Evolution

[Fidelio]

Good article on evolution and the schools:
https://answersingenesis.org/public-sch ... ol-system/

[Franklin]

Good article on evolution and the schools:
https://answersingenesis.org/public-sch ... ol-system/

I skimmed the article and it is wrong. Modern people today understand neither the Bible nor evolution. In fact they understand nothing of substance.

Both the Bible and evolution should be taught. Any significant ideas relevant to the West should be taught. I am not Christian, but I would have no objection to learning the New Testament in school simply because it is clearly an important book. In the same way, Christians should not object to evolution being taught, even if they don't believe in it, because it is an important theory that should at least be understood.

[Fidelio]

Good article on evolution and the schools:
https://answersingenesis.org/public-sch ... ol-system/

I skimmed the article and it is wrong. Modern people today understand neither the Bible nor evolution. In fact they understand nothing of substance.

Both the Bible and evolution should be taught. Any significant ideas relevant to the West should be taught. I am not Christian, but I would have no objection to learning the New Testament in school simply because it is clearly an important book. In the same way, Christians should not object to evolution being taught, even if they don't believe in it, because it is an important theory that should at least be understood.

Surely the entire article cannot be wrong. Perhaps you find some of the conclusions wrong? Which?

[Franklin]

Surely the entire article cannot be wrong. Perhaps you find some of the conclusions wrong? Which?

I said that I skimmed it and now you are forcing me to read it, which I guess is fair.

"a full-fledged atheistic theory, like evolution" - This is wrong, evolution is not an atheistic theory. It is just a scientific theory. I believe in both God and evolution.

"by the 1890s and 1900s, evolution was thoroughly embedded in the science curricula and treated as fact" - No scientific theory can ever be considered fact. It is called a "theory" for a reason.

"American science education had fully accepted evolution and all that came with it, and rejected the last vestiges of the biblical account of origins. The science curriculum was now contributing to the decay of the public schools." - I don't know the details of the history of American education, but I see no evidence in the article that science curriculum caused the end of teaching the Bible. As I said, both should be taught.

"the famous Scopes trial" - When Christians fought to eliminate evolution in school, they lost credibility as serious thinkers and became justly viewed as narrow-minded people. This was a horrible mistake by Christians and contributed to failure of Christianity in America.

[Fidelio]

Surely the entire article cannot be wrong. Perhaps you find some of the conclusions wrong? Which?

I said that I skimmed it and now you are forcing me to read it, which I guess is fair.

"a full-fledged atheistic theory, like evolution" - This is wrong, evolution is not an atheistic theory. It is just a scientific theory. I believe in both God and evolution.

I would say that neither evolution or creation are scientific theories. They are studies of history and the interpreters color the data to their own world view be it athiestic, agnostic, or religious.

"by the 1890s and 1900s, evolution was thoroughly embedded in the science curricula and treated as fact" - No scientific theory can ever be considered fact. It is called a "theory" for a reason.

And i would call it a hypothesis as even a theory is only established with repeated experimentation giving similar results. Evolutionary statements are often made in a manner that assumes evolution to be an established fact. They may not come out and say it, but much of science treats it that way.

"American science education had fully accepted evolution and all that came with it, and rejected the last vestiges of the biblical account of origins. The science curriculum was now contributing to the decay of the public schools." - I don't know the details of the history of American education, but I see no evidence in the article that science curriculum caused the end of teaching the Bible. As I said, both should be taught.

If both are taught, lets get it out of the science classroom and into the philosophy classroom.

"the famous Scopes trial" - When Christians fought to eliminate evolution in school, they lost credibility as serious thinkers and became justly viewed as narrow-minded people. This was a horrible mistake by Christians and contributed to failure of Christianity in America.

Christians has little idea what was going on back then. Some would even claim that the fossils must have been put there by God to test Christians. If you could have taken some of the present day scientists who believe the Bible and who are apologists for young earth creation and let them testify at the Scopes trial, it would have made a huge difference in the public mind. This is why I believe all Christians should seriously study the creation/evolution debate, else they may be swept away by the prevailing theory. This is probably a huge reason why many youth go off to college and stop attending church.

[Franklin]

I would say that neither evolution or creation are scientific theories. They are studies of history and the interpreters color the data to their own world view be it athiestic, agnostic, or religious.

I would say that both evolution or creation are scientific theories. Science is about explaining the physical/material world, so any theory that attempts to do this is a scientific theory.

And i would call it a hypothesis as even a theory is only established with repeated experimentation giving similar results.

This is the difference between hard science and soft science. Hard science is the areas of science where experiments are possible, and soft science is where experiments are not possible. Theories in soft science are only tested by whether new discovered facts contradict the theory. Soft science includes astronomy, paleontology, and evolution.

Evolutionary statements are often made in a manner that assumes evolution to be an established fact. They may not come out and say it, but much of science treats it that way.

There is still a difference between an accepted theory and a fact. Because those who believe in evolution and those who don't hardly ever talk to each other, it is natural that each side takes its view for granted.

If both are taught, lets get it out of the science classroom and into the philosophy classroom.

Creationism should be taught with Bible study because it is based on the Bible. Evolution should be taught with science because it is based on genetics which should be learned first. Philosophy is such a mess that I am not sure that it should be taught to children.

"the famous Scopes trial" - When Christians fought to eliminate evolution in school, they lost credibility as serious thinkers and became justly viewed as narrow-minded people. This was a horrible mistake by Christians and contributed to failure of Christianity in America.

Christians has little idea what was going on back then. Some would even claim that the fossils must have been put there by God to test Christians. If you could have taken some of the present day scientists who believe the Bible and who are apologists for young earth creation and let them testify at the Scopes trial, it would have made a huge difference in the public mind. This is why I believe all Christians should seriously study the creation/evolution debate, else they may be swept away by the prevailing theory. This is probably a huge reason why many youth go off to college and stop attending church.

I would add to my previous comment that not only did Christians alienate people politically by attacking evolution in school, but Christians also alienated people religiously. In other words, there is no reason why someone who believes in evolution can't be a good Christian, and by taking such a hostile position against evolution, Christianity are driving people away from Christianity. Christians should value following Christ above pushing creationism.

Your position seems to be that creationists could have won the debate, but I am saying not only is this false, but even if it were true it would still be wrong to take this position because you would still be alienating the minority who believe in evolution and you would be driving these people away from Christianity.

Modern Christianity is a disaster that focuses only on beliefs at the expense of works. In other words, modern Christians are much more concerned about details of theology than about whether people actually try to follow Jesus's example in living their life. Instead of worrying about creationism versus evolution, a topic that Jesus never discussed, Christians should focus on the things that Jesus actually talked about.

[Fidelio]

This is the difference between hard science and soft science. Hard science is the areas of science where experiments are possible, and soft science is where experiments are not possible. Theories in soft science are only tested by whether new discovered facts contradict the theory. Soft science includes astronomy, paleontology, and evolution.

If only you would read the materials from creation scientists you would see just how the new facts (data) frequently contradict the "theory." Of course if the theory is plastic enough it is simply modified to fit the new data.

Creationism should be taught with Bible study because it is based on the Bible. Evolution should be taught with science because it is based on genetics which should be learned first. Philosophy is such a mess that I am not sure that it should be taught to children.

I am good with that, but since the Bible is true, that makes evolution false. And I see it as a huge mistake for Christians to send their kids to a school that is going to contradict the Bible. Also, with the teaching of creation, the Church also needs to teach why evolution is false both from a Biblical view and from a scientific view.

I would add to my previous comment that not only did Christians alienate people politically by attacking evolution in school, but Christians also alienated people religiously. In other words, there is no reason why someone who believes in evolution can't be a good Christian, and by taking such a hostile position against evolution, Christianity are driving people away from Christianity. Christians should value following Christ above pushing creationism.

Good reason to keep the kids out of the government schools. Of course, the idea of evolution has fueled the sin nature of many who believe it.

Your position seems to be that creationists could have won the debate, but I am saying not only is this false, but even if it were true it would still be wrong to take this position because you would still be alienating the minority who believe in evolution and you would be driving these people away from Christianity.

I really have no idea if they would have won the debate. Just saying that Christians in that day didn't have much research to base an argument on for arguing in the secular arena.

Modern Christianity is a disaster that focuses only on beliefs at the expense of works. In other words, modern Christians are much more concerned about details of theology than about whether people actually try to follow Jesus's example in living their life. Instead of worrying about creationism versus evolution, a topic that Jesus never discussed, Christians should focus on the things that Jesus actually talked about.

One must have a balance between beliefs and works. The main problem of some modern Christianity, as you note, is that they focus on belief to the exclusion of works. However, when teachings that directly contradict the Bible are pushed, Christians should focus on the correct teaching. I don't know how much we are to follow Jesus' example since he is God and we are not, there are many things he did that we cannot, such as overturning the money changers tables. But he did give us instructions on how to live. Those we should follow. Why would Jesus discuss evolution about 1700 years before it came onto the scene. Jesus did refer back to events in the creation and the flood of Noah's day. Creation is foundational to Christianity, but little time was ever spent on it because it did not come under question in significantly until modern times.

But the Bible does forewarn of the evolutionist creation deniers:

2 Peter 3

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

[Bootstrap]

As Christians, we know who created the earth. I don't think the Bible gives us a scientific theory for how the earth was created. I don't think Jesus taught a scientific theory of creation.

I don't think Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do that either. They are primarily about God as the creator and his relationship to creation and mankind. If we take them as a scientific account, the differences in order seem problematic to me. For instance:

• Genesis 1 - God creates vegetation first (day 3), then human beings (day 6)
• Genesis 2 - God creates man first, then vegetation (verses 5-7)

Or:

• Genesis 1 - God creates animals before creating man and woman (both on day 6, but animals are clearly created first)
• Genesis 2 - God creates man first, then animals, then the woman

I don't think this is a flaw in the Bible, I think this is a hint about how to read these accounts. I don't think they are meant to be read as a scientific theory, and they don't provide much explanation of how creation happened. There are different genres in the Bible.

