VS
Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. This means his birthday is approaching. His carcass, wherever it is, will be 200 years old. As for the age of his soul, ... who knows?
There are significant debates over the theories of Intelligent Design (God) and Evolution. And while some major institutions of higher education are celebrating Darwinism(s) as I write this, *the question* looms:
How do Christians make sense of evolution?
There are significant debates over the theories of Intelligent Design (God) and Evolution. And while some major institutions of higher education are celebrating Darwinism(s) as I write this, *the question* looms:
How do Christians make sense of evolution?
9 comments:
This is a question I have asked for many years. I have a degree in Biology, so I've been face to face with this question and forced to deal with it. In my opinion, evolution does not exist simply because of the science. I don't think it holds up. Evolution, the great foundation of science, goes against the very dogmas of science.
If it is true, however, than I would have no problem giving God the credit for creating it. I just don't think that's how He did it...
On the other hand, one basic "rule" of evolution is that it, by strict definition, excludes the idea of God. One of my professors put it this way, "Science cannot prove nor disprove God, therefore it does not ask the question of God." In other words, science can't figure God out, so we'll just ignore Him.
In the end, I just try to stay out of these conversations. They never seem to end well. You can't convince an evolutionist evolution doesn't exist. Although I've always found it ironic that evolutionists don't believe in God when their belief in evolution is so much based in faith...
The important part for me is that I know God created me, gave me a soul, and loves me. I'm not to know exactly how He did it until I get up there and can ask Him. I'm sure my head would explode if I knew right now anyways.
Paul, it's very obvious you're scientifically illiterate, and it's very obvious you're god-soaked beyond any hope. I suggest you keep your breathtaking stupidity to yourself, and shut up about science because you don't even know what science is.
The important part for me is that I know God created me, gave me a soul, and loves me.
Your invisible friend loves you. That's wonderful. You must be so proud.
The toxic drooling stupidity burns.
bobxxxx,
I've never had to edit/delete a post on this blog, but you're tempting me. Please read the explanation for Sensemaking in Cincinnati, and behave in ways congruent with being "scientifically literate" and respectful to divergent opinions. Thank you.
Paul, thanks for the post.
Wow. Obviously this is a dicey subject. For me, the more I learn about science, the more amazing and real God becomes. I don't think the concepts of evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. I believe that God could have designed evolution. I also don't think that this issue needs to be as divisive as it has become. For me, either way, it's not a deal breaker.
I can better approach this from a purely Biblical standpoint. I don't have a science degree but I have studied theology quite a bit. I don't believe that the Genesis account of creation supports a Theistic evolutionary view. Long day creation and gap theory are, in my opinion, both unsubstantiated in scripture.
Do I believe in evolution? I believe that micro evolution exists and is actively happening because it is observable. Neo-Darwinism just has too many gaps and thus I don't believe in macro evolution.
Bobxxxx,
In general, when responding to a statement in agreement or in argument, it is expected that you will supply your own statement along with supporting information or facts. It is also usually a good idea (though not practiced nearly as widely as it should be) to adhere to logical rules when constructing supportive or rebuttal statements. It appears your comment is full of statements without any sort of supportive information to lend them merit, and also frequently breaks the basic rules of logical argument.
Some examples:
1) You state that it is "very obvious" that Paul is scientifically illiterate without giving any specific examples of his scientific illiteracy, which makes it impossible to address this statement.
2) You state that Paul is "god-soaked beyond any hope" without citing any specific references and also without defining how soaked someone may become before they are "soaked beyond any hope." Once again, the argument here is poorly defended and poorly defined which leaves it in a state without much merit.
3) You state that Paul should "shut up about science" because he "doesn't even know what science is", but (once again) fail to cite any specific information which would lead you to this conclusion.
4) In the areas of specific logical fallacies, your comment:
a) is rife with ad hominem ("I suggest you keep your breathtaking stupidity to yourself", "toxic drooling stupidity", etc.) Any well-founded argument or statement can stand the test of logic without the use of attacking the person whose argument or statement you are rebutting. For example, if someone with an IQ of 35 says "1 + 1 = 2", the fact that their IQ is low does not invalidate their mathematic claim.
b) "begs the question" (petitio principii) by attempting to prove that Paul is incorrect (or "stupid") by saying that he is stupid
c) is rife with ad nauseam (see examples from a). Simply repeating that you think Paul is stupid or his statement is stupid without facts or specific examples and references, does not make it true (or false).
5) In the areas of implied specific logical fallcies, you make the following incorrect assumptions based on dicto simpliciter (sweeping statements or generalizations):
a) Paul is stupid because he believes in God/doesn't believe in evolution.
b) Paul doesn't know anything about science because his view of science differs from your own on one particular point.
In conclusion, your post must be completely disregarded (despite whether it is factually correct or not) based on a complete lack of any substantial argument. I would welcome you to start over, perhaps with a different strategy this time.*
*thanks Ryan.
Mr. Bobxxxx,
Your statement calling me "scientifically illiterate" is completely ungrounded. I dedicated many years to learning, studying, and teaching science. Yes, even teaching. I unbiasedly, to the best of my ability, taught the theory of evolution. But I taught it as just that, a theory. For in science, a theory can only be proven after it is tested and then only after those tests are successfully duplicated. One cannot test millions and possibly billions of years of so-called evolution. Therefore evolution is and will always remain a theory. And with a theory, one is open and free to agree or disagree. I have chosen to disagree, and I respect that you have chosen to agree.
Therefore, if you would like to partake in respectable debate, I am at your service. We can debate Behe and Dawkins and the "evolution" of the human eye until we are blue in the face. Science is, after all, predicated on open-minded thinking and respectful debate of the issues.
If, however, you choose to continue your use of vile, venomous words that you have so forcefully and unnecessarily thrown across the internet from site to site, than I am sorry to tell you, sir, that I will not give you the time of day.
I not only ask this question repeatedly but find myself in conversations with others who can intelligently and open mindedly (unlike mr bobxxxx) discuss this.
Personally, I don't think science can prove or disprove God. God's beyond that and wouldn't create something that a) could ultimately (and falsely) disprove his existence or b) eliminate the need for faith. But I believe that because I believe in God. For someone who doesn't, that doesn't fly.
I love science. In fact, I spent many hours this weekend watching the BBC series of Life of Mammals this weekend. Amazing.
For me, my perception changed once I came to peace with embracing my questions and sometimes my doubts while at the same time acknowledging that I don't need to know.
My persuit to ask the questions and possibly find out answers is (for the most part) decoupled from my faith. Sometimes it will answer my questions and sometimes it negates an answer I thought I understood.
That works for me...it doesn't work for a friend of mine whom I have these conversations with regularly.
I find myself asking this question a ridiculous amount of times. Maybe i have too much free time on my hands. I commonly find myself pondering this question while i am traveling and see something very unique or surprising. Once again i think i need to get myself an ipod with better music to stop thinking these things all the time.
I have questions about faith and God a lot. I think i mainly have questions about faith because of two questions that i face a lot "Why does God let bad things happen?" and "why does the bible threaten you with hell and damnation so much?". That being said I have a big problem with the "big bang" theory. Evolutionist believe that the big bang happened and matter was created (space, time and energy). Based on the first law of thermodynamics the big bang theory is contradicted.
Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place?
To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. This makes me feel that there is a creator and someone modeled the universe and created life.
I'm no expert on this issue and these are the random thoughts that go through my head.
Post a Comment