Evolution/ Age of the Earth: Various Perspectives

[Douglas]

As i understand it the whole concept of time and history, with ages and labels and so forth, is very much a western modern invention. Since time is of no consequence to an eternal God and there was no human present in the begin to comment on how long the whole process was taking it seem reasonable that the duration of God's creative act only finds significance when us human beings try to understand it.

To God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. In other words time does not matter to him it seems that he operates in an entirely different category. Whether is took billions of years or seconds it is all the same to God. This is why i don't hold tightly to a young earth model and an old earth/universe in no threat to my faith.

[robin]

Hi Douglas,
Your post said allot and left me with some questions that I have struggled with for some time (not specifically related to the topic of evolution). My questions have to do with Gods relation to time. This is not the proper thread to explore the matter so I will look and see if the subject had already been explored else where, and if not I will start a new thread.

Robin

[Josh]

Here's a link: God, Time, and Open Theism by Robin

[Jeremy]

I personally think the most powerful evidence for the age of the cosmos (and thus the existence of God) is Einstein's theory of relativity along with a Hawkins and Penrose's 1970 paper where they conclude space-time has a beginning, which implies a causer (as Douglas talked about). I know the scientific community has struggled with this as well, the implication of a creator.

In 2005 or 2006 I saw Penrose speak at the Schnitz, his whole lecture started with some simple math and led up to much more complex stuff where he ultimately tries to prove the existence of multiple universes...which i don't see how that can be done as we can't measure anything outside of our 4 space-time dimensions. His attempt to prove this as he's working on with a grad student...seems to show that 35 yrs after it's publication, that even Penrose himself has problems accepting the results of his own findings--the suggestion of a creator.

[Josh]

Mo, I'm going to re-post the beginning post on this thread because I think it might help you see what issues in Science I personally think are most important for Christian apologetics and which I think are secondary. I'm very appreciative of the tangents discussed on here so far, but some of the original thoughts are worth returning to in our current discussion:

Christians have taken several different perspectives on the subject of evolution over the past 150 years, everywhere from young-earth creationism, to old-earth progressive creationism, to theistic evolution and a multitude of shades in between. I've personally ranged the full gamut. In the process I've come to appreciate the importance of intellectual honesty and humility. I have also come to the strong conviction that none of these positions in a litmus test for true Christianity.

I believe that debate over evolution is a secondary issue of apologetics, and that some ways of explaining evolutionary theory need not be considered contradictory to Christian faith. That said, I do have some intellectual reservations about evolutionary theory and do resonate most strongly with old-earth progressive creationism and intelligent design. I honestly think the next several years will help clear up a lot of really beneficial scientific dialogue currently on the table, and in humility, expect that many issues which are currently under the fog of debate will sort themselves out more definitely one way or the other. And ultimately, we need not fear- all truth is God's truth anyway.

That said, I think the arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer and ultimate cause of the universe are substantial (and much clearer) considering recent advances in various scientific discplines. That the universe had a fixed beginning, that life is precisely fine-tuned, that we have no naturalistic way to describe how life first appeared on our planet and continued to exist and flourish-- these are all first-rate apologetic arguments in my book (for more on this, check out some of the other threads here)

I'm curious what others think about evolution and the relationship between science and faith, or what questions and comments you all have. I want to encourage healthy dialogue on the subject, respectful of different points of view, focused on what is true, which really is a hallmark of our group.

Thoughts on this?

[moritz]

okay, some quick thoughts on this:

I think that evolution is a very complicated business. There are many misconceptions about it. And I guess none of us (at least not me) could actually explain in biological terms what exactly is happening in the process and how.
But other people can. Richard Dawkins for instance*. I think he has a couple of things to say on this matter in the God Delusion. So if you haven't got there yet, you will. But Dawkins is not alone. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on evolution even though there are open questions and disagreements on side aspects of it. Everytime I come across articles touching the issue it is pointed out how compelling and overwhelming the evidence for evolution is. How the fossil record is daily increasing etc. . I've even heard Christian biologists argue that evolution is made by God.
I think that we non-biologists know very little about evolution. Hence, we are tempted to dismiss it. Someone once pointed out that Creationism has an advantage in competition because it is so much easier to understand. God just made it. In contrast to the theory of evolution, apologists of creationism don't have to explain HOW God made it either. The idea of a creator is much more comfortable too. So I can see why so many people reject evolution in spite of all the evidence and the estimation of the vast majority of scientists. Not to mention all the campaigns fundet by the religious right making people believe that the theory of evolution is just a theory (totally ignoring the difference between a theory in a regulars' table discussion and a theory in science!!!)
And what about Intelligent Design? I have to admit that I was a little impressed when you first brought it up, Josh. But now I've come across SO many papers dismissing ID as pseudo science. I've even read that it is sponsored by conservative Christians.** ID isn't a neutral attempt to find the truth. It is the attempt to confirm the Christian truth. First comes the bias, then comes the matching evidence. I think this is the wrong way.
Unfortunately I haven't gathered all the material I came across exposing Intelligent Design. Heres a quote of Wikipedia that might be interesting to consider though (I don't like quoting Wikipedia. But I've seen you do it too , and after all, this one seems to be well supported by references [over 200]):

"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The American Association for the Advancement of Science says "intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."[18] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[19] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[20]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The footnotes covering this paragraph go from 13 to 20. I find those footnotes pretty informative. Please read them all. This also goes for everybody who reads this besides Josh!

20: www.jci.org/articles/view/28449#B1
19: www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf
18: www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
17: books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25
16 and 15: for those footnotes you have to subscribe or pay.
14: www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890
13: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_83_of_139
web.archive.org/web/20060115091707/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html
www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I seriously think there is no getting around evolution. I'm sure there will be modification, but not at the core.
I also have some intuitive reservations to speak quite frankly. Sometimes it all seems too increadible to be the product of natural selection. But then again I have to admit to myself that I know absolutely nothing. I'm a total layman regarding biology in general and evolution in specific. The amount of time that this world already exists is unfathomable to me. And the core idea of evolution rings absolutely logical to me. I think the development and the cousinhood of the species is visible at first glance. I see animal behavior in people all the time. I find it most arrogant to think we are something else. A visit at the zoo is most enlightening in that sense.
I repeat: there seems to be no getting around evolution. The question remains whether evolution is God's creation. It could be. Whether or not evolution contradicts the Bible or can be harmonized with the Bible is something you can estimate better than me. What's important is that evolution works perfectly without a creator and gives a logical alternative to the origins of life. It also challenges traditional biblical views like that we are the crown of the creation.

Wow. So much about a quick thought. What do you say?







*I know that Dawkins opinion doesn't count much for religious people due to his obvious anti-religious bias. But people must also ask themselves where his bias comes from. His bias may be the result of his knowledge. In other words, he may be fighting religion so vigorously because of the conclusions he drew in the course of his studies. I have no reason to doubt that. Especially cause it's the same with me. My rejection of religion came second, as a result of an intellectual process and not the other way round.

**here's an article I quickly found. It's not the article I was relying my point on, but it seems to confirm my point.
www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html

[sonlyte]

As I read through this thread again, I realized my beliefs have been moving with life.

I certainly cannot say that I am sure of the theory of evolution. After all, very few scientific theories actually endure thousands of years of progress, and inevitably those who follow will see our understanding of the universe as archaic and basic.
However, I have been pondering the instincts and workings of the human body recently and found my mind wandering into the ideas of evolution.

To me, that idea and the kind of wisdom and understanding it would take to bridge every gap from the beginning to modern day is beyond tremendous.
I don't need to see God's work in all that has been done; I don't need to see his fingerprint in the whole evolutionary process. Evolution is by itself so amazing that I cannot help but be impressed at what kind of person it would take to come up with the idea. (I am not talking about Darwin, God had to come up with the idea first for Darwin to have discovered the truth)

The ancestry we have from current day back to the dust of the earth from which we came is a path strewn with amazing hurdles.
The force of life blazes forward, through the development of lungs, heart, muscle and brains in a constant battle of survival, defying extreme climate conditions and extinction events to continue the colonizing of this planet all the way to present day.
There were times when life walked a knife's edge so close to collapse. (like the extinction event before the triassic)

If you believe in a creator and also in evolution, you will likely be left in amazement at what has been done.

I tend to think that God's "hand" in the evolutionary process may not be measurable. I tend to believe that the forces of nature that exist are often times what God uses to complete his work. I am actually more impressed by God when he can accomplish his entire will without anyone even knowing he was there.

So if you can prove to me that evolution is perfectly sound, and that every single event that has happened in the course of life's development can be entirely accounted for within known science; I will absolutely love it.
And if you can show me a different theory which stands up to reason and evidence even better, I will love it more.

I have never met a science that I didn't like because for me...it has always been about appreciating my creator.

[moritz]

I like this post, sonlyte. I think you are on the right track. We can't know if there's acreator behind it or not, but IF there is a creator, you might have found a good way to approach him.

[Josh]

You know, I'm pretty excited that in a small discussion forum such as ours we have a pretty balanced representation of the panopoly of perspectives on evolution/ creation: naturalism, theistic evolution, progressive creation, young-earth creation, (and let's not forget our resident agnostic on these matters ).

Another thing I like is the ability to learn from each other and not be so bound to our models that we are unable to do so.

Sonlyte, if you poke around on this sub-forum some more, you'll find that Hume also takes a position quite close to the one you outlined above.

A couple questions (again to sonlyte primarily, but don't mind barging in) that I've found to be sticking points for conversation re: varieties of theistic evolution:

I tend to think that God's "hand" in the evolutionary process may not be measurable.

How about the origin of life? (life from non-life)

How would you view the origin of humanity from this perspective?

What would you then conclude about the historicity of Adam and Eve?

[sonlyte]

The beginnings of life is for me one of the greatest arguments for the will of a god in evolutionary history. However it may well be that if we had been able to observe the actual beginning of self reproduction (which is my definition of life's beginning) we may not have been able to measure God's influence in any way.

From my viewpoint we would probably be watching an incredible coincidence with no other explanation, or we may come to understand a new type of force which can account for this incredible encoding of information.

In either case, I think the skeptics would have enough room to remain skeptics, and those who believe it is God's work would be amazed at his creative hand.

I guess we will never know for sure. The advantage of my opinion is that whether you see God or can account for everything without him, I still think you are seeing him, because I see God through both the natural and the supernatural as I mentioned elsewhere.

As for the beginnings of humanity ie Adam and Eve ... you got me.

It may well be that Adam was taken from the wild and placed in the garden and through this action, he was made the first among men in a figurative sense.
I haven't quite reached a conclusion on this as I have only recently been able to consider other than what neatly fits the biblical perspective, and I haven't tried to fit it all in yet.

The flood in particular ... there are lots of possibilities but nothing that I see that quite fits the facts.

However I am quite confident that since all this was God's idea, it will all fit as it was intended. (Although it may not be as I would like it)

[christopher]

Resident earth-age agnostic poppin' in here. ;D

Has either of you ever read or heard of the book "Nature's destiny" by Michael Denton? I'd be curious to know your thoughts on it and Denton in particular. I don't know much about him other than he's a fairly well-known biochemist and medical professor in New Zealand. I know he's not a Christian, and I don't think he adheres to any traditional religion, but I believe he was one of the catalysts for the modern ID movement (perhaps an unwilling one at that). He believes in evolution, but rejects the Darwinistic version of it (he wrote another book against Darwinian evolution theory a number of years ago).

I picked the book up several years ago on the clearance rack at Borders because it was only like 3 bucks or so, but never read it all the way through. In fact, I only got a few chapters into it before it go shelved. Not that it was boring, I just had other things going on at the time. Anyway, I came across it the other day and decided to dust it off and give it another go. I find it fascinating some of the observations he makes about the universe and the earth being uniquely fit for not only carbon-based lifeforms, but specifically fit for a humanoid type lifeform like ourselves being the highest order of being as well. His observations range from the frequency and distance of supernovaes to the molecular structure of water needing to be exactly what they are (with zero tolerance) in order for us to be here. It amazes me that he's not a Christian, or even a theist at all (he may be deist, but I'm not sure). He even goes to bat for the Christian worldview on a few occasions. In the prologue, he writes:

The anthropocentric vision of medieval Christianity is one of the most extraordinary----perhaps the most extraordinary----of all the presumptions of humankind. It is the ultimate theory and in a very real sense, the ultimate conceit. No other theory or concept ever imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim----that everything revolves around human existence----that all the starry heavens, that every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists for mankind and for mankind alone. It is simply the most daring idea ever proposed. But most remarkably, given its audacity, it is a claim which is very far from a discredited prescientific myth. In fact, no observation has ever laid the presumption to rest. And today, four centuries after the scientific revolution, the doctrine is again reemerging. In these last decades of the twentieth century, its credibility is being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science (pp 3-4).

While I would disagree with his statement about Christianity's claim that the universe is anthropocentric (I'd say is God centered, not human centered), I do appreciate his honesty about science not putting Christianity to rest. I also love how he called it "audacious". I totally agree with that. The claims of Christianity are wonderfully audacious, and leave no room to be just another choice in the post-modern salad bar of equally valid belief systems. It is either boldly true, or foolhardy and radically false. No middle ground.

So far, I've read the chapter on how all the elements of life (like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron) are manufactured in the "nuclear furnaces" (he calls them) of stars and the only way for life to be possible is through the dispersal of these elements thoughout the cosmos via supernova. He says:

It is in the dying of stars that life has it's birth (p. 10)

He goes onto say how much the distance and frequency of these explosions matter so much, that many well-known physicists and astronomers (and he lists several of them) lean toward the view that the universe was specifically designed for life. He says:

As a result of these discoveries, there is now a teleological intellectual current within modern physics, cosmology, and astronomy which is remarkably concordant with the older anthropocentric view and strikingly out of keeping with the antiteleological tendencies that have come to be universally associated with advances in scientific knowledge for most of the recent past. (p.16)

Anyway, if what he says is true, I'd say it's very interesting how things come full circle over time. I think it was Francis Bacon who said something like [paraphrase from memory]:

While it true that a little philosophy leads one's mind to atheism, depth of philosophy brings one's mind about to religion again.

Although I'm sure I'll not agree with Denton on a great many things, I look forward to reading the rest of the book.

BTW, I think I'd probably agree (at this point) that ID doesn't belong in the realm of observable science, but rather in the realm of philosophy. But isn't philosophy itself in some way a science? And aren't many philosophical arguments scientifically based?

I'd also like to say that I really don't see why either Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design need to be taught in public schools. It's probably safe to say that 99% of the population uses little to none of their Darwinian training in any real life application. So why is it so fiercely defended? And likewise for ID. I don't see what's at stake here for either side.

[moritz]

Aug 31, 2008 21:21:56 GMT -8 christopher said:

BTW, I think I'd probably agree (at this point) that ID doesn't belong in the realm of observable science, but rather in the realm of philosophy. But isn't philosophy itself in some way a science? And aren't many philosophical arguments scientifically based?

I agree with that. philosophy is science in a way because it strives for explanations and knowledge. It differs from other disciplines in the fact that it is very subjective and not bound by the laws of science.
I find the intelligent Design theory in a way catchy although I wouldn't reduce the amount of possible intelligent designers to Jahwe. I would dissociate the possibility of design form the Christian context and ask myself: given the premise that all this has really been designed, what can we really and unshakably tell about the designer? I think that's interesting, hypothetical as it might be. Since ID links to Christianity, I would need another term for what I'm talking about. Christian ID would be a disciplin within general ID.

Aug 31, 2008 21:21:56 GMT -8 christopher said:

I'd also like to say that I really don't see why either Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design need to be taught in public schools. It's probably safe to say that 99% of the population uses little to none of their Darwinian training in any real life application. So why is it so fiercely defended? And likewise for ID. I don't see what's at stake here for either side.

Hm, I think you are really underestimating the status of the theory of evolution in science. I can't blame you, the amount of information out there is overwhelming. If one is inclined to dismiss the theory, he'll find enough sources to back this up. This often makes people underestimate and misjudge the state of the scientific knowledge. The number of scientists giving evidence for the truth of evolution is totally outnumbering the oponents of evolution. And if you take an objective look at the oponents, you'll almost always find that they have a religious bias.
DON'T GET ME WRONG. I'm not saying Christians are biased and scientists aren't. I DON'T think the theory of evolution shatters Christianity. There are Christian supporters of evolution as you know, even Christian scientists that support the theory. So it's not as if this was an atheist battleship and I could just say the Christians are biased and the scientists aren't. I'm just saying that one must be aware of the bias when weighing the balances. Just check out the links I've posted above.
As the author you quoted points out, there is a variety of views on evolution. Two evolutionists don't necessarily have to fully agree. But the DO agree on the premise, namely that life evolved from simple living forms to complicated living forms. I'm sure the theory itself will undergo modifications in the course of time, but I wouldn't be surpised if the presise remains untouched.

Why teach this in school? I guess it's justifyed because the theory of evolution is the most compelling answer to a fundamental question. It's not just a hypothesis, but a forceful scientific theory backed up by a daily increasing record of evidence. Now, I think you are right that most people don't use their knowledge about evolution in daily life. Neither do I use the poems that I've interpreted, all the curve sketchings from math, the pieces of art that I've produced or my knowledge about the acid-base-metabolism. But I think this is useful basic education. And one builds his worldview on education. Maybe one forgets specific mathematical formulas but your brain has build synapses to understand such formulas and they persist. I think the theory of evolution has a major impact on our view of the world and is hence an absolute must.

[christopher]

Perhaps I do underestimate the status of the theory in the scienitific community. That really doesn't change my opinion though because until there is conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really just an appeal to authority. It's the same thing Catholics and Pharisees did.

If macro-evolution is true, the evidence will reveal that over time. We don't need to jump to any conclusions yet. And I agree with you that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps further study will persuade me someday, but at this point, I remain unconvinced because I have not yet seen a coherent case for it that doesn't involve a high degree of speculation and a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence (like genetic similarities, etc) that have a myriad of possible alternate explanations.

I think the theory of evolution has a major impact on our view of the world and is hence an absolute must.

Thank you Mo, you "give force to my argument"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. A "view of the world" is called a worldview, and Darwinistic naturalism is a worldview that is contrary to many peoples' worldview. The verdict is still out on evolution and already people want to indoctrinate kids on the theory/belief. That's not only jumping the gun, but it's a deceptive way of propagating that meme. ;D

You can't really compare it to art, poetry, and complex math because math is not subjective and speculative and art/poetry (generally) doesn't claim to be fact and it doesn't threaten to brainwash, only enhance an appreciation for beauty and expression.

[moritz]

Sept 1, 2008 9:27:58 GMT -8 christopher said:

Perhaps I do underestimate the status of the theory in the scienitific community. That really doesn't change my opinion though because until there is conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really just an appeal to authority. It's the same thing Catholics and Pharisees did.

If macro-evolution is true, the evidence will reveal that over time. We don't need to jump to any conclusions yet. And I agree with you that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps further study will persuade me someday, but at this point, I remain unconvinced because I have not yet seen a coherent case for it that doesn't involve a high degree of speculation and a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence (like genetic similarities, etc) that have a myriad of possible alternate explanations.

I think the theory of evolution has a major impact on our view of the world and is hence an absolute must.

Thank you Mo, you "give force to my argument"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. A "view of the world" is called a worldview, and Darwinistic naturalism is a worldview that is contrary to many peoples' worldview. The verdict is still out on evolution and already people want to indoctrinate kids on the theory/belief. That's not only jumping the gun, but it's a deceptive way of propagating that meme. ;D

You can't really compare it to art, poetry, and complex math because math is not subjective and speculative and art/poetry (generally) doesn't claim to be fact and it doesn't threaten to brainwash, only enhance an appreciation for beauty and expression.

I can only repeat: the theory of evolution isn't a subjective hypothesis. It isn't a gunshot. This is a very common misconception and I daresay that religious pressure groups played their part well in discrediting the theory without even dealing with it.
I don't know how we can overcome this situation. It's like talking to a Chinese. I'll say your regime is occulting the truth and he'll say: it's just your western propaganda who makes you believe this.

I think however, if you objectively research the topic,you'll find that evolution is absolutely well established. It could be called "the fact of evolution" but science never speaks of an explanation as fact, no matter how well established it is. This is immanent in the scientific ethos.

[christopher]

Mo,

I'm confused. You said:

I think however, if you objectively research the topic,you'll find that evolution is absolutely well established. It could be called "the fact of evolution" but science never speaks of an explanation as fact, no matter how well established it is.

but earlier you wrote:

I think that evolution is a very complicated business. There are many misconceptions about it. And I guess none of us (at least not me) could actually explain in biological terms what exactly is happening in the process and how.
But other people can. Richard Dawkins for instance

So what is it exactly that convinces you? Dawkins' opinion (and others), or your own understanding from your own research, which you appeared to admit was limited? Where does the credibility find it's home with you? Just curious.

[moritz]

Sept 1, 2008 12:00:56 GMT -8 christopher said:

Mo,

I'm confused. You said: (...)

So what is it exactly that convinces you? Dawkins' opinion (and others), or your own understanding from your own research, which you appeared to admit was limited? Where does the credibility find it's home with you? Just curious.

I believe in the theory of evolution as I believe in the theory of relativity. Yet I'm a layman to both. If we reduce everything we claim to know to what we have seen with our own eyes, to what we have tested ourselves and to what we have really understood in it's entirety, we will realize, that we hardly know anything. Very often we do - we have to - rely on the expertise of others. I think this is self evident. You'll call it appeal to authority and I'll say "so what?". I'll assert that you yourself are relying on the authority of others every day in your life. Maybe we can agree on this.
However, this isn't a carte blanche to believe everything one is told. The quality and quantity of the evidence has to be considered.

What about the theory of evolution? Why do I believe it?

The first time I ever heard in my life that the theory of evolution was doubted by scientists was from Josh. It must have been around 2003/4. I've been brought up in a society that doesn't doubt evolution. I've learned it in school, I've learned it in church. In church??? Yes. I said it before: the theory of evolution isn't a battleship of atheism.

Here is a comment by Pope John Paul II. on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.(...) Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

I know you don't think much of catholicism* and I don't blame you. But you were curious where my faith in evolution comes from and I'm giving you a full reply.
So, I've grown up with the theory of evolution and it didn't affect my faith. The implications of evolution sure have an impact on how to read books like Genesis but they don't prove there isn't God behind it.**
When Josh revealed to me, that there are scientists doubting or even dismissing the theory of evolution, that was really something new to me. I knew some Hillbillies dismissed it, but scientists?
Of course I did some research and I discovered rather fast that those scientists mostly have a conservative religious bias - while on the contrary there are many religious scientists affirming evolution. Furthermore, those who dismiss evolution are a vast minority. I discovered that conservative religious pressure groups funded counter movements, such as Intelligent Design. And of course I've come across many many articles by scientists talking about evolution. In newspaper articles, in online articles, but also in science-related magazines (my girlfriend is biologist). I've talked with professors. They all not only affirm evolution, but also give evidence for the daily increasing record making the case for evolution. Richard Dawkins? He's a renowned biologist and a firm supporter of Darwinian evolution. But how much influence did he have on me? I heard his name for the first time last winter. I read his book this spring. I believed in evolution before Dawkins and, as Josh can confirm, I was an atheist/agnostic long before Dawkins came my way.
But this isn't it yet. Evolution rings true to me because it is plausible and gives a satisfying answer to very important questions (while the answer to many many other question remains unknown). But it also rings true to me on an intuitive level. When I go into the Zoo and see the monkeys, seriously, it strikes me. It's like a carricature of mankind. The cousinship is undenyable in my opinion.
There are also aspects that make me doubt evolution. It sure all seems to be pretty finetuned. Then I think of my wisdom teeth and realize it isn't really finetuned. Absolutely amazing yes, finetuned no.

What can we conclude? The example of "Talking to a Chinese" I provided in a post above cuts both ways. Most of us are laymen relying on the information they are getting from experts or supposed experts. Non of us can really know which information is decent and which information isn't. I for one think it is reasonable to rely on the testimony of a vast majority of renowned scientists. I repeat, we are not dealing with a shoot from the hip here. Not with a hypothesis. But with a real scientific theory, just like the theory of relativity. Such theories will undergo modification in the course of time, no doubt. I'm with sonlyte when he says that our beliefs will appear archaic to future generations. Still, it is the duty of our educational systems to teach children such well established theories.
I'm sorry if this took so long. I think you asked a decent question and I wanted to do it justice.


*In Germany as in many parts of Europe, Catholicism is the fortress of conservative religion. German Protestantism is totally liberal: It allows abortion, gay marriage, divorce, female pastorship (female bishop Margot Käßmann is divorced herself), etc.. All of those things are unimaginable in Catholicism. So if an institution as powerful as the Catholic church officially embraces the theory of evolution, I would suspect that there is something about it they can't deny. I believe they would deny it if they could. It is much easier not to tackle Genesis and leave everything in it's place than to grapple with a theory that puts everything into question.

** For instance one could argue that the term "dust" stands for stardust of which we are made by 90%, according to some sources. One could argue that God let evolution take its course according to his will and that the first beings that in the course of evolution reached consciousnes, what separates us from other animals, were Adam and Eve. etc........

[christopher]

Mo,

First of all, thank you for honestly sharing your reasons for believing the evolutionary theory.

You wrote:

I for one think it is reasonable to rely on the testimony of a vast majority of renowned scientists.

And I want to say at the outset, that I think your conclusions are both reasonable and rational. And I have to say that I agree with much of what you said, but without reaching the same conclusions.

I do not assign the fallacy of appeal to authority on the kind of personal testimony you provided because you nowhere stated “it IS true because the majority of scientists…..etc. etc.”, you simply gave your reasons for believing it, and they are very good reasons. I'll give you that.

You wrote:

I'll assert that you yourself are relying on the authority of others every day in your life. Maybe we can agree on this.

Yes we do agree on this. Of course expert testimony carries weight, a lot of weight. It’s only when a claim like “I think you are really underestimating the status of the theory of evolution in science” that I cry fallacy, because what you’re essentially asking me (and by extension, everyone else) to do, is to accept on FAITH the theory based on nothing other than an apparent consensus in the scientific community. That is exactly what appeal to authority is and although it is valid evidence to consider, it doesn’t provide conclusive proof to an argument like this.

You wrote:

I'm with sonlyte when he says that our beliefs will appear archaic to future generations.

I agree. I like to use the antiquated theory of spontaneous generation as an example. There was widely accepted scientific evidence that pointed towards life springing up from nothing, or through some “life force” that was in the air until Louis Pasteur came along and basically asked “did you sterilize the bottles and prevent the introduction of airborne bacteria?” I’ve heard Dawkins say that cosmology is awaiting its own "Darwin" to answer the question of primary cause. Perhaps biology is awaiting its next "Pasteur" to answer the questions still remaining in evolution. As I said before, I think the verdict is still out on this despite the number of experts that affirm the theory. Macro-evolution is a plausible explanation, maybe even the most plausible at this point, but it is far from being an established fact IMO.

You wrote:

When I go into the Zoo and see the monkeys, seriously, it strikes me. It's like a carricature of mankind. The cousinship is undenyable in my opinion.

I have the same reaction when I go to the Volkswagen dealership and compare a Jetta to a Passat side by side. However, I catch myself just shy of concluding common descent. ;D Maybe they just have the same engineers.

You wrote:

I repeat, we are not dealing with a shoot from the hip here. Not with a hypothesis. But with a real scientific theory, just like the theory of relativity.

I don’t think I ever said it was a “shoot from the hip” theory. If I did, I recant that statement. But I believe I said that it relies heavily on assumptions because of huge gaps in knowledge. Since it’s been a number of years since I’ve studied this topic at all, I did another search for a good pro-evolution article to see if anything has changed and found this one written in 2007.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As expected, the arguments and evidences are pretty much the same as they used to be (although I will freely admit I have not studied this topic nearly as much as I should like).

They are mostly describing similarity and confirmed predictions based on the theory. Again, this is good evidence, I’ll grant that. But it’s far from conclusive because even the phD who wrote the article admits the huge gaps in knowledge that remain (like the mechanism of evolution, and the transitional fossil record for example).

That brings us back to the discussion at hand. Should it be taught in PUBLIC schools with the assumption that it’s fact because it’s the best plausible NATURALISTIC explanation available? I still say no. Because the assumption of naturalism is built into the equation as a primary premise which many well-educated and reasonable people still reject, and they do so with honest and rational reasons.

This is where the collision lies. Christianity is based mostly on historical events (the resurrection of Jesus), and Macro-evolution is based mostly on natural observations (Phylogenetics, ubiquitious genes, etc) of similarities. Both are sciences, but sciences of a different sort. ID takes the premise of Theism (Christianity) and observes nature to see if it supports its premise and finds that it does. Darwinism takes the premise of naturalism and observes nature to see if it supports its premise and finds that it does. Both are looking at the same evidence, but completely different starting assumptions and therefore reach opposite conclusions because the evidence supports them both. Thus, it is completely reasonable and rational to fall on either side of the debate. It is why you have even non-theist scientists believing in some sort of intelligent design, even if they fiercely oppose the ID camp. It’s the perfect stale mate.

So I conclude that biology can be easily taught thoroughly, with the knowledge we do have, without needing to add the highly debated theory of evolution in the curriculum (or ID for that matter).

That’s just my opinion.