Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

I shouldn't have to say that gravity is a law, but I will. Gravity is a law. If you want to prove evolution the way gravity has been proven, put a monkey in a lab and we'll watch it turn into a human. Or better yet, make me one single celled organism, a feat we have yet to accomplish by trying, yet can somehow happen by chance if enough time is involved. There is too much design in the world as I see it, and I'm not alone.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 7, 2009 at 9:02 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

linguo:

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, such pointed dialogue is counterproductive. Loaded nouns such as "fantasy"; unnecessary shortening of proper nouns...do ya really think writing "xtian" instead of Christian furthers your point of view? Of course not. It makes reasonable, rational people look cold, mean and just as closed-minded as the most radical theists.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pump on February 5, 2009 at 10:10 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Greetings all,

Science and faith might coexist beautifully were it not for political/religious extremism.

The creationism/ID lobby seeks to establish their sectarian interpretation of faith over physical evidence by promoting as science an astonishing religious error which actually contradicts the Bible!.

This teaching claims that evolution by natural processes, including what both creationists and ID’ers continually label “blind chance” (random occurrence), could only be “accidental”, and therefore godless. In this they agree with the atheist position.

Why this current marriage of convenience, agreeing with atheism against the Bible, in order to promote a religious agenda? Might it be because this heretical tactic permits them to deny the possibility of guided evolution through chance?

This startling and contradictory machination is carefully explained here:

Intelligent Design Rules Out God’s Sovereignty Over Chance

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289

“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.”

• Upvote 0
• Posted by DavidWhite on February 5, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Pump:

If there was a way to clap via the internet, I would be clapping for your comment right now. Anonymous abrasive language on the internet doesn't further anyone's point of view.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 5, 2009 at 10:52 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

I am a Catholic and my church does not have a problem with accepting both so it is the radical Protestants who are against evolution. There have been many great Catholic scientists. Okay, way back in the day, there was that thing with Galileo, but that has been resolved. Science is how we think about the world around us, it is how we learn about the mechanisms that "nature" uses to achieve it's ends. Science, it's a good thing.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by irishswearingen on February 6, 2009 at 9 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

As a member of the scientific community, I find the stretch to believe in a world as we see it without a creator to be just as difficult to swallow if not more so than a world in existance as a result of chance. Evolution as its presented today leaves as many questions as answers. If you believe a series of random events created out of base elements what our best scientists can't even do in the lab, there isn't a whole lot of difference as to the size of the leap of faith. The difference is only in the details.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 6, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

As another member of the scientific community I have to agree with Linguo yet again. Evolution is not generally a series of random events (though chance certainly plays a dominant role when it comes to mutation and genetic drift.) Evolution is mostly driven by selective forces except in small populations where chance plays a greater role.

The only leap of faith atheists make is when they say that the matter and energy that exists in the universe has always been there. This claim is just as substantiated as the idea that a deity inserted it and placed it into motion (Aristotle's Prime Mover.) Since there is currently no way to know which of these is true and it's very difficult to conceive a way in which we could ever answer that question (with the exception of a deity informing us) my spiritual assumptions tend towards Agnosticism.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 6, 2009 at 12:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Another point: Scientists have been able to synthesize amino acids and a couple of other simple organic molecules out of what is known as a replica of the "pre-Cambrian soup." While it will probably be a matter of time before more complex molecules can be synthesized in a similar manner, it indicates that these things can happen by chance.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 6, 2009 at 12:41 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

I imagine the reason you find it hard to swallow (not having a creator, that is) is because you already believe that there is a creator.

You're exactly right. Just like you would have a problem seeing things any other way, because you've already made up your mind that a creator doesn't exist. We all bring our beliefs to the table. There is no such thing as pure objectivity, even in science. If that were not the case, there would not be any deists in the scientific world. You don't have to look far to find many well educated people in engineering and science who reject the idea of evolution along with all its baggage around origins. It remains a theory for a reason. Just like my ideas of origin.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 6, 2009 at 4:19 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

When scientists use the word "theory", they generally mean a hypothesis that is supported by evidence, for instance, the theory of gravity.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Hendrix321 on February 6, 2009 at 7:22 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Evolution has been empirically proven in bacteria. A scientist named Lenski did it just recently.

Look, I am a practicing Christian and I take my faith very seriously. Like you, I see plenty of design in the world, and I don't see evolution as a threat, but what I do worry about is when people undermine the faith by making arguments against evolution that can be easily refuted.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Hendrix321 on February 7, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

em1: You claimed to be a member of the scientific community yet you don't seem to understand the similarities and differences between a law and a theory (when speaking in scientific terms.)

Our understanding of gravity is indeed a theory.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 7, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

You've got me there. Our understanding of gravity is indeed a theory. The fact that it happens (at least for all practical purposes) is accepted as law. It can be tested in our labs, and it is so easy to do general physics students at most universities calculate the value of big G with pretty solid accuracy. Most of my work is in the area of oceanography and marine biology, so if I confuse the details of our understanding of gravity (particularly beyond what is of practical value to me), my apologies.

I'll also add that my beef isn't with the idea of evolution per se. Evolution (on a micro scale at least) can be seen by just about anyone who opens their eyes. Macroevolution is something that is much more difficult to prove, and still requires in the absence of a creator some moment where life is formed out of nothing i.e. the "primordial soup" the texts speak of. This single celled organism forming as a result of random events is where it just gets to be too much for me. I liken it to a tornado going through a junkyard and somehow making a 747. Looking at the complexity of even the simplest single celled organism, I actually think the junkyard scenario is more plausible.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 8, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

How is he wrong when we don't have any proof one way or another? Saying small changes lead to large changes, and eventually to a species spin-off is what is called in the engineering world "extrapolating beyond the range of experimental data." If I came up to someone with a chart that showed a linear range of data obtained emperically and then argued that if my plot was linear in the region I tested it had to be linear forever I would quickly have people arguing with my conclusions from all sides. What amazes me about the evolution debate is that this is not happening. Science as a whole seems so caught up in the idea for most of the reasons that you've already stated such as "It answers questions that scientists have without having to appeal to some supreme being guiding everything." The answers are lacking, but it happens to be convenient if you subscribe to the religious belief that there is nothing greater than ourselves.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 12, 2009 at 3:02 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Excuse me, how is GW wrong? Didn't mean to be gender biased.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 12, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

Evolution remains solidly incompatible with Christianity, despite Dan Holmes' statements. Why? Three important reasons.

1. Evolution denies teleology (purpose, goal-directedness) at all points of the evolutionary process, including the origin of humans. That denial directly contradicts the Bible's cover-to-cover claim of God's teleology, especially WRT human origins (Gen. 1:26, Colossians 1:16).

"Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought." --- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition.

1. Evolution clearly denies that humans are created in the image of God. That denial directly contradicts the foundational Christian belief that God created humans in his image (Gen. 1:26-27).

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." --- Nature, "Evolution and the Brain", June 14, 2007.

"The image-of-God thesis does not go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man." --- evolutionist James Rachels, from his 1990 book Created From Animals.

1. In order to evolution to work from the first cell to the first human, death always had to be present on Earth, period.
   Yet the Bible clearly states in Genesis and Romans that death appeared on Earth ONLY after the first humans, Adam and Eve, sinned against God (an event known as The Fall.) Only after sins appeared on Earth did death appear on Earth, according to the Bible (Romans 5:12).

Romans 5:12-17 links the historicity of Adam and the Fall (the big problem) with the historicity of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the Cross (the big solution.)

So if the former is non-historical and non-literal, so is the latter. But if Jesus and the Cross are non-historical and non-literal, then kiss Christianity bye-bye, forever.

So yes, evolution is BIG-TIME incompatible with Christianity.

"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries." --- Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com, Aug. 10, 2005.

And yes, I've read Francis Collins' book as well, and Collins is unable to resolve the Big Three problems.

Therefore, all Christians should join the search for alternative explanations. Don't abandon science, but stop dancing like zombie puppets to evolution's tune. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Instead, check out the many scientists and scholars who express serious doubts about Darwinism, and who call attention to alternative explanations and hypotheses. It's well worth your time!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by mellotron on February 15, 2009 at 10:57 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to clash

I'll continue doing that, while you continue believing that single celled organisms form themsleves out of nothing when we can't even make one in the lab. I'll believe my fables while you believe that the second law of thermodynamics somehow doesn't apply in biology. I'll dance like a puppet while you take on faith the lies presented as gospel by a scientific community bent on presenting one particular athiestic view dispite the thousands of dissenting voices from the ranks who somehow get drowned out by evolution's drumbeat. You take just as much on faith as any deist does. It's simpler to just believe in god. That's probably why something like 80% of the world claims to believe in a god of some sort.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on February 16, 2009 at 11:08 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal