All Comments for: Darwin Divides | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2009 |

Darwin Divides

Christian college professors split on Texas science standards.

Bobby Ross Jr. | posted 3/03/2009 09:52AM

A Texas-sized battle over scrapping a longtime requirement that Lone Star State students be taught weaknesses in the theory of evolution has split politicians, parents, and professors who teach biology ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

John Knapp II

Posted: March 10, 2009 5:52 PM

Once again, people are talking past each other. "Evolution" must be defined to have an intelligent discussion. If any would like a couple of "short working papers" on ID and Creation vs. Evolution, check RESOURCES on my website www.johnknapp2.com. [I have a PhD in sci. ed., am a Christian Old Earth Creationist, and am a former prof at SUNY-Oswego.] By the way, your format refused to let me type in more than 1 star.

James Reid Ross

Posted: March 06, 2009 11:42 PM

I think a lot of people believe in evolution simply because they don't want to believe in God. Darwin said of his own theory that it may be disproved if scientific evidence indicated something different. I think modern science is and will disprove the evolutionary theory. Let Truth reign, I put that in Capital for we know the source of Truth and that is the Holy Spirit who hovered over the formless mass and created the world as we know it today. By HIM and through HIM were all things created. This is my FATHERS world. love James Reid Ross

Gregory Peterson

Posted: March 05, 2009 2:58 PM

Creationist activists don't seem to understand and respect intellectual integrity and theory. Evolution is obviously extremely robust, just look at any science index. "Flaws and weaknesses" aren't the kind of flaws and weaknesses that negate evolution theory, but strengthen it, by pointing to new directions for research within the discipline. One can be confident that one will be fruitful in doing so. If one thought that the "flaws and weaknesses" that creationists think are flaws and weaknesses that negate the entire body of discipline theory, then one would research something likely to be more fruitful. Evolution is a very robust and fruitful discipline. One has only so many resources to invest in one's career and research, after all, so becoming an evolutionist is a near sure thing for a long. meaningful and fruitful science career.

James Saunders

Posted: March 05, 2009 5:01 AM

I hate to have to point this out to you guys but you should have been doing your own research anyway. The emergence of new species (macroevolution) has been directly observed in both the laboratory and in the wild. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talk origins.org/faqs/speciation.html The problem with these so-called 'weaknesses' of evolution is that scientists regard them as erroneous and based on misunderstandings and flawed interpretations. To present to the kids that the scientific community is somehow divided on this issue is plain disingenuous. http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolu tion%20statement.pdf http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve http: //nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

PW	Posted: March 05, 2009 1:21 AM

For a fantastic review of Old Earth views (ancient earth 4.56 billion years and universe (13.73 billion years), their Scriptural support and an overview of various Christian views and their credible scientific challenges to naturalism/evolution, go to: http://www.ankerberg.com/PDF-Articles/creation.pdf For a list of evangelical leaders open to an ancient earth and universe interpretation of the Bible, go to: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) has TONS of hard science and articles by astronomers, physicists, chemists, etc. who adhere to Old Earth views and much mainstream modern science, but that also argue AGAINST naturalism's various attempted arguments to explain our universe and the Big Bang without the role of a Creator or God. Reasons to Believe also strongly supports that the Bible is the Truth and that it points to Christ as Savior.

Philip

Posted: March 05, 2009 1:09 AM

Despite popular media's lumping of all creationists into one stereotypical category (those who believe that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago), it is important to note that many creationists are actually Old-Earth creationists - those who believe in an ancient earth (4.56 billion years old) and universe (about 13.73 billion years old). Old Earth creationists believe that the Big Bang was God's beginning Creation event (one reason Einstein and others struggled with its implications was that the Big Bang strongly suggests there must have been a Beginner/Creator). Old-Earthers, do not believe in the evolution of man - but that God created Adam and Eve miraculously per the Bible's description, and that the days of Creation in Genesis are actually describing extremely long periods of time and they also provide Scriptural support for those views. This is a very different from YOUNG Earth creationism!

Texan in China

Posted: March 04, 2009 7:25 PM

From a theological point of view, there are two big reasons why evolution is a problem: 1. The problem of original sin--if evolution exists, then how do we explain how the entire human race inherited sin, if Adam and Eve weren't the only people? 2. The Biblical teaching that we are created in God's image-- how can you say we're created in his image if everything's caused by blind, random chance? And what makes us different from other animals? I believe that eventually, science will move much closer to the Biblical account of creation--for example, scientists now say that it took Jupiter, Saturn, and other gas giants only a few thousand years to form, rather than millions upon millions of years. Furthermore, the universe (and our bodies) are far to complex to have evolved by blind, random chance over millions of years--everything would have to be created instantaneously in order to work properly (just like the Bible teaches).

Robert Flowers

Posted: March 04, 2009 2:10 PM

Christians (be they scientists or not) who attack evolution are simply not living in reality. We do not exist in a pre-scientific era when we did not even know the shape of the earth. What we know from science does not need to be vaildated by sacred texts because religion and science deal with different foundational questions. I am not saying "ne'er the twain shall meet," but it would be like asking a geneticist to be skilled in textual criticism of the NT. Many scientists--some who happen to also be Christian--see no conflict. The conflict comes when certain Christians attempt to force all to take on their short-sighted, misinformed views about science. When this happens (and it is already happening in the state of Texas, unless we wake up), it is not religion that is the impetus: It is hegemony guised in religious orthodoxy. If I read the Judeo-Christian texts rightly, this faith is of a different ilk altogether.

Brent Vermillion

Posted: March 04, 2009 11:29 AM

Obviously, micro-evolution, small changes within species, is a fully proven and observable fact. This is what Darwin actually observed in comparing different living species. Micro-evolution is a fact. The problem is the large leap of faith being taken by scientist who teach Macro-evolution as a fact. Macro-evolution is succinctly described as one species evolving into a new species. It has never been observed by anyone (not Darwin nor any scientist alive today). It is very improbable and certainly is not scientifically proven. It is theory at best. Many consider it a blind leap of faith that is based on the beliefs and prejudices of many scientists- much like Darwin. Most are not aware that Darwin considered the ministry, studied theology briefly and in many ways rejected God. Further, Darwin had tremendous psychological and physiological problems. Yet, we talk about Darwin as if his views were just scientific without considering his prejudices and how they affected his conclusions.

Anonymous

Posted: March 04, 2009 11:15 AM

Anyone who really understand evolutionary theory cannot help but be convinced it is the right way to think about creation. Moreover, to my mind evolution is completely compatible with the God of the Bible, much more so than ID or creationism ways of understanding. The Biblical God is a patient, freedom-giving God who is constantly working to bring forth (in us and in the world) "new creation." He does this through indirect persuasion (rather than brute force). Evolution reflects this creative, patient, persuasive character of God. Creationism does not and in fact contradicts it. And the debate does matter. Because failing to take evolution seriously means we miss out on a chance to reflect and ask ourselves how evolution reflects God's character. We miss out on a chance to connect with our creator.

http://ketch22.wordpress.com

Posted: March 04, 2009 7:30 AM

"I and many others live relatively comfortably in both camps and tire from attacks from both sides," he added. "With all the real problems in the world, this is a serious waste of energy to keep beating on this topic." I agree. Someday when we are standing before our Creator, and we find out we were wrong about the process of creation... Oh well. I will be focused on my Lord and it won't matter. There are so many more things that require our attention rather than evolution vs. creation or a combination of both. What we do know for fact is that we need to live our lives for others in servitude for God's glory... I am sure the homeless man on the street would rather have food in his belly than knowledge like this.

Dr. James Willingham

Posted: March 03, 2009 8:01 PM

The effort to keep evolution from having to share the stage with intelligent design reminds me of the poor doctor who introduced the washing of hands before examining patients. The locked him up in a mental institution. The creationists call attention to the glaring errors of evolutionists, and the intellectual gaffes in the latter camp are real howlers which even Ken Hovind can make obvious. What no one seems to notice is that there is a problem with the scientific method; it suffers from the paralysis of analysis along with a failure to take into account that a basic issue might be two sided and require a synthetical approach which seeks to address pradoxical reality.

Sharon G. Johnson

Posted: March 03, 2009 4:26 PM

Josh: It is not so much that "scientific evidence points towards evolutionary theory" as that evolutionary dogma has captured science, and pointed it toward a circular methodology of proof. ALL scientific evidence is viewed within some sort of supposed cause-and-effect relationship. Those of us who have studied "evolutionary theory" and found it wanting, have done so because (1) the theory has it own set of internal contradictions (like random mutations over long enough period = gradual improvement?!) and (2) evidence from fossil records to carbon dating are, when honestly examined, hardly uni-directional in the direction they point. I, for one, am only asking that evolutionary theory be taught for what is is: theory, not "fact'", and "perspective" not positively true. More simply, please let science be science and not held hostage to evolutionary theory.

Stephen Leonard

Posted: March 03, 2009 4:16 PM

It simply defies the bounds of integrity for the scientist who accepts the hypotheses of evolution to deny the objectivity of scientific research, even that which has discovered flaws and errors in the theory of evolution. Why hide it from the curious intellect of serious students? One can only surmise of those teachers and scientists who desire to hide such discoveries that they are not confident of genuine scientific research to consistently support their presuppositions; but are rather more defensive of their self-pride in seeking to buttress claims even when the foundations are on shaky ground. The attempt to deny or hide science which uncovers weaknesses gives the lie to the whole theory. This is not education. It is brainwashing; the very thing they accuse Intelligent Design or creation scholars of practicing. Any scholars who claim to be Christian and support the whitewashing of evolutionary theory to the detriment of genuine science needs to re-examine their profession of faith

Philip Williams

Posted: March 03, 2009 3:36 PM


The mark of a scientist is a skeptical mind. Darwinism, by contrast, is today taught as dogma. Little minds love dogma because they do not like to think. They do not want to be confused. The less one knows about evolution, the more likely it seems. Truth, however, can withstand any challenge, and is proven to be truth by the fact that it welcomes questioning.

Josh	Posted: March 03, 2009 3:35 PM

The vast majority of scientific evidence points towards evolutionary theory, not against it. I understand why many people personally disagree with the theory on theological grounds, but I can't just dismiss the weight of the evidence. As a Christian, I accept the main tenets of Darwinian evolution and try to understand how the interplay of my faith and reason occurs. One thing, though, Tom W.- Is it fair to require "proof" of evolution from scientists when you yourself hold a conception of creation that is far from proven? It's an unfair double-standard. Neither side can "prove" once and for all that Darwinian evolution or Creationism was the means by which our world was formed, but I am convinced thus far that the onus of scholarly evidence rests within evolutionary theory. So few things in this world are black-and-white, while much tends to be contentious and ambiguous. This is one of those areas. And no, Scripture does not provide a clear answer for this either.

Tom Whiteman

Posted: March 03, 2009 1:42 PM


This article really exemplifies the attitude of Darwinians. It's as if they say "hey Creationists, just give up, we've got this one locked down." even though they have produuced no actual observable evidence for Macro Evolution and never will. I for one am not pleased to hear that so many so called "evangelicals" side with the darwinians. It's really appalling

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment