Here Is What Louisiana Schoolchildren Learn About Evolution

[CottonRabbit]

Random mutations definitely occur, but they are not the driving force of evolution.

The force I am talking about is random mutation. Random mutation is the engine that drives evolution according to neo-Darwinians.

You seem to be getting the order of events mixed up. First, there is genetic variance in a population due to a variety of factors that stem from random mutations. Then, there is a selecting event. No one in biology argues that random mutation is the engine of evolution, it sets the stage. Natural selection then chooses what traits are passed on and thus, evolution. If a population stopped accumulating any more mutations today, it would still continue to evolve. To argue against this would be Lamarckism, which has been disproven time and again.

There is no hard evidence that a random mutation can effect the kind of necessary changes to something as complex and ordered as the genetic code to create new life forms.

Ah yes, the macro vs micro evolution fallacy again. There are literally text books full of examples of individual mutations drastically altering the success of an organism. Accumulate a few dozen of these over millions of years, boom, a new organism.

As an example, all attempts to create new life forms via random mutation in the lab have failed. Organisms such as fruit flies, bacteria etc exposed to radiation bombardment over millions of generations have never resulted in any positive changes, let alone the creation of a new form of life.

Why would you even try this? Obviously, all you are doing when you bombard an organism with radiation is attempting to select for radiation resistant organisms. The "disappointing" result of such an experiment should be self-explanatory if you understand the idea of natural selection. A better example would be selective breeding. A farmer sees a random mutant plant in his new crop that makes really big fruit and saves its seeds. Such a plant didn't exist in the previous crop. We now have a "positive" change to an organism (from our perspective) that resulted from a random mutation.

 

[Howard]

Fact or theory?

Nice.

 

[Timorous]

Evolution isn't a law, but judging by many of the comments in this thread by neo-Darwinian supporters, you'd think it was.

BTW, the theory of evolution has had many failed predictions, "junk DNA" being just one of them.

And, epigenetics presents a major conflict with one of the main tenets of the theory of evolution, that being that the natural force responsible for change is random mutation in concert with natural selection....

That is how science works. Science is not about proving an hypothesis or a theory it is about trying to disprove it.

Further junk DNA was not a failed prediction, it was an idea/hypothesis. It came about because at the time it appeared that a lot of DNA did not actually do a fat lot but as we gained more scientific knowledge we realised that this DNA does have functions like controlling when other genes turn on and off (gene expression).

Newtonian physics is wrong. It works fine at certain scales and it is a useful model but when you scale up it becomes more and more inaccurate, fortunately we have relativity which does work when you scale it up.

A combination of selection pressures and random mutation is how evolution works. Take a species of moth in the UK for example, before the industrial revolution they were white in colour because the the tree trunks they landed on were also white. After the industrial revolution the pollution turned those tree trunks black and the darker coloured moths did better until almost the entire population was black. Now that we have cleaned up to some extent those tree trunks are white again and the moths are also white again. That is a selection pressure. The moths that could hide more easily survived and those that stood out more died.

Then you have random mutations like the e-coli experiment where it randomly mutated the ability to aerobically use citrate. This experiment was very well controlled because every so many generations they would freeze the sample so they could go back in time. This colony randomly mutated the ability so the scientists tried again with older colonies and they did not mutate the ability. This is an example of a random mutation having a positive effect on the organism.

When you combine both of those and do it for long enough periods two groups of the same species that separate can develop in different directions and with enough time can become two different species.

 

[dmcowen674]

It seems to me there is only one way to bring this Louisiana bullshit to a screeching halt.

And that is simply up to our colleges and Universities to simply deny college admission to any State of Louisiana High school graduate on the grounds that they fail to qualify for college admission due to an inferior State Standards that renders their high school diploma as worthless.

This is already the case for just about any southern student trying to get into College overseas.

 

[Darwin333]

Purely for religious reasons? No, my friend. Biblical reasons, yes.

I see absolutely no difference between the two but if you want to be more specific about it, I can live with that.

Sure, we're two totally different men, with different upbringings, that lived in different times.

That both did the exact same thing when they reached the limits of their knowledge, hence my point.

Genesis chapter 1 states he created humans independant of animals, and that each animal was created "according to it's kind". Evolution has no Biblical support whatsoever.

So no matter how much proof and evidence is presented to you, you will never ever believe it? If the bible said 1+1=3 would that be an "undeniable truth" to you as well?

Then why does science deal with "fact" then? that's ok with me if they understand something more than they did yesterday, for instance, but changing "facts" seem to suggest you had no idea what your were talking about to begin with... and if for instance, evolution is disproven tomorrow, then it wasn't fact.

Certain things are fact and certain things are theories based on a lot of fact and observations. Evolution is happening, that is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the how and why.

I would say it would be best to leave the word "fact" out of science period.

Why? It is a fact that water is compromised of two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen or H2O. There are tons of scientific facts, facts ARE unchanging. The rest is called a Theory but I can't recall any scientific "fact" that has been changed in my lifetime because they are so hesitant to use that word. There are many things that are quite obviously true but are still considered "theories" because we can not absolutely prove the theory to the point of making it "fact" or law.

I was being honest,.. you just don't want to accept that

Nothing wrong with being honest but you are wrong. You can't in one breath say "because thats the way the creator made it" and in the very next say that is not invoking god unless you are arguing that creator was someone other than god?

As I stated, it doesn't have any Biblical support no more than a Creator has scientifc support.

Is that really your "standard" for accepting science? If it doesn't agree with your book then despite the mountains of evidence the book must be right? How do you dismiss all of the evidence we have? How do you dismiss what you can actually see with your own two eyes?

That's fine. I have no issue with that.

I would hope not. I kind of like this modern world we live in with all of the modern conveniences. Even though you are not likely to admit it, I bet you do too.

I was speaking about God's motives. Like when you asked why would he do what you just asked. I don't know his motives behind everything He did/does, and probably won't ever know.

The thing about "faith" is trusting that He knows what he's doing and not "questioning" his motives behind everything he's doing. I know I used to ask my parents "why" all the time, until I did it, and saw "why"..

Asking "why" is a very good thing. It is something that should be encouraged.

I agree Islam is one of the worst things ever to happen to this world, personally.

They're upset that they've lost the trust and control of the West.

Why in the world would you say that?

And no, you are absolutely 100% wrong. What happened to Islam is they were going through a golden era of great knowledge and wisdom. More books were translated into arabic during that 300 year time period than have since. They made great strides in mathematics, including being one of the first to fully exploit the 0, invented algebra, named 2/3 of the currently named stars, and were quite litterally the capital of the worlds intellectual community welcome to all faiths including "doubters". Then along came a man who was well regarded in the Islamic faith who had a mindset that is very similar to yours. Unfortunately he had enough incluence to change the thinking of all Islam and that alone is why their golden era ended and they have not recovered since. It isn't that the people of Islam, including those that do dumb shit in the name of their religion, are inherently "evil" they are simply ignorent. It is quite easy to manipulate an ignorant populace whereas you don't see a whole lot of intelligent societies strapping bombs to themselves. That is the true danger of thinking as you do yet you despise them for it?

I also find it ironic that you both share a "god" and they even believe in Jesus (just not as the son of god). What pray tell would make a god fearing man such as yourself say such a thing? Do you feel that way about everyone that does not think exactly like you do?

religion doesn't exclude me from anything. It boils down to this, you either trust in God, or you don't.

Yes it does and is. You can trust in god while still believing what is true and provable. As I said, if you get your child to believe as you do he will be excluded from various fields of work that he may have wanted to pursue but will be unable to due directly to the specifics and how religion was taught to him.

You can't half way do it by saying "God used evolution to create us" when there is NO Biblical support for that. Show me anywhere in the Bible where it even suggests that God somehow caused a single ancestor to produce ALL life as we know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

I don't have to because I can show you real world evidence for evolution which overrides what may or may not be in a 2,000 year old book written by man, edited and combined by man, and translated untold times by man to the point that its impossible to tell if a lot of it accurately portrays the original intent or the intent of whoever editing it wanted it to be or if they just messed up due to some words having multiple meanings.

Proof and evidence must override that lest we make the same mistakes that Islam did and we end up exactly the same way. Simply putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NA NA NA NA" because you don't like the facts that are being presented to you is not the answer.

 

[Darwin333]

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but the theory of evolution is far from proven..

You are absolutely correct but the fact that evolution happens has been proven. We can, and have, demonstrated it with repeatable experiments in the lab, that is what I was speaking of when I said "fact". I believe, perhaps in a later post, I even went further and explained this.

 

[SagaLore]

I don't know if information theory disproves evolution, but I think it's definitely at odds with it.

BTW, when I say the theory of evolution, I'm referring to specific tenets; most notably the neo Darwinian concept that evolution occurs via minute, slight, successive changes over very long periods of time due to random mutations.

Now I still stand by my comment that there has never been any hard evidence that a random, chaotic force can produce the kind of purposeful information seen in the genetic code.

The genetic code isn't called a "code" just for anything. For all intents and purposes, it functions exactly like a real code.

Is there any evidence of a natural force creating anything resembling a code? Observation dictates that codes only come from conscious, intelligent activity.....not natural processes.



This is a separate topic altogether, so I'll just say that calculations have been done by mathematicians on numerous occasions to determine whether it's possible for random forces to create the kind of specified information necessary for life forms to evolve, and they've all come up ridiculously short.

Apparently, the odds against even the simplest cell forming by "accident" exceeds the entire probabilistic resources of the Universe..

Now just imagine that such a feat would have to be duplicated trillions of times throughout the course of natural history to explain the present bio-diversity, and you'll see just how ridiculous those claims are.



It's a good thing you mentioned this, because specific scenarios such as bacteria developing resistances to penicillin or developing the ability to digest nylon can be explained by epigenetics. In other words, there's no random mutation involved since those abilities were already a part of the organism's genome.



I think entropy is a different argument altogether than what information theory supposes though..

What about when bacteria develop resistances against antibiotics. That's all random mutations already present in bacteria that allow them to stop antibiotics from affecting them.

What about that experiment a while back where bacteria were introduced into a medium that they normally could not metabolise for energy but after a few generations developed metabolic pathways that allowed them to efficiently "eat" the environment that a few generations ago, they could not?

At one point all we had was self replicating molecules. Would the process you just described be able to produce all of the living systems we see today or in the past?

There is no "force" of evolution. Evolution is simply what happens to biological organisms, because they do not replicate perfectly.



Evolution doesn't have "tenets." You are projecting your silly religious framework onto a vital scientific theory.


They are among the causes of imperfections in replication. Evolution makes no claims to have exhausted the list of those causes.


Let's assume I stipulate the above. Then what? Scientists should just conclude that the Norse god Loki is in the germs cells of orgnaisms monkeying around with the DNA? Should they suppose that little pixies are pushing around nucleotides and mixing them all up? Or is it gremlins? Shiva? Krishna? Queztalcoatl? Do you have a method of differentiating any of these hypotheses reliably? What then, brainiac?


What is a "new life form"? Do you mean a unique genome? That's been done. We've seen it happen out in the world.


How do you decide what a "positive" change is from a "negative" change? You see, you're clearly using these coy little weasel words so you can conveniently deny the real and meaningful results of these experiments. What about the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon? Is that not a "positive" change?

You do realize that in science, subjective characterizations like "good," "bad," "positive" and "negative" are to be avoided at all costs, since the goal of science is objectivity. Do you know what that is, Einstein?


Yeah, and my brain has a skull for built in protection from blunt force trauma. Obviously, nobody should ever bother wearing a helmet, therefore, because all so-called "protections" are totally flawless and invincible.




That isn't a force, numb nuts.

What is wrong with you guys?

This thread is about a Louisiana textbook.

Therefore, discuss the Louisiana textbook, or something related to public education. Obviously you guys have argued with each other in every other thread that ever mentions creationism or evolution. What is the point in bringing it in here and hijacking the thread? You know you aren't going to change each others minds. It is f'ing annoying to come into these threads to see all your argumentative bullshit spewed across dozens of pages.

 

[JTsyo]

If we allow the church to dictate what is taught in science class. We'll stagnate and repeat history. We need to encourage kids to explore nature and think about what they are seeing, not just praise God for what was given and be satisfied.

 

[Retro Rob]

I see absolutely no difference between the two but if you want to be more specific about it, I can live with that.

That's fine. But there is, though.

That both did the exact same thing when they reached the limits of their knowledge, hence my point.

I see it's no use to keep debating this point. If you say I did, then I did.

So no matter how much proof and evidence is presented to you, you will never ever believe it? If the bible said 1+1=3 would that be an "undeniable truth" to you as well?

It's not that I just deny evloution. I have read that some things that had support or was a valid theory at one point (such as abiogenesis, the thymus glad having no use, and also how the appendix was rendered useless through the evolutionary process) and no longer do not (mainly due to an increase of knowledge and understanding), this makes me more skeptic.

Does this make evloution totally bogus? NO. However, the way you feel about a man made book called the Bible, is how I feel about evloutionary scientists. I don't think there's room for objectivity, and makes them extremely suspect, in my opinion.

Instead, I am more inclined to think that all kinds of scienctific gymnastics will be used to save face, if necessary. They have a materlistic committment... a lot of funding backs this research and they don't want to disappoint.

Certain things are fact and certain things are theories based on a lot of fact and observations. Evolution is happening, that is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the how and why.

That's fine and actually I applaud the effort, if you want some honesty, for investigating, testing, and comfirming.

Why? It is a fact that water is compromised of two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen or H2O. There are tons of scientific facts, facts ARE unchanging. The rest is called a Theory but I can't recall any scientific "fact" that has been changed in my lifetime because they are so hesitant to use that word. There are many things that are quite obviously true but are still considered "theories" because we can not absolutely prove the theory to the point of making it "fact" or law.

I should have said evloutionary science.

I would hope not. I kind of like this modern world we live in with all of the modern conveniences. Even though you are not likely to admit it, I bet you do too.

I would be a liar if I said I didn't. I enjoy the modern world.



Asking "why" is a very good thing. It is something that should be encouraged.

Why in the world would you say that?

And no, you are absolutely 100% wrong. What happened to Islam is they were going through a golden era of great knowledge and wisdom. More books were translated into arabic during that 300 year time period than have since. They made great strides in mathematics, including being one of the first to fully exploit the 0, invented algebra, named 2/3 of the currently named stars, and were quite litterally the capital of the worlds intellectual community welcome to all faiths including "doubters". Then along came a man who was well regarded in the Islamic faith who had a mindset that is very similar to yours. Unfortunately he had enough incluence to change the thinking of all Islam and that alone is why their golden era ended and they have not recovered since. It isn't that the people of Islam, including those that do dumb shit in the name of their religion, are inherently "evil" they are simply ignorent. It is quite easy to manipulate an ignorant populace whereas you don't see a whole lot of intelligent societies strapping bombs to themselves. That is the true danger of thinking as you do yet you despise them for it?

I also find it ironic that you both share a "god" and they even believe in Jesus (just not as the son of god). What pray tell would make a god fearing man such as yourself say such a thing? Do you feel that way about everyone that does not think exactly like you do?

I say that becasue they've turned violent and overy senstive in some areas of the world.

I've yet to see a violent muslim here. I met one a work, she's pretty decent.

Yes it does and is. You can trust in god while still believing what is true and provable. As I said, if you get your child to believe as you do he will be excluded from various fields of work that he may have wanted to pursue but will be unable to due directly to the specifics and how religion was taught to him.

I never said you can't believe in God and something "true and provable". I said evolution. Nice way to twist my words up. IN fact, I really mean "God and the Genesis account saying he created life"

I don't have to because I can show you real world evidence for evolution which overrides what may or may not be in a 2,000 year old book written by man, edited and combined by man, and translated untold times by man to the point that its impossible to tell if a lot of it accurately portrays the original intent or the intent of whoever editing it wanted it to be or if they just messed up due to some words having multiple meanings.

Proof and evidence must override that lest we make the same mistakes that Islam did and we end up exactly the same way. Simply putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NA NA NA NA" because you don't like the facts that are being presented to you is not the answer.

