Is it dangerous to teach evolutionary theory to children?

Actually, yes you are. You are suggesting that people here can’t see what you can see, despite the fact that you have obviously not looked at the evidence for evolution. You have disparaged people’s faith, and continuously ignored all of the evidence while peddling a pathetically cherry-picked complaint about a single video.

Initially you seemed unaware of how offensive your words were. Now, it seems you just don’t care, because you continue to mock science that you don’t understand.

The immense irony in all of this is that the thread was started with dark warnings about how it could be “dangerous” to the faith of children to teach them science. Instead, it is dangerous to the faith of everyone to see that some adherents to Christianity can’t converse with integrity about the evidence for evolution. My own story is that such behavior gave me reason to wonder if the whole Christianity thing was just made up. I concluded that it was. Dangerous indeed, but not for any reason you have mentioned. Only for the reasons that you are illustrating in your words themselves.

I will leave this conversation as I think it is best for believers to help you from here out.

2 Likes

I have not read the evidence Chris pointed to yet…I had to negotiate a business deal with a customer spontaneously last night and finally got closure on that! praise God. I have read so much info on this stuff that I am sure that these 9 items will be a rehash from old. I will re-read anyway.

If I sense that the same type of strategy used by nat geo where they take a skull and make a 1000 assumptions including that the animal had legs then develop a whale family tree, I will be sad to have wasted more time.

The time I have spent reading the info on this website and discussing this stuff with you all has bolstered me more into the creationist category and away from evolutionist and I don’t dislike you all and don’t think that you are not Christians if you profess this…I just am not in agreement.

Get on link above and click “read more on whale evolution” then click on link to Nat Geo to the right. Within 5 minutes tell me that this is not awful science.

Well, I made it about 15 minutes in. There’s a general sense of trying to make it all sound super dramatic, which just about all TV is guilty of. It reminds me why I don’t watch many documentaries, I don’t have the patience to go at a narrator’s pace, usually.

I did notice a key bit it sounds like you missed, which is that the researchers went back to Pakistan and found more skeleton fragments after they brought the partial skull home. This was said right before the guy started talking about it having four legs.

On the other hand, it does seem clear that the statement about short fur was little more than an educated guess based on knowledge of mammals living today, their fur length compared to their size, and the environments they live in. But a mammalian expert’s educated guess is probably worth five or six of mine.

So to recap, they do have leg bones for this fossil even if they didn’t mention them in the movie. I do have some more thoughts in response to you as well, but they will have to wait a little bit, I’m afraid!

2 Likes

This is not science it’s a TV show.

Listen, Greg, if you want to criticize science write a rebuttal of this: Insect visitation of peduncular and petiolar extrafloral nectar glands on castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) plants in Southern California

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JEBR/article-full-text-pdf/4658D2D45680

Greg, you would be upset if someone denied Christianity based on a movie about Jesus. That’s not a perfect analogy but hopefully get my drift.

2 Likes

Now to my real question. What theological damage does evolution do?

@grog I am a conservative pastor. I don’t subscribe to the liberal thinking that doctrine doesn’t matter. I don’t even believe that “only the major doctrines like salvation matter.” I believe all of them, the smaller ones, are interconnected and are important.

I simply cannot find a doctrine that is broken by evolution.

1 Like

Thanks for the link, as it was buried on the periferal edges far enough that I could not find it earlier. I listened to most of it, and agree that it is a pretty poor quality production, and at least it is just a link, and not something Biologos produced. As to science, I was disappointed in what it left out more than what it presented.
Again,it is entertainment, not serious education.

according to Chris Falter’s article to do with 9 evidences for whale evolution, this is not the case. This article claims that they have only found the skull. I have read other articles about other species where they found fragments of bone and adapted a picture of the animal as being terrestrial when the few bones found could have easily described an ocean dwelling animal.

Point being that there really is not transition forms that clearly define that a whale evolved from a land dwelling animal. All I see is evidence that evolutionists fudge the fossil representation to fit a pre ordained belief.

Are you talking about Pakicetus? The talkorigins article does indeed say they only had the skull, but then it describes findings only based on the skull. You have repeatedly typed falsehoods about that, claiming that this article shows scientists drawing other conclusions from a “fragment.” It wasn’t a “fragment,” it was a skull. But you’re right that this is what the 2001 talkorigins site says.

That same year, large assemblages of Pakicetus fossils were reported. Since that time, 16 years ago, it is no longer true that we only have the skull (not a “fragment”) of Pakicetus. To assert repeatedly, as you have, that scientists reached wildly speculative conclusions based only on the skull of Pakicetus… that’s the repeating of a falsehood.

Where I’m from, we have a shorter, one-syllable word for that.

3 Likes

Here is a more detailed description of what we know about Pakicetus since 2001 when more fossils were found.

http://www.nyit.edu/medicine/pakicetus_spp/

I get your drift. I am finding it incredibly amazing as an “undecided” who still yet remains an agnostic towards man’s observations of ancient history and one who trusts the inerrancy and the plain reading of The Bible to see how the sides all fit the data into their pre ordained worldview.

I just read an article about the pelvic bones in the whale from USC that suggest that this structure which they claim to be vestigial is indeed useful for sexual reproduction in the whale. see this article:

I as leaning creationist (because I, again, remain distrusting in man’s observational skills and trusting in the plain reading of Genesis) who does indeed believe in adaptation within a species see this pelvic structure as design and not adaptation from some land dwelling animal. This USC article suggests that this structure in the male is for anchoring a large sexual organ needed for control in reproductive activity and this fits my worldview that this pelvic structure is on purpose by design.

Evolutionists will always interpret this as structure proving that this was once a land dwelling animal that had a hip bone from which legs once anchored.

Two worldviews and two completely different interpretations of the evidence and it seems that recent studies from USC are indeed pointing to validity in the creationist, intelligent design camp.

As far as theology is concerned, I believe that evolution paves the way for liberalism long term. I have noticed in discussions with “theistic evolutionists” a feverish inclination to prove the secular naturalistic models right and God as Creator of kinds and Creator of Adam and Eve, the mother of all life, wrong. I won’t judge their hearts for this is God’s role, but I believe that they have spent too much time being indoctrinated in naturalistic leaning science classrooms and for this should not be held in high esteem for guiding the rest of the populous about how God created all of life.

I think that this is sad considering that I have read a lot of scientific conclusions from naturalistic crowds that definitively reveal how they will fit the evidence into a mold to fit the naturalistic worldview. This is not always the case but as a generalization very true. Just like two historians writing modern historical accounts will come up with two very differing stories, so two different observers of evidence of a long time ago will come up with differing accounts and I choose to let the fabric from prophets and apostles guide me towards interpreting those evidences. Why do so many fault me for this?

Don’t think I go on limb to suggest to you that I find this whole issue akin to the marriage counseling my wife and I sought a number of years ago. My wife and some of her advisors said, “just go to counseling, any counseling” I said, I will not go to any counseling because many forms may put a patch on a marriage and give it the appearance of a fix but ultimately may lead to hearts that goes adrift from the precepts in the Bible and indeed away from God who wrote it. Where the Bible would suggest that human marriage is very secondary to marriage to the Lamb…which when the priority is sought, human marriage can become great, there are a great many marriage books out there that subtly suggest that human marriage should be placed on front and center when this clearly goes against precepts on marriage from 1Cor. I believe that when priorities are right, human marriage can be awesome and fulfilling!

In the same way, theistic evolution does indeed cause the human psyche to drift away from the omnipotent, all knowing, sovereign, creative, holy, loving CREATOR and towards naturalistic models that these theists lean so closely towards. I believe that this may, long term, cause for a dangerous slide away from the essence of God thus redefining the nature of the Son, the Alpha and Omega, creator of all things who created us for His pleasure and glory. If I believe that a jesus who is far off, who is needy of time, chance and energy for designing mankind, who is not clearing defined in His Word because much of it in other passages throughout are not trustworthy because they are so far out of the realm of human understanding…if this is the jesus that I ask to save me from my sins, then I dare believe that this is the wrong jesus and that person may still be in their sins. If the Jesus whom I ask to forgive me of my sins is a perfect, all knowing, sovereign, all together holy and wholly caring and loving Jesus who created life in an instant by grace and by grace saves me from my sin and from myself and for the greatest gift, Himself, then this is a Jesus that saves.

I believe that evolution, long term, may cause the masses to lean away from this Jesus. I am just a simple man. And this is my deepest conviction for the year. I love this One and Only Jesus. He is shown Himself to be true over and over again and He is Creator and designer! He birthed Adam and Eve in an instant. He gave me life in my mothers womb the instant my dad’s sperm touched my mother egg, and He gave me new life in Him the instant I looked to the cross for the forgiveness of my sins!

Blessings from our Savior to you and yours

Greg

Good morning, Greg. I hope you and your family are well today.

I was reflecting on this exchange this morning and realized that if we weren’t discussing this topic, we’d probably have some pretty good conversations. Conversely, if I tried to talk about this topic with many of my friends, it would probably turn out a lot like this one! =) Important perspective for me. You know, I’m not quite so agitated this morning about all this. I hope your business deals are all turning out favorably and making up for that bum that’s stiffing you. As for me, I’m in one of the busiest seasons of recent memory, wearing myself out doing things I love that I don’t talk about on the Forum.

So I say this with a calm spirit and empathy: Where I’m from, when you seriously offend someone, the “I didn’t mean to do that; c’mon, really?” defense doesn’t hold water. What I was taught was that the loving (agape) thing to do in such a circumstance is to listen and try to understand how I offended, and then see what might need either an apology or a change of heart or both. This is the way my stalwart Christian dad raised me, it’s how I’ve been mentored in the Christian faith throughout my life, and it’s the only approach that works in my nearly twelve-year marriage. But I mean, maybe you were raised different, I don’t know.

Have a great day.

Well congrats for doing an a more intensive internet search than I. Point still remains that science done today is not always objective. A four legged wolf with a similar feature of a whale still does not make it a pre whale.

here is a good article about the necessity of the pelvic structure in a whale that some call nothing more than left over from its land faring days.

I was not offended. I am very thick skinned. I honestly could have a tough discussion with friends like you in the way we did last night and literally dust off the disagreement, move on and still be friends and watch a football game on TV like nothing happened. One of my helpers and I have discussions all of the time about politics and religion and we disagree sometimes, but are best friends and never let those get in the way of friendship.

I am clearly intrigued about how evidence gets interpreted so differently by folks with differing assumptions in these matters of creation though. I obviously want to find common ground…I just cannot get past the idea that the Bible has a thread showing God the creator and cannot get past the utter lack of reason(to me) in the idea that an organ such as an eyeball can develop by chance mutation as empowered by the sun. it makes no sense in my mind. It is confusing. God is not the author of confusion. And I don’t know how one mixes God into this naturalistic model and not get burned either. You don’t ever see this anywhere in life…complexity and intelligence coming from unintelligent forces…I just cannot buy it. Maybe biologos is different but the mix of naturalism and theism is just more confusing. I believe that the secular naturalistic science teachers who believe in chance and energy powered complexity are loons in their thinking on this. We are all loons really and in need of a Savior!

Incidentally, in the midst of some of this conversation last night, I called my attny about that guy trying to stiff me and he said to email him with a threat that we are going to lien his property if not settling the deal with payment soon. After him stiff arming me for weeks, he literally just last night agreed to pay. I had a non disparage agreement with me for him to sign in exchange for a check representing 75% of my invoiced amt…better than nothing. I deposited it this am…praise God!

I asked my wife to go with me to this guys house for support and I honestly was a bit nervous due to the extreme irrationality in this man. when he saw us coming down his drive, he walked over, grabbed my paper rudely walked to his porch, signed it, and handed that and a check and stomped to the house without saying a word! I was dumbfounded! .

We were so beyond professional and perfectionistic in the work we accomplished…and I am very conscious of doing excellent work by the book…I think ultimately he lost track of his budget and was too embarrassed to admit it so he had to slander and lie to make me look to be the one unworthy of what he was scheduled to pay me. I lost about $6,000 ultimately but I have a really great new customer now and some fantastic jobs coming up…God is always good! Thanks for asking about this.

Blessing Mr. Wolfe.

Greg

And the wolf dog can adapt within a couple of generations into a boxer looking dog or a poodle or a Chihuahua or a great dane.

and mammals and dinos are in some of the rocks together.

Just as you are annoyed at National Geographic videos which are often not of the high quality we might all wish, I get annoyed when the “God is not a God of confusion” scripture is recklessly wielded anytime someone doesn’t understand something and invokes the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy. (Does that sound unfair for me to say that? I’m just trying to put the shoe on the other foot to illustrate the issue.)

The disciples complained that Jesus’ teachings using parables were confusing them and leaving them baffled as to the meaning. And the Apostle Peter said that some confused the hard teachings of the Apostle Paul. And Paul said that “We see through a glass but darkly.” So I’m rarely impressed with arguments which begin with a quotation about “the God of Confusion.” I’ve seen it wielded almost as casually and recklessly as “science falsely so called” and various quotations about fools in Proverbs and “the wise” in Romans 1. They are such handy prooftexts because they can be hurled at basically anyone and anything just about any time. Obviously, each ignores context.

Yes, some things defy our personal sense of intuition. Until I began to use evolutionary algorithms to solve problems in non-biological fields, the Theory of Evolution always seemed absolutely impossible to me because it defied my sense of intuition. But after a lot of study, it now makes great sense to me and I praise God for the way evolutionary processes demonstrate God’s power and wisdom. Some years ago I even started making notes for a hymn which praises God for those processes. If the Psalmist can praise God because “the heavens are telling”, I can surely praise God for the ways he used natural processes to diversify life on earth in such amazing ways!

Yes, you are missing something. In fact, I used to miss many of the same things. If someone couldn’t convince me of the soundness of the Theory of Evolution in ten minutes, I declared it invalid and stupid. I was quite cocky about it. Of course, the problem wasn’t with the Theory of Evolution. The problem was me. I never sat down with an evolutionary biology textbook and worked through a systematic presentation of the lines of evidence (and the consilience of evidence) until many years later. A video presentation for the general public is NOT peer-reviewed scientific scholarship. It is not even an encyclopedia article. It’s not even a Wikipedia summary.

The National Geographic video tries to give a typical short-attention-span TV audience a little bit of the flavor of the evidence for evolutionary processes. It isn’t trying to explain why the Theory of Evolution is often called the best supported theory in all of science. That would take much more than a textbook or even hundreds of hours of videos. It would take many many many peer-reviewed papers. It is precisely BECAUSE it is a complicated topic that the theory wasn’t published until around 150 years ago–just as The Theory of Relativity is only about a century old and most Americans have no idea what it means. In fact, I can’t think of any scientific theory which could be thoroughly defined, evidenced, falsification tested, and established in a ten minute video.

As to appealing to each person’s sense of “scholarship” and intuition, I’ve had people in my Sunday School classes casually declare the Theory of Relativity “the devil’s work” because “God has given us absolutes. There is nothing relative about morality. Relativity is evil and Einstein is burning in hell right now because of defiance of God in publishing that theory.” I’m not making a joke. I even heard a TV preacher say something very close to that. I was reminded of those experiences as I read your expectations for a ten minute video.

Greg, it also sounds like you have a lot of anger towards scientists and are tending to lump them all together. I will certainly agree with you that there are plenty of scientists who make theological and philosophical declarations which are totally outside of their expertise, and the scientific method has nothing to say about those topics because such declarations can’t be subjected to the falsification testing of the scientific method. Yet, it sounds like you are blaming all of science for what some scientists presume to say outside of their expertise. And it sounds like their failings as sinners—even as anti-theist sinners in some cases—has turned you against science in general and its methodologies.

I said “sounds like” because I can’t get inside your head and know exactly what you think and how you got to those conclusions. But it sounds like you are having difficulty believing that those of us who have examined the scientific evidence very thoroughly have reached our conclusions by following the evidence where it led. and NOT because we are craving approval or are avoiding criticism. In fact, many of us have paid a heavy price at times for not going with the flow of our churches, mission organizations, school statements of faith, or church board of elders. I would implore you to apply the Golden Rule in how you would wish to be treated. Can we give all Christ-followers the benefit of the doubt and assume that we all care about truth and want to please God with our lives?

As to National Geographic, I can recall a number of big bloopers over the years. NG is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is, however, a popular-level periodical and TV brand which survives by giving people want they want in terms of entertainment. And that explains a lot!

3 Likes

You sound like you know your material. In just a matter of minutes however, I can find secular science conclusions for say, the whale pelvis functionality that points to design and not to evolution: .https://pressroom.usc.edu/whale-sex-its-all-in-the-hips/

And leg bones on a whale I see articles that present evidence conclusion from secular sources as reported in this creationist article that references the need for these apendages:
Major Evolutionary Blunders: Are Whales and Evolution Joined at the Hip? | The Institute for Creation Research

And as far as time is concerned, I have heard guys like Ravi Zararius mention more than once that the issue of our perception of time may be skewed due to the ideas brought forth in the beginnings of our understanding in the area of quantum mechanics which may suggest that God in his infiniteness created in a realm that defies human perception in regards to time.

The studies compiled by naturalist on evolution always give a neat concise and convincing presentation about animals found in certain strata with cute charts and graphs yet this deceivingly steers the reader away from the messy stuff they don’t report about such as animals found in strata that are not expected and facts such as how these animals would be found in other parts of the earth etc. This is not to mention that, since scientists are sinners like us all, there will be a tendncy to fudge evidence to fit a pre ordained mold unbecoming of God. There is mystery about our beginnings. Science is not revealing a cut and dry conclusion but mainstream science is full force thrusting the evidence that best suits into a naturalistic viewpoint that life as we know it evolves via natural processes…And I am sorry, but the idea of evolution or the report of energy and chance and mutation m resulting in a complex eye that we design our cameras from that is connected to the brain that is so outstanding beyond comprehension is just nonsensical to say the least. This has never been duplicated in the lab nor will it ever be because it did not happen. Naturalism does allow for the idea of creator and it hones on to a god of human ability and not a God of mystery and creationists are on an uphill battle against the whims of the vast majority of science in this world that has 10’s of millions of dollars to put together their neat little graphs and charts that formulate a naturalistic opinion when the reality is that there remains a mystery about our existence.

And by the way, I don’t disagree with you that adaptation occurs in the natural world in the kinds that God created. I disagree with you that an eyeball was formulated through natural processes powered by the sun and calling this energy like some sort of magic pixie dust from God or the like to fit into the theistic paradigm . There is plenty of evidence for adaptation in the fossils. There is not evidence that this points to complexity and beauty and order arriving on earth through random chance, roll of the dice occurances from nothing. NONE. Where is it? The cave dwelling fish with no eyes-these are interpreted as the fish in process of gaining eyesight and not fish losing it! The naturalists are gangbusters for proving a belief system that pushes God out of the picture and pushes against the idea that some things will never be known because God is transcendent.

Speaking of transcendence, here is a great article by Zacharius. …I completely understand what he gets at as I feel what he says here in my spirit and maybe because of the Holy Spirit. Take it for what it is worth. I believe that the church is being ushered into a realm that no longer will pay too much attention to man’s observational abilities and “wisdom” and more towards the heavens where God resides confounds the wise in their own eyes with His presence. Check this out: http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/in-creations-praise/

That’s ridiculous. Why do people use snorkels? Don’t whales depend on seeing what’s below them to eat? Don’t eyes that work in the air work less well in the water, and vice versa?

A whale that doesn’t have to stick his/her whole head out of the water is obviously going to do a lot better.

And why do you call the blowhole a wind tunnel instead of nostrils, which is what it is?

[quote=“grog, post:79, topic:35076”]
This would not be a problem for me because I am science agnostic but if is a problem for theistic evolutionists that admire science for its ability to determine truth. [/quote]
You’re clearly not agnostic when you deny science while falsely claiming to examine the evidence.

[quote]If there is so much evidence for evolution, then why in the world would Biologos choose this nat geo clip to supports its claims?
[/quote]If there is so little evidence for evolution, why haven’t you addressed the evidence that Chris presented?

And why did you make a false claim about the evidence, when you depend entirely on hearsay?

[quote] 2 The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him:
a spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
A spirit of counsel and of strength,
a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the Lord,
3and his delight shall be the fear of the Lord.
Not by appearance shall he judge,
nor by hearsay shall he decide,…[/quote]
That’s Isaiah 11. What does that reference to hearsay mean, Greg?

1 Like

I find it even more amazing that after the falsehood of your claim that your position is based on data has been exposed, you persist in pretending that it hasn’t.

2 Likes