Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Interesting discussion. Ken, while I get the sense you occasionally feel the need to push back against some of the dogmatism here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), I''ll admit I'm not always sure where you fall on an issue, especially when it gets muddied in back-and-forths with Josh. But based on your experience and what you teach/study, would you be willing to share in brief with us your personal belief/understanding of how the natural world and sentient mankind came into existence, and how you reconcile any differences between that and the extant (JudeoChristian) Scripture/historical records available today, including the "Genesis myth" which tend to be part and parcel with much of professing Christianity? If it's not too much to ask, it might help me consider some of your comments more in context. Thanks.

I am frankly puzzled by why so many conservative Christians are so insistent in arguing about evolution when when there are just as many other modern scientific theories that are equally inconsistent with the Old Testament and Genesis. Modern Plate Tectonics, for example. Or for that matter, a heliocentric solar system which got Galileo tried and convicted by the Inquisition. None of that is consistent with Genesis either.

Bottom line? Does any of it really matter when it comes to the fundamental teachings of Christianity? I don't think so. And for that matter, neither do vast numbers of Christians who don't see conflicts between religion and science. Including, for example, the Catholic Church. So it's not like my beliefs are anything fringe. They are solidly in the mainstream. I think that we can agree that Jesus' fundamental teachings about how we are to live our lives and treat or fellow man are equally compelling and relevant regardless of how we interpret Genesis.

So it doesn't matter to have an evolutionary world view???? You also reference the "vast numbers" on board with your natural selection view. My agnostic/ atheist colleagues say the identical thing...like because the majority believes in evolution that makes it science! That's crazy reasoning.

Will agree that the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, I guess I need to close my eyes to the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, the presence of carbon 14 in sandstone...

I don't have an evolutionary world view. I have a scientific world view. Evolution is just one of many scientific theories that I find interesting. But I'm frankly more interested in a variety of other topics from ecology to molecular genetics. I'm especially interested in subjects like keystone species and trophic cascades and what they mean for preserving habitats and ecosystems. I don't spend much time thinking about evolution one way or the other.

What is this business of C-14 and sandstone that you are going on about? I tried to look it up and just found several circular references from so-called creation science web sites that just pointed to each other. But if I had to guess I would suspect it is similar to how trace amounts of C-14 are sometimes found in coal. Which is mainly attributable to radioactive decay of uranium isotopes that are also found naturally occurring in coal and sandstone. Solar radiation is not the only source of C-14. It is the main source of C-14 found in living tissues of plants and animals that metabolize atmospheric CO2. But C-14 can also form from background radiation within the earth's crust. Which is why C-14 is also a byproduct of nuclear reactors. So very trace amounts of C-14 formed from natural background radiation in rock layers that are just at the edge of the detectable range will produce erroneous dates if people try to use those readings for that purpose. That is why C-14 isn't used for dating of rock layers but only fossil remnants of formerly living organisms.

[MaxPC]

[HondurasKeiser]

I am frankly puzzled by why so many conservative Christians are so insistent in arguing about evolution when when there are just as many other modern scientific theories that are equally inconsistent with the Old Testament and Genesis. Modern Plate Tectonics, for example. Or for that matter, a heliocentric solar system which got Galileo tried and convicted by the Inquisition. None of that is consistent with Genesis either.

Bottom line? Does any of it really matter when it comes to the fundamental teachings of Christianity? I don't think so. And for that matter, neither do vast numbers of Christians who don't see conflicts between religion and science. Including, for example, the Catholic Church. So it's not like my beliefs are anything fringe. They are solidly in the mainstream. I think that we can agree that Jesus' fundamental teachings about how we are to live our lives and treat or fellow man are equally compelling and relevant regardless of how we interpret Genesis.

So it doesn't matter to have an evolutionary world view???? You also reference the "vast numbers" on board with your natural selection view. My agnostic/ atheist colleagues say the identical thing...like because the majority believes in evolution that makes it science! That's crazy reasoning.

Will agree that the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, I guess I need to close my eyes to the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, the presence of carbon 14 in sandstone...

I don't have an evolutionary world view. I have a scientific world view. Evolution is just one of many scientific theories that I find interesting. But I'm frankly more interested in a variety of other topics from ecology to molecular genetics. I'm especially interested in subjects like keystone species and trophic cascades and what they mean for preserving habitats and ecosystems. I don't spend much time thinking about evolution one way or the other.

What is this business of C-14 and sandstone that you are going on about? I tried to look it up and just found several circular references from so-called creation science web sites that just pointed to each other. But if I had to guess I would suspect it is similar to how trace amounts of C-14 are sometimes found in coal. Which is mainly attributable to radioactive decay of uranium isotopes that are also found naturally occurring in coal and sandstone. Solar radiation is not the only source of C-14. It is the main source of C-14 found in living tissues of plants and animals that metabolize atmospheric CO2. But C-14 can also form from background radiation within the earth's crust. Which is why C-14 is also a byproduct of nuclear reactors. So very trace amounts of C-14 formed from natural background radiation in rock layers that are just at the edge of the detectable range will produce erroneous dates if people try to use those readings for that purpose. That is why C-14 isn't used for dating of rock layers but only fossil remnants of formerly living organisms.

Ken, what role do you see the Creator taking in the process of Evolution - not simple change/all-is-flux exactly, but the macro kind of primordial ooze evolving into ever higher lifeforms?

[HondurasKeiser]

I'm curious too about your accession to a "scientific worldview" - do you see that as somehow distinct from or prior to your belief in God/spiritual things? In my understanding, a "scientific worldview", even an exceedingly capacious one, cannot make sense of something like human dignity let alone The Divine. How does your worldview, scientific as it is, understand God?

[AndersonD]

I am frankly puzzled by why so many conservative Christians are so insistent in arguing about evolution when when there are just as many other modern scientific theories that are equally inconsistent with the Old Testament and Genesis. Modern Plate Tectonics, for example. Or for that matter, a heliocentric solar system which got Galileo tried and convicted by the Inquisition. None of that is consistent with Genesis either.

Bottom line? Does any of it really matter when it comes to the fundamental teachings of Christianity? I don't think so. And for that matter, neither do vast numbers of Christians who don't see conflicts between religion and science. Including, for example, the Catholic Church. So it's not like my beliefs are anything fringe. They are solidly in the mainstream. I think that we can agree that Jesus' fundamental teachings about how we are to live our lives and treat or fellow man are equally compelling and relevant regardless of how we interpret Genesis.

So it doesn't matter to have an evolutionary world view???? You also reference the "vast numbers" on board with your natural selection view. My agnostic/ atheist colleagues say the identical thing...like because the majority believes in evolution that makes it science! That's crazy reasoning.

Will agree that the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, I guess I need to close my eyes to the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, the presence of carbon 14 in sandstone...

I don't have an evolutionary world view. I have a scientific world view. Evolution is just one of many scientific theories that I find interesting. But I'm frankly more interested in a variety of other topics from ecology to molecular genetics. I'm especially interested in subjects like keystone species and trophic cascades and what they mean for preserving habitats and ecosystems. I don't spend much time thinking about evolution one way or the other.

What is this business of C-14 and sandstone that you are going on about? I tried to look it up and just found several circular references from so-called creation science web sites that just pointed to each other. But if I had to guess I would suspect it is similar to how trace amounts of C-14 are sometimes found in coal. Which is mainly attributable to radioactive decay of uranium isotopes that are also found naturally occurring in coal and sandstone. Solar radiation is not the only source of C-14. It is the main source of C-14 found in living tissues of plants and animals that metabolize atmospheric CO2. But C-14 can also form from background radiation within the earth's crust. Which is why C-14 is also a byproduct of nuclear reactors. So very trace amounts of C-14 formed from natural background radiation in rock layers that are just at the edge of the detectable range will produce erroneous dates if people try to use those readings for that purpose. That is why C-14 isn't used for dating of rock layers but only fossil remnants of formerly living organisms.

