducably” complex, many mainstream scientists even argue that there is only a very very small chance of life evolving on it’s own. Some legit mainstream scientists think that it is so unlikely, they push the theory that life spread through space by “spores”, etc. That is to say- there was maybe only one or 2 cosmic happenstances, but that they spread. Behe is not a “crackpot”, rather he is simply on the edge of the bell curve of how likely legit scientists think life is. Some very respectable scientists are pretty close to Behe’s %. Ok, true, he says the % is so close to zero, it IS zero- and the more mainstream agree that it is very close to zero, but there are a damn large number of star systems out there. Many of us would say that a .00000000000000000001 chance IS zero… but not if there is 20000000000000000000 tries!

The argument given on the one site- that “life ws like dealing out 52 cards and noting that any random order was unlikely on it’s own, but still 100% likely as is” is specious. Based upon that, scientists would expect to find life on every planet, in every star system- and most do not so expect. If we had to make such a analogy, we’d have to say that the cards came out, after being shuffled- back into their exact suit & number order.

However- given the HUGE and VAST number of star systems, that is not as impossible as it may seem. Certainly, if one deals the cards long enough, they will come up back in their original order.

Or perhaps, carbon based life is not the only kind and the cards only have to come out in numerical order, in any suit. Or perhaps it is somewhere in between- that is the cards must be in order, organized by suit, but the suits don’t have to be in the same “hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades” they were in the box. It is also possible that life is much more common than we thought, so that somehow, once the cards come out in "ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,- then the rest of the suit follows automatically.

Life IS complex. Life IS unlikely. Just how unlikely is a matter of great disagreement & speculation.

[smiling_bandit]

If souls somehow change according to our experiences, and influence our bodies, then they can be detected, created, and destroyed, just like everything else. This leads to some rather interesting complications.

How do you figure? You’re still thinking physical terms. Yet by nature man cannot create nor destroy souls. God can do the first, but I’m not sure about the latter.

If they can’t be influenced by the physical world, then they can’t really be responsible for our actions, can they? The same reasoning applies if they can’t influence the physical world. Either scenario requires that they violate causality, which is extremely problematic.

But why couldn’t they influence the physical world? There are countless holes in the universe which we cannot peer through.

Belief in the human soul requires rejecting current physics, chemistry, all neurological sciences, a great deal of biology, mathematics, and logic. Saying “I believe in evolution, but I believe that humans are somehow supernaturally special” is just as inconsistent as claiming evolution isn’t valid but the other sciences are.

I suppose I must be a testament to the error of your statement.

True, his thesis has some holes, and some dudes have given some good arguements that Behe may be incorrect.

His arguments do not bother me so much as his hypocrisy.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**

His arguments do not bother me so much as his hypocrisy. **

Ad Hominem. Proving someone an asshole does not prove them incorrect.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**How do you figure? You’re still thinking physical terms. Yet by nature man cannot create nor destroy souls. God can do the first, but I’m not sure about the latter.

** Says who?

If souls can interact with the physical world, they’re part of the physical world by extension.

If they can affect and be affected by the world, then they can be disrupted like any other physical system. They can be “broken”.

**But why couldn’t they influence the physical world? There are countless holes in the universe which we cannot peer through. **

It doesn’t make any difference. If souls interact with the world through quantum mechanical effects, quantum effects can affect them. This means that they can be formed or destroyed.

**I suppose I must be a testament to the error of your statement. **

I’m sorry, but all you can show is that your thinking is logically inconsistent.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *
**I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Behe has been conclusively “debunked” here, or elsewhere. And blithely disamissing him as a “liar”, especially based upon a small poll in Ohio, seems a bit strong. :rolleyes: **

I must apologize for the misunderstanding. I didn’t mean to imply that Behe was a liar because of the poll, although I can see how I would have given that impression.

As an example of one of his lies, take his comments about tubulin, for example. He says that tubulin is covered in “needles” that need to fit precisely into “holes” on adjacent tubulin monomers. These “needles” and “holes” simply do not exist. Behe simply invented them in order to make his argument more impressive, knowing that his intended audience would be too ignorant to catch the lie.