Ok, no ones ignoring anything this way.

Just because I decided not to believe something doesn't mean I didn't make a informed choice.

And it's true that I've contributed to the derailment of this thread.

For that I do apolgogize. This is an emotion topic.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are absolutely correct but the fact that evolution happens has been proven. We can, and have, demonstrated it with repeatable experiments in the lab, that is what I was speaking of when I said "fact". I believe, perhaps in a later post, I even went further and explained this.

Dang... I just saw MASSIVE EDIT here.

I don't remember what you said, but I recall you being in almost total agreement with him.

 

[Paul98]

I will ask again as I didn't see an answer, what basic part of evolution do you not believe in?

 

[Retro Rob]

I will ask again as I didn't see an answer, what basic part of evolution do you not believe in?

Actually, none of it. But I've stated some reasons whether you agree with them or not.

I think scientists, who are human, have plenty incentive to hold fast to evolution. Just like how greedy religionists or so called "Christians" lie and twist the Bible to fit their own meaning to fleece their flocks. Even if they're wrong, fear of losing support keeps them dishonest.

I don't think scientists intentionally lie to people like religionists do, but when it comes to evolution, I will just say that since this has been established as fact, then losing the trust an support of many of the world's brightest minds and respected scientists hangs in the balance.

I googled ID last night and I read one scientist as saying that to teach intelligent design in science class is to reject everything we've come to know in the science world... I didn't direct quote him because I don't remember exactly what he said, but that was just the gist of it. I agree that ID doesn't belong in evolutionary subject matter.

It's in the best interests of our society an the world, for that matter, to really accept evloution as fact, IMHO, because the world as we know it is based on the study and understanding of it.

Just my opinion, and my reason.

 

[Darwin333]

Evolution isn't a law, but judging by many of the comments in this thread by neo-Darwinian supporters, you'd think it was.

There is a HUGE difference between saying it is a fact that evolution has happened and is happening and saying the Theory of Evolution is a law. The Theory of Gravity is just that, a theory not a law, but that doesn't stop us from saying that it is a fact that gravity exists.

BTW, the theory of evolution has had many failed predictions, "junk DNA" being just one of them.

Of course it does, again its a good thing that we revise our theories as we gain more knowledge not a bad thing. If you wait to propose a theory until its absolutely perfect it will likely never be proposed. However, if you propose it based on our best current understanding other people can then work on improving it as well. Thats one of the best parts about science.

And, epigenetics presents a major conflict with one of the main tenets of the theory of evolution, that being that the natural force responsible for change is random mutation in concert with natural selection....

I am not a biologist so we are starting to get a bit above my head but the way I understand it is we aren't sure that "epigenetics" can be passed down through multiple generations enough to actually cause a permanent mutation. We have observed a few cases of it being passed on but doesn't it generally reverse itself after a few generations at most? Would love to learn more about it.

And even if the Theory of Evolution must be modified after we learn enough about epigenetics or anything else that isn't currently in it, again that is what science does and we should be very happy about that.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, none of it. But I've stated some reasons whether you agree with them or not.

I think scientists, who are human, have plenty incentive to hold fast to evolution. Just like how greedy religionists or so called "Christians" lie and twist the Bible to fit their own meaning to fleece their flocks. Even if they're wrong, fear of losing support keeps them dishonest.

Oh come on, you are reaching. Certain drugs are developed based on evolution! Are the drugmakers making drugs that don't work simply out of fear of losing their support?

I don't think scientists intentionally lie to people like religionists do, but when it comes to evolution, I will just say that since this has been established as fact, then losing the trust an support of many of the world's brightest minds and respected scientists hangs in the balance.

I can point you to a study that you can read, and is entirely repeatable (even by you if you wish to expend the resources) in which we have observed evolution happening in real time. There is no other answer for what happened except evolution. It is absolutely a fact that evolution has and does occur. What we are still working on is the actual Theory of Evolution which explains the "how and why". Please note the very big difference.

I googled ID last night and I read one scientist as saying that to teach intelligent design in science class is to reject everything we've come to know in the science world... I didn't direct quote him because I don't remember exactly what he said, but that was just the gist of it. I agree that ID doesn't belong in evolutionary subject matter.

I am not sure if you chose your words carefully or not. Are you implying that ID should be in the science class at all?

It's in the best interests of our society an the world, for that matter, to really accept evloution as fact, IMHO, because the world as we know it is based on the study and understanding of it.

Just my opinion, and my reason.

Wait, what? If its in societies best interests to accept facts as what they are (facts) and to accept that Theories are our best explanation (so far) for those facts, why do you not?

 

[Darwin333]

What is wrong with you guys?

This thread is about a Louisiana textbook.

Therefore, discuss the Louisiana textbook, or something related to public education. Obviously you guys have argued with each other in every other thread that ever mentions creationism or evolution. What is the point in bringing it in here and hijacking the thread? You know you aren't going to change each others minds. It is f'ing annoying to come into these threads to see all your argumentative bullshit spewed across dozens of pages.

Umm, this thread isn't about Louisiana public education either.

And frankly, you can just keep on being annoyed, some of us are actually having an intellectual debate and (gasp!) learning something. If those things annoy or aggravate you then simply don't read them and go about your business.

 

[Darwin333]

Dang... I just saw MASSIVE EDIT here.

I don't remember what you said, but I recall you being in almost total agreement with him.

I agreed that there is a lot of stuff that we still need to work on and potential changes to the theory yet to be made. Then
I decided to go into more detail in a later post on the specifics. I figured separating the posts would give ME the best opportunity of getting a reply on the actual subject of epigenetics which I am truly interested in learning more about.

 

[Paul98]

So you believe in evolution, but you don't agree with it??

Also how does evolution being a fact turn off great minds? Does gravity being a fact turn off great minds also?

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh come on, you are reaching. Certain drugs are developed based on evolution! Are the drugmakers making drugs that don't work simply out of fear of losing their support?

Just address what I said, please Darwin.

Just saying, religionists arent the only persons in the world that lie and get things wrong.

Being wong isn't a crime, its a part of life and science, for that matter.

All I am saying... ALL I AM saying, is that it isn't too far-fected to think that the science can be distorted delibertely.

As you stated, 85% of leading scientists don't believe in a personal god. Even if they hinted as such, would probably mean career suicide.

I am not sure if you chose your words carefully or not. Are you implying that ID should be in the science class at all?

Science class.

Wait, what? If its in societies best interests to accept facts as what they are (facts) and to accept that Theories are our best explanation (so far) for those facts, why do you not?

Is this the general concensus? That's why I said that. THey don't reflect my views, just the scientific world.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
I never said you can't believe in God and something "true and provable". I said evolution. Nice way to twist my words up. IN fact, I really mean "God and the Genesis account saying he created life" ...

Interesting discussion. If I read you correctly, the crux of the issue is that unlike most Christians, you cannot reconcile your faith with evolution because you believe the Bible is the literal, infallible word of God. There are a couple of problems with this view. First, there is no one Bible. There are many Bibles depending on which translation you like and which books one chooses to include and exclude. These translations are sometimes contradictory in places, and have evolved over time as experts have refined and expanded their understanding of the source languages. In short, no matter how faithfully the original authors may have written the original books, no matter how "inspired by God" they may have been, the modern-day translators who try to interpret their writings have only an imperfect understanding of the ancient languages and idioms. Their translations are flawed, perhaps not enough to invalidate the faith, but certainly enough to recognize that subtle semantics arguments today are built on shifting sands.

The other issue with the "literal, infallible" view of the Bible is that we know that much of the content in the Old Testament was pulled from older religions and folklore. This isn't a problem if one views the Bible as a mix of allegory and factual history. It is a substantial problem if one insists that the Bible is a 100% factual, literal reference book. That view simply denies reality. For Christians who accept the Bible for what it is, however, there is no conflict between believing God created man and accepting God used evolution to do so. The two beliefs are not inherently exclusive.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting discussion. If I read you correctly, the crux of the issue is that unlike most Christians, you cannot reconcile your faith with evolution because you believe the Bible is the literal, infallible word of God. There are a couple of problems with this view. First, there is no one Bible. There are many Bibles depending on which translation you like and which books one chooses to include and exclude. These translations are sometimes contradictory in places, and have evolved over time as experts have refined and expanded their understanding of the source languages. In short, no matter how faithfully the original authors may have written the original books, no matter how "inspired by God" they may have been, the modern-day translators who try to interpret their writings have only an imperfect understanding of the ancient languages and idioms. Their translations are flawed, perhaps not enough to invalidate the faith, but certainly enough to recognize that subtle semantics arguments today are built on shifting sands.

The other issue with the "literal, infallible" view of the Bible is that we know that much of the content in the Old Testament was pulled from older religions and folklore. This isn't a problem if one views the Bible as a mix of allegory and factual history. It is a substantial problem if one insists that the Bible is a 100% factual, literal reference book. That view simply denies reality. For Christians who accept the Bible for what it is, however, there is no conflict between believing God created man and accepting God used evolution to do so. The two beliefs are not inherently exclusive.

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

Interesting discussion. If I read you correctly, the crux of the issue is that unlike most Christians, you cannot reconcile your faith with evolution because you believe the Bible is the literal, infallible word of God. There are a couple of problems with this view. First, there is no one Bible. There are many Bibles depending on which translation you like and which books one chooses to include and exclude. These translations are sometimes contradictory in places, and have evolved over time as experts have refined and expanded their understanding of the source languages. In short, no matter how faithfully the original authors may have written the original books, no matter how "inspired by God" they may have been, the modern-day translators who try to interpret their writings have only an imperfect understanding of the ancient languages and idioms. Their translations are flawed, perhaps not enough to invalidate the faith, but certainly enough to recognize that subtle semantics arguments today are built on shifting sands.

The other issue with the "literal, infallible" view of the Bible is that we know that much of the content in the Old Testament was pulled from older religions and folklore. This isn't a problem if one views the Bible as a mix of allegory and factual history. It is a substantial problem if one insists that the Bible is a 100% factual, literal reference book. That view simply denies reality. For Christians who accept the Bible for what it is, however, there is no conflict between believing God created man and accepting God used evolution to do so. The two beliefs are not inherently exclusive.

Hm, interesting.


To your point about evolution and the Bible, if what you say were true about the OT (pulled from foklore) then you're saying the Genesis account may or may not be true.

Well if that's the case, could I respectfully ask you to present some evidence showing that God used evolution to create life (which was allegedly removed from the Bible), or that the OT actually is pulled from folklore?

You make a strong accusation, and that requires some hard truthful evidence. It seems like you're saying Christians do and should take the Bible as allegory when it conflicts with modern science, or that it was intended to be taken as allegory when it does conflict with modern science.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Hm, interesting.


To your point about evolution and the Bible, if what you say were true about the OT (pulled from foklore) then you're saying the Genesis account may or may not be true.

Well if that's the case, could I respectfully ask you to present some evidence showing that God used evolution to create life (which was allegedly removed from the Bible), or that the OT actually is pulled from folklore?

You make a strong accusation, and that requires some hard truthful evidence. It seems like you're saying Christians do and should take the Bible as allegory when it conflicts with modern science, or that it was intended to be taken as allegory when it does conflict with modern science.

How aboout you first present some evidence for this "god" you keep babbleing about?

Imaginary "friends" is no valid argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You make a strong accusation, and that requires some hard truthful evidence.

That's fucking rich, coming from a person who has essentially called all biologists liars.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Rob, the creation story is clearly allegory. If you think believing something this obvious is somehow a threat to your "literalist" faith...then I would argue that your faith needs to be seriously reevaluated.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, the creation story is clearly allegory. If you think believing something this obvious is somehow a threat to your "literalist" faith...then I would argue that your faith needs to be seriously reevaluated.

I just really want to know why you think that. If it is, then there is nothing I can do but to reevaluate my beliefs.

Is it fair to ask you for evidence, as you do me? I am not trying to be a wiseguy, Doc, I just personally think its ridiculous to not have any burden of proof outside of opinion, but ask persons like me to give you tangible proof of God and creation.