I also enjoy science...my favorite field is bioengineering....but I am way too skeptical to accept many evolutionary assumptions when they cannot be proven.

My cousin is dating a physicist who just won a Fulbright scholarship...only other Fulbright scholar I knew was James Lowry...and it's my understanding that physicists who believe in evolution are getting very uncomfortable with some of the recent discoveries they are making in the field. At a minimum, evolutionists will need to head back to the drawing board, which isn't something they are unfamiliar with.

[AndersonD]

Anyway, science currently says I have evolved from a primordial soup...where that soup came from has yet to be discovered...I also came from fish cuz when I look at my hands, those were formerly fins and had webbing between the fingers. My atheist friend is certain we are from the water, to which I tell him I would sink like lead, so it isn't reasonable for me to think that I came from the water. I really am wondering now if I didn't come from a Mallard duck because their feet are also webbed and they can walk about on land. I am very comfortable on land, very fearful of water.

Evolutionists are an amazing species in their own right...and after much study, I have concluded that people like Darwin were very shoddy with the scientific method.

[Heirbyadoption]

Thank you for sharing those last several posts.

[AndersonD]

Also, Ken, what leads you to believe that the Hebrews believed the earth was flat and static?

I was recently reading about the Pantheon in Greece and architects and masons now posit that the Greeks had tools that we currently don't have when it comes to stone construction. Just sayin' I don't think we're progressing that much. Not going to say Noah had Milwaukee battery tools, which we owe to NASA, but then ya never know. He may have had tools that were even more sophisticated.

Which speaking of ships, Jeff Bezos is having problems with his 400 foot yacht, 1st they had to deconstruct a bridge in Holland to get it out to sea which set off a lot of anger in the Netherlands cuz according to the NYT's the Dutch resist ostentation. So now it's sitting out among the tanker and cargo ships near Miami. It's just too big to get into a "touristy port". My heart goes out to him.

And according to my atheistic/ agnostic friends the wealthy shall inherit the earth. Natural selection and survival of the fittest informs their thinking.

[Ken]

Ken, what role do you see the Creator taking in the process of Evolution - not simple change/all-is-flux exactly, but the macro kind of primordial ooze evolving into ever higher lifeforms?

I think science allows us to understand some of the mystery of creation and the wonder of the natural world. If only a tiny bit. But as is always the case with science, the more you know, the more you find that you don't know. For example, today we can quickly and easily sequence the entire genome of any organism. But that only tells us the letters in the book, not how it is actually used. Your blood cells, skin cells, and muscle cells all contain identical sets of DNA yet each develop differently and perfectly. There is still plenty of mystery out there and always will be.

In any event, it's a matter of perspective and starting points. Science would say that we are made of stardust and are the products of supernovas long ago. The ancient Hebrews had their Bronze Age understanding as depicted in Genesis. I don't read it as a literal description of a scientific process that they didn't understand. But as a picture into their world view. It isn't just evolution. Their conception of a flat geocentric universe is also not scientifically accurate but reflects the world as they understood it.

[Ken]

Also, Ken, what leads you to believe that the Hebrews believed the earth was flat and static?

There are various verses that talk about the corners of the earth and how it is static and immobile. For example:

Psalm 104: He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.

1 Chronicles 16:30: Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Of course we know that the earth is constantly moving. The surfaces of the earth itself are constantly moving and changing. While at the same time it is rotating on its axis at over 1,000 mph (at the equator) and orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph. While the entire solar system is spinning around the Milky Way galaxy at approximately 448,000 mph. But more importantly, the order of the creation narrative in Genesis only makes sense from the perspective of a flat geocentric earth at the center of the universe.