Bravo! Great answer!
It was more so to attempt to pin down what you all believe (which, as I suspected, is rather varied.)
“Cardinal Bellarmine found Heliocentrism to be distasteful. I think you will find that truth is sometimes distasteful.”
As you too shall discover, ( @T_aquaticus )… Sometimes, I do feel like Galileo in these instances, going up against the generally accepted beliefs of this day. As I also like to point out: This is only one instance where a minority of people were correct, and the majority was wrong…Perhaps the same will eventually be said against Evolution?
A closer parallel would be theologians who continued to argue for geocentrism because of their religious beliefs well after the science of heliocentrism had been supported by mountains of evidence. You would be the very opposite of Galileo.
2 Likes
As Isaac Asimov wrote long ago (the article is archived in one of the threads here at BioLogos), over time, the changes in scientific benchmarks become smaller and more nuanced … rather than some dramatic reversal of an existing paradigm.
For example, Newton’s corpus on gravity and inertia … when Einstein came along, he showed that Newtonian physics becomes shredded and frayed the closer one travels at the speed of light. But for the great bulk of humanity who do not have an opportunity to travel so conveniently, Newtonian physics is considered a golden standard.
The great shift in chemistry
[when alchemy became ridiculous and chemistry was the word coined for what was “serious alchemy”]
actually came after the American Revolution. How long after the American Revolution ? Almost a decade!
In other words, the USA is actually older than the practice of genuine Chemistry!
So, @J.E.S, do you expect that sometime in the next century, we are going to discover we were all wrong about the “Four Humors” - - and that everything really is driven by these four elemental qualities?
1789 (English Translation in 1790)
2 Likes
What mountains of evidence? (for evolution, not heliocentrism.) Also note that heliocentrism causes problems for MUCH less of the Bible than evolution…
I would ask you to provide for me what you think are the best evidences for evolution in a concise and easily understandable format (and no links). As for counter arguments, you will probably not see me holding up Wikipedia articles, at least…
(Honestly, I don’t usually hear much evidence for evolution [in a question of authenticity] unless I ask for it…the science books I read typically proceed with the assumption that it is true… As for @gbrooks9 's hypothetical…I feel that evolution has hung on mostly for its philosophical implications rather than it’s scientific ones…making BioLogos somewhat moot, but I digress…)
You could start here:
I would be willing to discuss specific lines of evidence if you started topics on them. I discussed the ERV evidence in this thread for an example of the genetic evidence.
Added in edit: I also started a thread dealing with some genetic evidence in this thread:
Would you be willing to discuss this evidence in another thread?[quote=“J.E.S, post:123, topic:36407”]
Honestly, I don’t usually hear much evidence for evolution [in a question of authenticity] unless I ask for it…the science books I read typically proceed with the assumption that it is true…
[/quote]
Most astronomy texts you read will typically proceed with the assumption that gravity is true, and for the same reason. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and so well understood that it is assumed to be true in the same way that gravity is assumed to be true. At the same time, there are still tons of webpages out there that describe and discuss the evidence for evolution, so it is available if you look for it.
5 Likes
[quote=“J.E.S, post:123, topic:36407”]
What mountains of evidence? (for evolution, not heliocentrism.)[/quote]
Twin nested hierarchies. If you’re going to respond, don’t try to pretend that these mathematical relationships are just vague “similarity.” They are much more.
I suggest that you read up on it on your own before replying. You won’t find this discussed in evolution denialist material, as this is a mountain of evidence that they are ignoring.
I suspect you’ll hold up things that are far less reliable than Wikipedia.
Well, that’s because it is true. You’re conflating evolution, the change in allele frequencies over time, an observable phenomenon, with evolutionary theory, which concerns the mechanisms underlying it. You avoid getting into specific mechanisms so you can more easily do the Gish Gallop.
[quote]As for @gbrooks9 's hypothetical…I feel that evolution has hung on mostly for it’s philosophical implications rather than it’s scientific ones…making BioLogos somewhat moot, but I digress…)
[/quote]I feel that you should learn the difference between “its” and “it’s,” but I digress…
1 Like
I bet you could come up with four (4) or five (5) sentences, one sentence each, for 4 or 5 simple statements that don’t require exhibits for comprehension (though, exhibits are always a nice touch
in written form).
Several of us participants tried our hand at an “Elevator Pitch” for BioLogos. 30 seconds to explain BioLogos … not Evolution… but BioLogos - - as though you had the lucky break of sharing an elevator with a multi-million dollar philanthropist, and you had to convey what BioLogos was and its importance in just the amount of time it would take to get to the lobby level, and the elevator doors open up.
If you put together a 4 or 5 point elevator pitch for Evolution, I’ll write one up too! I’d love to see what you think are your top Five! - - at least in terms of
Top 5 Easiest-to-Explain-but-Still-Compelling-Evidences of Evolution!
So just what are the science books you read?
1 Like
I believe in Christ who is my Savior who died for me and rose again on the third day. I believe His sacrifice is the ONLY payment for my sins and that I cannot save myself. I also repented and admitted I am a sinner and asked for forgiveness. I believe the Gospel and strive to grow close to Him.
Hope that pins things down thoroughly.
1 Like
You don’t hear about much evidence for Evolution because you consciously choose not to investigate it. It’s a scientific fact and it won’t go away because you don’t like it. The truth can be distasteful as others have stated here.
The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. A simple google search could yield beginner information about what Evolution is and how it works.
You want to pretend it doesn’t exist because it threatens your faith and worldview. Jesus Christ should be your rock, the source of your faith. We’ve all given you great answers but if you aren’t willing to look outside your box that’s your choice.
Hi T, I know you wrote about it before, but could you write another post (couldn’t find the older one I remember) explaining the LTR evidence? I would love to check out any papers you know of that discuss the topic, as well.
1 Like
New post in other thread.
1 Like
Do I now (consciously choose not to investigate it)? This statement is quite unfounded, and, frankly, quite unsupportable. Actually, it is quite wrong! One of (probably the) main reason I’ve been at BioLogos is to investigate evidence for evolution (as I’ve formerly spent most of my efforts examining the evidence against it). The reason (or, one of the reasons) I ask people to list their evidence for evolution is because I like to cut to the chase, and hear what other people think is the best evidence for evolution, and then question them about it in an effort to learn more, and see if they are actually putting thought into what they say instead of echoing things they have read or been told (links etc.). And I have to give some of you good credit for doing that! Through my little questionings, I have found which of you are actually willing to defend your beliefs personally instead of giving me:
- Here is a link (not always bad, sometimes very applicable)
- Google it (The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. A simple google search could yield beginner information about what Evolution is and how it works. [I rest my case. And yes, I have done some research into evolution, but there is always more to learn. See large paragraph below for details…])
- Unenlightened YEC (I don’t get this much [and certainly not verbatim])
I have also determined which of you are actually worthy of holding out a discussion with (and, against my better judgement, I sometimes hold out a discussion with members of the opposite category)…So, in the end, I seek to investigate the evidences, but I prefer to do by holding intelligent dialogue with a person (a real person, even if the dialogue is enacted by punching keys on a machine), than by reading a seemingly monolithic (and quite tiring to my already academics weary mental capacities) article etc. Not to say that all my conversations here have been bad (for some have been quite fascinating and insightful, and others have significantly helped broaden my intellectual horizons)!
You want to pretend it doesn’t exist because it threatens your faith and worldview.
I would not consider evolution (that is, macroevolution) even close to reliable enough to threaten my worldview, and it (evolution) will never be strong enough to threaten my faith! I am not “pretending” that it does not exist. In fact, I think the science behind the theory of _micro_evolution is very strong! Microevolution does not pose any problem at all to the scriptures (and neither does heliocentrism, @T_Aquaticus [jury’s still out as to whether or not I’m spelling that correctly…;)).
Furthermore, I am not pretending that there is no such thing as a theory of Macroevolution which most scientists believe in that seems to contradict the Bible (and still seems to, despite BioLogos’s efforts). In order to see how well EC holds up, don’t you think I’m going to test its scientific, philosophical, and last, but by far the most serious, theological implications to the limits? I like to see how far something holds up before I consider accepting it as fact.
The truth can be distasteful as others have stated here
Indeed it can. However, we have YEC, and the EC spectrum…only one can be true, or we are both wrong. With this statement, you seem to imply that EC is the undeniable truth, or, that it is not (so it cannot be) wrong. Do you possess an open mind on this issue? Is it worth my effort to discuss this issues with you? I guess, if you aren’t willing to look outside your box, that is your choice.
“On Christ the Solid Rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand.”
Hello @J.E.S,
I have a question for you. If someone were able to prove "macro"evolution to you beyond any shadow of doubt, what impact would it have on your theology? Would it stand your theology on its head, require only a slight readjustment, or somewhere in between? Remember that the purpose of the Bible is to allow us to know Him, what He has done for us, and what He offers us. I would suggest that the manner in which God conducted creation should be only a minor part of anyone’s theology.
Evolution can never contradict the Bible. It can contradict some interpretations of the Bible. And as interpretations are the product of human thought and are not inspired this is not surprising.
1 Like
In this hypothetical, I think it would require my theology to be modified slightly to moderately…
I would not consider the creation of the world to be a minor theological topic, but when hard-core atheists come up and say that something means the end of the Christianity, then it becomes a big deal to me and my theology (and it should become that to yours as well). Ultimately, however, if someone does manage to convince me that evolution is true beyond a doubt, I would most likely align myself with the BioLogos view. However, I must put much more thought and research into this topic before I alter my views fundamentally. On something with such seemingly serious theological implications, I would rather make a very informed decision! So, as I said before, you all may expect me to test the scientific, philosophical, and theological implications of EC vs. YEC to the limits before I change my mind, or believe the same.
(Note: This is not to insinuate that I would not place myself in the YEC camp, it is just to say that I have a fairly open mind about these matters.)
Yes, hypothetical. It will be virtually impossible to scientifically “prove beyond all doubt” for those that hold a literal Genesis interpretation. I just fear for those that have placed so much of their theology on that interpretation. Glad you have the “mental flexibility” to adjust, if by some chance it is ever needed.
It just strikes me that, if evolution were really that scientifically sound, and was able to blend seamlessly with theology, I feel that we wouldn’t have AIG, CMI, etc., and all of the other organizations that are against evolution. I think that that says something…We do not a serious and widely famous “Geocentricist’s movement” for example…
Well evolution is scientifically sound so you can delete the “if”. It does present challenges to theology, but so did Galileo so that is not new. We have AIG, CMI, et al because they don’t understand evolution. They react to what they consider to be the random nature of evolution and complain how could a random process produce us. The reality is evolution is under God’s complete control and the outcome was never in doubt. What is ironic is creationists would all agree that God can work his will in the present which would imply He has always been able to work His will in the past.
1 Like