If evolution is true, there is still a great deal that we do not know, and God is still the creator. If young-earth creation is true, there is still a great deal that we do not know, and God is still the creator. We do not need to prove evolution false to know that. If scientific theories created to counter evolution turn out to be false, God is still the creator, and he is still beyond human knowledge. If we champion scientific theories that scientists do not take seriously, we may have a harder time convincing scientists or those who have studied science.

In Job 38, God reminds Job who is God and who is not. To me, this is the more important question. And it can get lost in the evolution debates.

Where were you when I established the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
What supports its foundations?
Or who laid its cornerstone
while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Who enclosed the sea behind doors
when it burst from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and total darkness its blanket,
when I determined its boundaries
and put its bars and doors in place,
when I declared: “You may come this far, but no farther;
your proud waves stop here”?

Have you ever in your life commanded the morning
or assigned the dawn its place,
so it may seize the edges of the earth
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth is changed as clay is by a seal;
its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.
Light is withheld from the wicked,
and the arm raised in violence is broken.

Have you traveled to the sources of the sea
or walked in the depths of the oceans?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you?
Have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the extent of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

Where is the road to the home of light?
Do you know where darkness lives,
so you can lead it back to its border?
Are you familiar with the paths to its home?
Don’t you know? You were already born;
you have lived so long!
Have you entered the place where the snow is stored?
Or have you seen the storehouses of hail,
which I hold in reserve for times of trouble,
for the day of warfare and battle?

[Franklin]

If only you would read the materials from creation scientists you would see just how the new facts (data) frequently contradict the "theory." Of course if the theory is plastic enough it is simply modified to fit the new data.

I will avoid debating evolution itself here. I only want to argue that Christians shouldn't take such a strong position against evolution (regardless of whether it is true or false).

I am good with that, but since the Bible is true, that makes evolution false.

No. The issue isn't whether the Bible is true, the issue is whether Genesis was meant to be taken literally or is a figurative introduction to the Bible. Taking Genesis figuratively doesn't make the Bible false.

I visited a conservative Mennonite church last Sunday and they had a short class for the children during the service. In the class, the speaker told a story to the children. The point of the story is to teach certain principles to the children. The speaker never said whether to story is literally true or not because that didn't matter, that wasn't the point of the story. If the story is fictional, that wouldn't make the speaker a liar because the speaker never said that the story is literally true. The same logic applies to Genesis.

And I see it as a huge mistake for Christians to send their kids to a school that is going to contradict the Bible.

Public schools contradict the Bible in truly serious ways by teaching values that contradict the Bible. And for that reason, Christians (and other religious people) shouldn't send their children to public schools.

Also, with the teaching of creation, the Church also needs to teach why evolution is false both from a Biblical view and from a scientific view.

It is healthy for children to face contradictory views, to make them realize that different people have different opinions. So in Bible class children should hear the arguments against evolution, and in science class children should hear the arguments for evolution. That will give children something to think about, which is good for their minds.

Of course, the idea of evolution has fueled the sin nature of many who believe it.

I was raised atheist. It was the idea of evolution that led me to religion. I see the Old Testament is being fully consistent with evolution while modern liberal thought grossly violates the principles of evolution. I explained this here.

Why would Jesus discuss evolution about 1700 years before it came onto the scene. Jesus did refer back to events in the creation and the flood of Noah's day. Creation is foundational to Christianity, but little time was ever spent on it because it did not come under question in significantly until modern times.

I am not an expert on the New Testament, but what I remember is that Jesus's references were always to make some ethical point. Jesus focused on teaching people how to live, not on the details of what people should believe. Even your 2 Peter 3 quote fits this pattern. The scoffers mostly scoff about Christian values. The scoffers are "walking after their own lusts" not "believing their own beliefs".

[Valerie]

Surely the entire article cannot be wrong. Perhaps you find some of the conclusions wrong? Which?

I said that I skimmed it and now you are forcing me to read it, which I guess is fair.

"a full-fledged atheistic theory, like evolution" - This is wrong, evolution is not an atheistic theory. It is just a scientific theory. I believe in both God and evolution.

"by the 1890s and 1900s, evolution was thoroughly embedded in the science curricula and treated as fact" - No scientific theory can ever be considered fact. It is called a "theory" for a reason.

"American science education had fully accepted evolution and all that came with it, and rejected the last vestiges of the biblical account of origins. The science curriculum was now contributing to the decay of the public schools." - I don't know the details of the history of American education, but I see no evidence in the article that science curriculum caused the end of teaching the Bible. As I said, both should be taught.

"the famous Scopes trial" - When Christians fought to eliminate evolution in school, they lost credibility as serious thinkers and became justly viewed as narrow-minded people. This was a horrible mistake by Christians and contributed to failure of Christianity in America.

Christians do not take issue with being considered narrow minded. It is said in Scripture, that Jesus and the Apostles claimed we would be, and also seen as fools in " the world's " eyes. We were taught to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The enemy of our soul wants to lead people away from truth.

It's curious to me why you would endorse reading the New Testament- wouldn't you see it as a book full of lies?