Bill, I am sorry you had that experience. I might ask, what university or college was teaching that? I attended a secular state school (University of North Texas, where Janet Kellogg Ray now teaches) and in 1973 or so, had never even heard either Piltdown man or Haickel mentioned in my embryology or biology classes. In fact, I don’t think I was aware of them until YEC literature brought them up later in my life. There is a lot science got wrong and later corrected, and no doubt a lot we think we know now will be disproven. That’s why we still do science, and the discovery of new and different things advancing our understanding is a big part of the joy.
That said, it is amazing that with all our scientific advances, it only confirms and supports the basic ideas behind evolution, though with new understanding of how it works. In astronomy, we see confirmation of Big Bang theory, and age of the universe. Every new advance in DNA technology has confirmed what was suspected. Geology continues to further the understanding of how the earth was formed and how it continues to recycle.
I guess my point is that we can celebrate how we discover new things, rather than grieve the old things. Sort of like in the Christian life, we get grace for how we mess up, but do not dwell on that but rather move forward towards sanctification through Jesus.
You are conflating the scientific community with textbook authors and educators. They are not the same thing.
I’ll check my textbooks later.
It also states that ‘Piltdown was rarely introduced without disclaimer. Authors almost always noted early debates regarding the association of the skull fragments and jaw. And his age was always in dispute.’ That’s not teaching as “fact”.
Piltdown man is mentioned in a lot of more recent textbooks too - as a fake. Being included in a textbook means little without how the textbook describes it.
It was for me (1982-1985, UKC). Again, it seems your problem wasn’t with science, but with education. What university was it?
Then generations of students weren’t actually reading the text, because it doesn’t say that.
Also, once again you are criticising textbook writers, not the scientific community.
Finally, despite all your discussion of problems with biology educational materials, you are ignoring that (i) university students are supposed to be capable of evaluating educational material, not just memorising it, and (ii) completely ignoring the far, far worse problems with creationism equivalents.
Why is that?
P.S. Re this:
Did you realise it yourself? Or were you told it wasn’t true by a bunch of creationist charlatans?
A drive by three minute YouTube is an explanation in detail? That does not even qualify as superficial.
If you followed its references, you would find that 11 year old video drew from a 2007 Science journal article Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%, which states:
Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes - they focused on gene regulation - to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities…
YouTubes can be great, but are only as good as the content creators put out. The MinuteEarth episode has some of its facts right, but is shallow, sloppy, misses the point, and is trying to hype drama where there is none.
Your experience differed from most, and buying textbooks was definitely the usual practice. Back in the 70s and 80s, at my various institutions, textbooks were never provided. Ever. Nor were they to be found in the library.
Maybe it depends on which side of the pond you were. My secondary education start in 1970 and I certainly came across the Piltdown man. Despite the disrepute there were still people holding on to it. On the other hand I have never come across Haickel until now. Still Piltdown is, of course, in the UK.
Not really. It is the same comparison but with DNA instead of morphology..
Unless or until the way DNA affects morphology is found they may as well be comparing my mother’s revipe for Cherry cake with the formula for lactic acid.
From a human perspective, weather may appear random. In reality, however, atoms and molecules move precisely according to the physical laws that God Himself established, and those laws do not change. Creation refers to the cause—the making of matter and the laws themselves—while weather and natural phenomena are simply the results of those laws being applied.
Scripture declares: ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the LORD, ‘will Israel ever cease being a nation before me’ (Jeremiah 31:36). This is a clear affirmation that the laws set by God will never change.
Indeed, throughout history, God has almost never altered the cosmic order He established. There are only two direct interventions recorded in Scripture: when the sun stood still in the days of Joshua (Joshua 10:12–13), and when the shadow on Ahaz’s sundial moved backward ten steps as a sign to King Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:7–8). These extraordinary events demonstrate that God is the sovereign Lord of creation, able to suspend or redirect the laws He set, yet they also highlight how rare such interventions are.
Therefore, confusing creation with the application of its laws is a misunderstanding. Weather is merely a physical phenomenon, not evolution. Evolution, which claims that species transform into other species, is an entirely different matter. God’s decrees remain unchanging, and all processes unfold only within the framework of those laws.
The Bible cannot be placed on the same level as other religious texts. The Qur’an or the Bhagavad Gita are writings of human religious traditions, but the Bible is the Word of God, continually verified by historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence.
For example, the Bible’s accounts align with the history of the ancient Near East, and numerous archaeological discoveries—such as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Hezekiah’s tunnel—support its statements. The Bible also contains prophecies recorded thousands of years ago that have been repeatedly fulfilled in history. Other religious texts do not meet this level of historical and scientific confirmation.
Scientifically, nature operates according to the laws established by God. To human eyes, weather may appear random, but in reality atoms and molecules move in orderly fashion under physical laws. Scripture declares: ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the LORD, ‘will Israel ever cease being a nation before me’ (Jeremiah 31:36). This is God’s affirmation that the laws He set will never change.
In history, God has very rarely intervened directly in the cosmic order. Scripture records only two such events: when the sun and moon stood still in the days of Joshua (Joshua 10:12–13), and when the shadow on Ahaz’s sundial moved backward ten steps as a sign to King Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:7–8). These extraordinary events show that God is the Lord of creation, able to suspend or redirect the laws He established, yet they also highlight how rare such interventions are.
Therefore, confusing creation itself with the application of its laws is a misunderstanding. Weather is merely a physical phenomenon, not evolution. Evolution, which claims that species transform into other species, is an entirely different matter. God’s decrees remain unchanging, and all processes unfold only within the framework of those laws.
“How do I explain my evolutionary faith to my conservative family?”
Well first of all, I would NOT call it “evolutionary faith.”
At most it is the rejection of a non-Biblical faith in there being some conflict between science and Christian faith.
Sounds like Gnosticism and legalism (Romans 10:5-7). Salvation is by the grace of God not by human pretentions to knowledge. Nowhere in Jesus’ answer found in Matthew 19 of how to have eternal life does Jesus speak of knowing/believing the right things.
Well I think you should acknowledge that there is a great deal of liberal indoctrination going on in college, and you might point out the things which are indisputably right (which even they must agree to) and some of the things you think are definitely wrong. The point being that you are simply accepting things just because somebody says so.
I think that is an opinion and not a fact. The above summary would seem to be fairly accurate in terms of cause and effect, even predicatability. The difficulty with weather prediction is to factor in everything that will impinge on the coming weather, not the fact that is is chaotic.
That is not the point here. Evolution is left to chaos and chance. The weather is not.
NB
I am not supporting a complete rejection of Evolution or the imposition of Scripture onto science. I am only pointing out the difference between meteorology and Evolution that people here seems to think does not exist.
To classify evolution as a “natural law,” addressing mechanical causality alone is insufficient. While causality must explain how a physical state transforms given specific inputs, physical laws, and time, a fundamental natural law must also account for why such a structural transformation necessarily occurs. Without defining both the precise mechanical mechanism (how) and the physical necessity (why), defining evolution as an established natural law remains an incomplete assertion.
Furthermore, when examining environmental change, the only empirically observed and repeatable physical responses in living organisms are death (extinction) or relocation (migration). Claiming that organisms respond to environmental stress by reconfiguring their fundamental mechanical structure into entirely new species is an unverified hypothesis rather than an observed physical fact.
Rather than relying on general consensus or secondary citations, I encourage you to present your own analytical research and verifiable empirical data addressing these core questions of causality, physical necessity, and observational proof. This will allow us to engage in a rigorous, constructive, and truly academic dialogue.
Does this also apply to the assertions of Scripture?
One rule for one?
Itis very hard to argue against a specific and assertive view of Scripture. It require consensus, not only on the validity of Scripture, but also the understanding of it. If you change either one then the platform of discussion also changes. Science argues from epiricalism even if the precise empirical data cannot be witnessed, which applies to most of Evolution. Scripture relies on deciding how accurate the information available to the author. God is not known for revealing everything, especially all at once. Perhaps the information about how creation continued and developed was not necessary?
You make some good arguments, but also some very biased and assertive ones. As such discussion can become strained at best.
Evolution is a process, not a natural law - it is the outcome of fundamental laws, just as your living and breathing is not a law but an outcome.
It is observed that in any reasonably stable population, more offspring are produced than survive and mate. Given variation in fitness, who do you think wins and who loses?
What’s with this? Do you think no one here ever checks a journal paper?
Such a simplistic view. I wonder why you bothered saying it.
Evolution relies on the right change or adaption at the right time.. Timing is beyond the scope/control of ToE.
Furthermore there are many examples of beauty over functionality, or global positioning over efficiency and superiority. Th fact that all the big cats are not all in the same place might suggest something beyond dead luck. Furthermore, the interaction between species, the ecology, not only of predator and prey, but plants or interspecies reliance makes the survival, not just about fitness, or intelligence, or adaptability. It is no good being a top predator if you wipe out your prey. Neither does propagating a pollinator decide to propagate a plant even if it is a source of food or not. It cannot instigate the relationship knowing the benefits. The exception being human farming, but exactly how that came about might be an interesting sideline for Evolution to ponder.
Richard
Edit
A quick surfing of Yahoo reveals a great deal of History and archaeology and only a minor attempt to include Natural selection after cultivation was established. There is no speculation as to how the first cultivators realised how to propagate, or seed, or whether it was a necessity caused by the inadequacy of Hunter/Gathering it just is seen as a Natural progression. How convenient.
I found nothing about Trinitarian Mechanics authored by Yang Sam San or Yang Sam on Zenodo. The closest matches I located were for Myeong Ho Park with a flurry of mongraphs they uploaded to Zenodo this year. (Author overview in link). Park’s blog here.
Yeah, I don’t really get this. You’re a Young Earth Creationist I’m guessing, but the evidence clearly shows the earth is billions of years old and that the theory of evolution is true. This is what the evidence shows, full stop. You don’t like the evidence, it doesn’t fit with your really 20th century interpretation of Genesis (studying Genesis in it’s context reveals it to be a theological polemic against Mesopotamian religion showing that the theology is primary in the text) so you reinterpret the evidence using fringe scientific theories not accepted by any scientist worth their salt and then claim through your reinterpretation of the evidence, which is a false one, that the evidence supports your position. The evidence doesn’t support your position, that’s why you had to reinterpret it and claim there’s some kind of atheistic conspiracy among scientists to hide the truth. If you were actually consistent with your worldview you’d believe the earth is flat with a solid dome sky that holds back a heavenly ocean. That’s what Genesis 1:6-7 says. There are many people who unironically claim the world is flat based on Biblical descriptions and that there’s an atheistic conspiracy to push forth that the earth is round. You probably don’t go that far but there’s a very small distance between your beliefs and theirs. They would say, the evidence supports Biblical cosmology when the atheistic scientist conspiracy is gone because they present false evidence that has been reinterpreted also and their reinterpretation of evidence (go figure) supports their point of view.
Mathematically they’re equivalent; evolution is just a matter of particles interacting according to a few basic law, just as weather is. The only difference is that weather has far fewer variables in play.
Chaos is a branch of mathematics and it applies perfectly to weather.
