I am not settled in my mind, but I really long for some really solid, convincing evidences.
also, since I am a layperson of the biology/evolution, I don’t have any vested interest in this area. So, I am very likely to challenge many established (flaky) assumptions that are already assumed by many people in the circle.
forgive me if I have been too straightforward
in summary, I want to find out the real truth. to add, not truth that are regulated by the so called ‘science’.
I’ve hesitated to suggest it till now because I wasn’t sure how much you were willing to invest in the process, but I found the book Coming to Peace with Science to be quite well-written for the layman non-biologist. Not long, and an easy read. It goes through a lot of the relevant science and explains the evidence for common ancestry over and against competing alternatives. If pressed for time, you can skip the chapters on theology / hermeneutics, which are not as strong as the rest.
Of course, it occurs to me that, since it came out some 13 years ago now, it probably didn’t even include a lot of the strong new evidence that’s coming out of genome sequencing. But the evidence is still quite strong enough, I think you’ll find.
This is not correct, George, and LeMaitre (his more mature self – the one who actually conceived this theory) would bristle at your mis-attribution of this to him. He would tell you the same thing he told his Pope at the time [relevant excerpt below]:
It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”
Yes, I think I will need to do some reading if needed, but hopefully reading that are not too time-consuming.
I read that article you gave last time, that is a good introduction. but I was also hoping to discuss what are the assumptions that are already made in that article for the conclusions drawn.
Depends upon how one defines “species.” If an existing species divides into two sub-species that can’t naturally interbreed, whatever the cause or reason, I think we have a new species.
Thought experiment: Say the only “kinds” of dogs on earth were Great Danes and teacup poodles. One species or two?
I would say the biggest assumption to evolutionary creation (EC) is that God’s work of creation was through His establishment of physical laws, without the need to bypass them for specific, miraculous creation events.
To me, that is a bit like telling your dentist that instead of getting a root canal from someone who has been brainwashed by all the “assumptions” and “hypotheses” rampant in the field of dentistry, you would prefer someone with a more “objective perspective” to perform the job. Someone like my neighbor Brian who is an electrician and hasn’t been corrupted by the flaky field of dentistry.
At some point, we non-experts have to trust the people who have dedicated years of their lives examining evidence first hand and studying the fields of biology and paleontology in depth. Almost all Christians with relevant PhDs acknowledge the basic validity of the model of common descent. Personally, I see a lot of importance in that fact, because to say we should discount their expert opinion is basically subscribing to a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories strike me as the opposite of logical, rational, moderated thinking.
Not only has Brian not been corrupted by all that flaky dentistry stuff, but he also knows how to amp up that dentist’s drill to get some extra horse power out of it! --will get the job done in half the time!
I’m sorry, but it sounds like you have already settled the matter in your mind. A good natural history museum would provide literally solid evidence of human evolution, if that is what you truly long for.
That is a clue. Which people specifically have flaky assumptions?
Another clue. Sorry, but what is “so-called science” and how does it differ from real science?
I’m no expert, so I’ll leave the explaining to the biologists and the other scientists, but I’m a fellow Christian who used to reject human evolution several years ago. I knew that animals evolved, but for some reason I did not make a connection between humans and hominins. I think my insistent belief that Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings without coming from any predecessor made me ignore all the scientific evidence that were in front of me. I changed my mind after reading about some Christians who argue that Adam and Eve were not necessarily the very first humans God created. Now anthropology, which I previously neglected to learn from, makes sense to me.
Its complicated, but I think the other people here can elaborate on pre-Adamite humans much better than me. I just disagree with the assumption that if Adam and Eve were not the first humans or were not real, then Christianity is all wrong. I think Christianity is about Christ, not Adam. Even if we somehow found proof that Adam and Eve never existed, the discovery would not blow up Christianity anyway. I mean we’ll never exactly know the deep past of human history, but it doesn’t bother me too much because we know Jesus is definitely real, and he should be our focus.
One thing I know for sure is that the existence of other humans during Adam’s time would not make incest required, thank God we don’t have to awkwardly explain that incest thing to kids and non-believers.
Wow… how about that!? I didn’t see that one coming! Thank you for the correction on this point!
So I will have to restructure the point of that narrative. While the man who crafted the Big Bang Theory denies he had religious motivations for it, it was certainly very satisifying to the Pope (who was no shrinking violet when it comes to interpreting all of Creation as the work of God) - - for he now had a scientific Big Bang to go along with the famous verse: “Let their be light!”
I was also a Christian who rejected evolution just a ew months ago. But there is too much evidence for it, it is hard to go against. Microwave measurements of the universe’s age, fossil accounts, genetic complexity and mapping/aging, biblical references etc.
It is my understanding that there is no real solid 100% evidence that can support gravity. Should that not be taught at school as science?
We have observations, that we can come to the logical theory that that is why things fall, through nothing is 100%. How do we know God is not literally moving every dropped object on earth at 9m/s/s? He is everywhere, Hw is powerful…why not.
We can take our discoveries and hypothesis’ ad come up with a logical theory that shows why evolution is very logical and even biblical.
All that said, I am pretty sure it is taught as a theory, not truth.
Amen!
This is another reason. So many explanations the “traditional” view of the Bible forces us to make.
Would it be easier to explain that and that all scientists are using so called science in that they are educated or under a conspiracy to prove their agenda? Including devout Christian scientist who agree and get the same findings? Or to just say, change your interpretation, and it all makes sense.
Do you understand the word “theory” in its scientific sense? In common parlance, of course, a theory means a hunch or a guess. But in science, a theory is a body of knowledge, a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation. Theories explain facts. Evolutionary theory explains how the different species came to be.
