Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

1) The clear logical apprehension that evolution and the Bible cannot both be true. The illogical thing is trying to hold onto both.2) The illusion of scientific rationality behind the ToE. It is only an illusion but it is very compelling. My last post -- Message 135 -- says more about this.3) Science has glamor, respect, authority.4) People don't like being ridiculed so they try to align with what seems most defensible.5) The science involved is very complex. Most of us aren't equal to it. Most people are persuaded to evolution on the basis of the flimsiest grasp of the facts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think many people would agree with you that the idea of evolution is making a more fundamental claim than the idea of heliocentrism, and as such poses more of a threat to the beliefs of a theist.I, however, am suggesting that neither the claims of heliocentrism nor the claims of evolution are necessarily problematic for a theist. If a theist believes that a god is capable of installing processes that will appear to unfold naturally and logically over time, such as the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry and biological laws, then I see no problem.Neither should such a deity be considered deistic and remote: an omnipotent and therefore omniscient deity is aware of his unfolding creation in the most intimate and profound of ways.Edited by Tusko, : such as the laws of physicals, apparently!Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

Interesting. Three of your five points correlate with what I observe as well.Let me take the two that I have reservations on. I agree with your first sentence, with one caveat: only those who attempt to treat the Bible as a history or science text find themselves in the position of choosing one over the other. IMO, rejecting either - for what they are - is a mistake. Galileo put it succinctly: the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. If you are put in a position where your faith rests in an over-literal reading of the Bible, I would agree that you are at extreme risk of either rejecting science and its findings, or your faith. I have a lot of respect for those who can do both. Unfortunately, this claim would require someone to demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. I agree that it's compelling, however. More than that, it actually works in those instances where it can be applied. Which would be odd if it were in fact mere smoke and mirrors.The only other comment I would make is on #5: I agree with you - any science is complex. I am in awe of those here on this board who can discuss things like cosmology, physics, or even the nitty-gritty details of geology. It takes a lot of time and effort to get to the point where you can understand the intricate details. I wouldn't, however, say that people "aren't equal to it". The data is there. The observations are there. And the literature, books, and even courses are there to tie them together. There is no intrinsic reason for anyone with a modicum of intelligence and sufficient time and interest to dig into it NOT to be able to understand it. But you are correct - a lot of people seem to accept things, including the ToE, without knowing much about them. This is sad. However, having said that, there are a lot of things in this world that I more or less accept without any real understanding of them. I recognize the danger, but there are simply too many things to learn them all.

I do not treat it as a science text, because it does not present itself as a science text, but I treat it as the truth and it does say things that are not compatible with the ToE. And I treat it as history where it presents itself as history (no, not the way fiction "presents itself as history") which includes Genesis. All other ways of reading it require mental gymnastics that distort the text.

Well I believe much has been said by many creationists that does in fact demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. But I've been astonished to see how people have trouble following the arguments.It only "works" because of the hold on certain unsupported assumptions (the catchall explanation that mutation accounts for all the variation we see in life for instance) that are hard to relinquish even for the purpose of thinking through something.

Yes, this is natural and understandable. The problem is that the ToE outright contradicts essential parts of God's revelation, and to simply accept it in this way creates an internal state of contradiction in a believer, which has to give one way or the other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith -I agree with you when you say (or I think you say) mental gymnastics are required if you are to judge for yourself which parts of a holy text are literally true and which are figurative.However, I also believe that mental gymnastics of a particularly noteworthy suppleness are required if one believes a holy text to be unquestionably true. One is then forced to attempt to reconsile apparent contradictions - within the text and with modern scientific enquiry. I suspect it presents no difficulty at all to a mind adept at cerebral exercise however.I also don't have the necessary mental stamina to find one holy text among the many and then believe that one at the expense of all others.(By the way I don't mean to sound snide if I sound snide - its just how it comes out!)

I disagree with that.It is very clear that the Adam and Eve story is a fable, not history. However, that is perfectly clear without evolution. It is already wrong on the physics.It is likewise clear that the Noah story is a fable, not history. That, too, does not require evolution. It is quite clear that the flood story is inconsistent with the observed distribution of species. It was certainly clear to this Australian born person, long before I had heard of evolution.If you cannot deal with parts of the Bible being fables, then you should junk Christianity right now. And evolution has nothing to do with it. But if you look to the Bible for spiritual messages, and don't expect it to be literal history, then evolution has nothing to say that contradicts Christianity.I'll agree that biologists are more likely to be atheists than are scientists in other areas. In my opinion, that has more to do with the pain and suffering that the see as part of the natural world, than it has to do with evolution.The bigger threat to Christianity is from 20th century creationism. It demonstrates that Christianity is a breeding ground for charlatans and con men.

But the Bible does not contradict Galileo's discoveries about the heavens. As I understand it, the Roman church was infatuated with Aristotle through Aquinas in those days, and had read Aristotle's pagan cosmology into the Bible, where it does not fit. But whatever the reason for the flap with Galileo, his science never did contradict the Bible. This is not true of the ToE. On what ground do you determine that a reading is "over-literal?" Many unfortunately determine it on the psychological nonrational ground that they are persuaded to the ToE, not on any ground having to do with an intelligent reading of the text itself. I have little respect for "those who can do both," perhaps pity but not respect, because to do both means you don't clearly grasp one or the other. The contradiction is patent to anyone who has a minimal grasp of both and doesn't compromise or distort known facts.

What you will never understand, or accept, is that evolution has assumed the dominant position that it has because of the over 100 years that it has successfully served as the single unifying theory of biology. You, and others of your ilk, repeatedly assert that evolution is simply assumed, and that all the science that builds on it is based on that assumption. Since you refuse to fully examine the history of how evolution came to its dominance, it's fairly easy and comforting for you to repeat the mantra, "It's all an assumption." It would be amusing to hear you try to explain how "Real science" can be done based on "assumptions" that are as "faulty" as you think evolution is. I mean, you've written tens of thousands of words explaining why you think it has no basis in fact and no evidence to support it. You also seem to understand that evolution is the basis for most everything that is done in biology, and countless other fields, even though you dispute that evolution is true. Given these things, how would it be remotely possible for "Real science" to be done based on such a completely baseless "assumption?"

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It doesn't take any cerebral exercise at all to recognize the Bible is God's own revelation -- it takes only a flash of understanding that it is so based on a recognition of the power of God.

The natural world is itself part of God's revelation. If what is in the Bible contradicts what can be observed in the natural world, then it is those parts of the Bible that contradict essential parts of God's revelation.

I don't see how anything I've said contradicts this. It is compelling, it has authority, it appears to deal with the data. Well, I have read a lot of the history of evolution. It's quite possible for people to be honestly persuaded to a plausible but irrational theory by many means. One I suggested above is that the alternative theories in the beginning left a lot to be desired, making the ToE attractive. And people who are not committed to the Biblical revelation have no motivation to further investigate some areas of cognitive dissonance if their interests don't lie in that particular direction.

Nothing in the natural world contradicts the written revelation. Only the man-made ToE contradicts it.

Curious that you skipped this part. But you never have spent much time truly analysing hard questions.Oh, and a scientific theory doesn't gain universal and rapid acceptance as evolution did just because there's nothing better. It does so because it explains so much.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin