Funny.

Devolution is all we see in the scientific evidence. There is always a LOSS of information. There is never a GAIN of information. Sometimes this LOSS of information causes beneficial results, but NEVER upward evolution.

All of the racial characteristics are merely differences. They do not make any race any more or less human or any more or less intelligent. As a matter of fact, the genetic basis of all of these differences was created by God and present in the first perfect pair of human beings. They are evidence of the range of God's creativity, and some of these differences, such as skin pigmentation, have their source in God's wisdom, as we have seen. About 1400 years after the creation of the first human beings, we see the human race preserved through the three sons of Noah. This bases the current world's population on the descendants of three families. But the matter is further complicated by the additional division of the world's population several hundred years later through the confusion of tongues at Babel. This division ultimately provided the basis for the current world's nations and races.

Closer to the equator, we typically find that people have more melanin in their skin. This additional skin pigmentation provides added protection against skin cancer, which is more likely as one moves toward the equator where the sun's intensity is strongest. It has been suggested that here we have a true example of "natural selection" (but careful now, this only means that certain traits are removed from the population, there is no new genetic information added.) It has been suggested that individuals who had very little protection of skin pigmentation and who moved closer to the equator were gradually wiped out of the population by skin cancer, which would not produce more offspring with light pigmentation. After many generations there would be few people left with light pigmentation near the equator. It is also possible that God moved those with more pigmentation to settle in the sunnier reaches of the earth, thus providing for their needs in this way. At the same time, since little pigmentation is needed in the colder climates, it appears that God led people who had little pigmentation to settle in these climates. Consequently, we see a gradual increase in skin pigmentation as we move closer to the equator, no matter which race we are looking at.

With the division of the peoples of the earth at Babel, we have a limiting of the gene pool. Evidently God divided the world's population into quite a number of languages, effectively cutting off certain genetic possibilities for each group, and through the generations, purifying certain traits through marriage of second and third cousins or more distantly-related, but related, individuals. This would have the same effect as modern dog or horse breeding where selection of mates removes certain traits from the available gene pool while highlighting other traits. Through the years, as certain traits such as skin pigmentation, hair type and soft tissue characteristics became rather unique to various basic groups of peoples, these peoples settled into their respective areas of the earth and fathered more tribes and nations, so that today many nations are found with similar racial characteristics.

Originally, all of the racial characteristics were found in both Adam and Eve, as well as Noah. Each race today represents only a small amount of the genetic possibilities which were originally found in these individuals. Therefore, interracial marriages represent a recombining of some of the racial characteristics found in our first parents and an increase in the possible features which may be evident in children produced by such marriages. With our modern knowledge of genetics, the modern races certainly make sense in light of the Scriptural history of man.

We are all ONE BLOOD. Your racist slant on things is offensive. I can tell why you won't post your name.

Deleted

Man. I can tell you are still an undergraduate student. First of all, started your mantra by quoting from a known racist web site. That is why I believe you are racist. Second, your last paragraph shows that you are not thinking this through. Think of all the different breeds of dogs. A Doberman does not give birth to a poodle, yet they are both dogs. They originally came from a type of wolf. Doctorate level scientists believe that all the races came from one blood. One original pair of humans.

What you are stating is anti-science.

Don't be so afraid to use your real name. Why the fear?

Deleted

Man am I going to regret getting in to this, but I have got to agree with Andy here.



I am a Biology/Chemistry teacher and also a Christian. There is absolutely no conflict with the Theory of Evolution and a strong belief in religion and a God. I have worked for PHD. Biologists while in college who were fundamentalist Christians but also believed in the Theory of Evolution because it explained what they saw on a daily basis.

I Initially typed a very long response, but on 2nd thought didn’t think anyone would read it entirely so I am going to break it down into smaller bite size posts.

The "Controversy" we currently have is a contrived controversy. It is manufactured and perpetuated by those on both sides of the argument for one reason- financial gain. They sell a lot of books and get big money for speaking engagements to perpetuate this controversy. Those who use science as an argument FOR OR AGAINST religion are misapplying science. Science studies the Natural World. Religion is a study of the SUPERNatural world (meaning beyond or separate from nature). Both areas of study are valid, which one you feel is MOST VALUABLE is purely a personal decision.

Evolution is in no way a threat to any religious belief, it is simply a tool (and the best one we currently have) to explain what we see in our natural Biotic (living) world and make predictions about what we could/will see. That is what theories are, explanations that offer predictive abilities. I will be the 1st to admit that there are weaknesses with our current understanding of Evolution, but Darwinian evolution is no longer what "Evolution" is. Darwin was the 1st scientist (or at least the 1st with significant amounts of supporting evidence) to propose Evolution via Natural Selection, but his explanation was limited because there was no understanding of the genetics, mutations, symbiotic relationships, viral activity which can change organisms genome, and Epigenetics. Many of these areas of study are in their infancy, and we continue to learn more about them daily.

It is irrational to expect science to have a complete answer, there will never be a complete answer to such a complex problem, but overall our CURRENT understanding of Evolution provides a very good working model that has powerful predictive ability, which again is all a theory is. The Theory of Gravity is not even a complete/finished theory. There are problems with it. It works fine here on earth (meaning has a strong predictive ability) and near large mass items, but the acceleration due to gravity starts to change inexplicably as objects move very great distances from known objects with mass.

In my Science classes (actually did this today) we start our unit on Evolution by 1st discussing what Science is, because there are many misconception.

Below is a summary:
* Science is 1 way of experiencing and understanding the world. There are others.
* All areas of study exist on a continuum from Less Scientific to More Scientific.
* There are other continuums as well (Art, History, Religion, etc).

Characteristics that make an area of Study MORE SCIENTIFIC
* Based on observations of the natural world (can be measured with the 5 senses in some way)
* Claims are testable and FALSIFIABLE.
* Evidence can support or refute a position but NEVER PROVE IT. Very common misconception science never PROVES. The best science can do is to support very strongly. Anyone who says science proves this or that is either misspeaking or does not understand what science does.
* Science is in a constant state of Change.
* If enough evidence contradicts a theory, the theory must be changed or replaced.

Characteristics that make an area of Study LESS SCIENTIFIC
* Supporting a theological position.
* Science is neutral in regards to religion. Some may use to science to support their particular view- which is a personal choice but the science itself is neutral. It studies the natural world, not the supernatural.
* Valuing Authority over Evidence.
* In science you should go where most of, and the best evidence leads you. Too often, people- including scientists- get attached to a particular ideology and hold on to it long after the evidence points in a different direction.
* Valuing Faith over Reason
* Faith is an extremely important aspect of humanity, but science should be a pursuit based on rationale thought processes. The conflict is humans are the ones conducting science and we don't always (or often depending on the amount of sleep we have) behave rationally.

Characteristics the makes an area of study SCIENTIFICALLY VALUABLE
* Science Values theories that answer initial questions but then causes us to ask new questions.
* Science values theories that explain BROAD topics. The Germ Theory is valuable, Genetic Theory is valuable, Cell Theory is Valuable, but they are all limited in scope. The Theory of Evolution is the one Theory that ties all the other theories in biology together. This makes it very scientifically valuable.
* Science Values Theories that have good explanative power, but more importantly that have good PREDICTIVE power. Scientists want to expand knowledge, the only way to do that is to make and test predictions.
* Science values explanations that are AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. This does not mean simple, just as simple as possible to still explain the evidence.
* Science values logic.
* Science values skepticism. Nothing should be accepted on face value, and everything should be independently tested to confirm or refute others findings.

Now this is getting good...

The naturalistic view is that the universe we observe came into existence and has operated through all time and in all its parts without the impetus or guidance of any supernatural agency (No God). This is a fundamental assumption of this view.

Kale, The issue is ORIGINS science. Each side is equally philisophical.

You obviously are using the term "fundamentalist Christian" very loosely! To say that you believe in methodological naturalism and also believe in supernaturalism? Which is it when it comes to origins science, Kale?

Genesis 3:20 says “And Adam called his wife Eve; because she was mother of all the living.”

Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"

Romans 5:12 tells us that death entered the world as a result of Adam’s sin. For the Christian who believes the Bible, this one verse rules out theistic or any other evolution, or a ‘gap’ theory.


A literal reading of Genesis clearly says that Adam was created on the sixth day. The Hebrew word "yom" preceded by a number ALWAYS means one 24 hour day. You are using tired old arguments used by anti-Christian web sites. The Bible is the only truth written to man. It is without error from Genesis to Revelation.

Chief,
Thanks for taking the time to actually read my posts

I want to start by adding this disclaimer- in no way is anything I will write a personal attack on yourself personally or your belief system. I have the utmost respect for everyone's right to believe what he/she wants. My discussion before and now is more dealing with what science IS and what science IS NOT, and how it has been misapplied by both sides in this particular debate.



I have to disagree with you a little, but not necessarily what you say, but what I think you mean- which is a difficult thing to do via the written word.

By definition the "naturalistic view" you refer to is the "scientific view" since science seeks to explain the natural world in testable, repeatable manners. To do so requires an ABSENCE of a supernatural component. Science is not seeking to explain away the possible role of a "supernatural agency" but to explain the natural world in terms of the natural world. One problem (among many) for science in allowing a supernatural explanation is that it limits/prevents new discoveries. They way science works to answer seemingly unanswerable questions in absence of a supernatural explanation is to formulate hypothesis, test those hypothesis given our current models (theories) and interpret the data to see if our theory matches the outcome. Often this is done in very small incremental steps before large breakthroughs are made. If science allowed the supernatural explanation, when we arrive at the difficult- seemingly unanswerable questions (such as where did life come from) the explanation would be that the supernatural (i.e. God) was responsible. That would be the end of the search for answers. This line of reasoning severely limits the scope and depth science can explore. It also limits science to a particular group of people- those who happen to share the same belief in the supernatural.




As I stated earlier- science and religion occupy 2 different spheres, the natural and supernatural respectively. While some questions that we have remain very murky (i.e. the origins of life) and both views could propose equally valid answers (valid on a personal level), an answer that relies on the supernatural is a much less scientific answer than an answer that relies on the natural world. Each side is not equally philosophical, because one side IS philosophical. Religion requires faith and conviction because the personal experience with god can not be measured or quantified. That same willingness to take something on faith, which is a definite strength in the religious realm, is actually a detriment in the scientific realm because science requires skepticism- the need to seek evidence for oneself, or at the very least to objectively evaluate the evidence for ones self to determine if it indeed fits the accepted explanation or theory. Science is not some much the answers to questions (because there will always be more questions to ask) but the pursuit for those answers that uses only what is allowable in the natural world.

To summarize- Science is a focus on natural processes devoid of supernatural explanations. If one felt compelled to balance an understanding and acceptance of science and a deep seated religious world view (and many do) it can be framed in this way:

Science studies HOW God operates through the natural world.

This thought process requires no changing of the science to meet religious views. Many Christian scientists that I know feel that the more they know about science (Evolution included) the more their faith in God is reinforced. They feel that by studying how science works (in naturalistic terms) it allows them to see how God himself worked.

That being said, it would be very difficult to completely reconcile a belief in MANY currently accepted scientific theories and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Those who do live in both realms probably live a more segmented life applying different world views when they are in different roles.

If God did create everything by His spoken word as the Bible says He did, would science be able to find evidence of it? If you say no, then what good is science if it can't find the truth? I have had conversations with Ph.D. level Scientists, some that teach at Division I prestigious universities that have told me they NEVER use the evolutionary model when conducting their scientific work. Throughout their education process, they were taught that it actually got in the way of their research. So what does that say about highly educated scientists that disagree with you about the evidence of evolution? What do you say about the fraud in science textbooks and the false statements claiming fact only to find out that they are based on assumptions? Haeckel's embryo drawings were fake. His theory was invalid and yet textbook authors perpetuate the fraud without commenting on the inaccuracy.

Your last point is very telling and led me to question your definition of a fundamental Christian. You also use the label "currently accepted scientific theories" loosely. Have you come to a point that you cannot have a literal interpretation of scripture? Do you view the bible as unreliable? I have talked to several biblical literalists that take Genesis 1-12 at face value along with it's description that the earth is very young and that Adam was a real man. If you believe in millions of years, you cannot believe that Adam was a real man. They have high level science degrees and have debated many college professors in public with great success.

Have you seen the movie, Expelled? Your thoughts?

I do really appreciate your demeanor and tone of your response. It's refreshing and does help the dialogue.

Deleted

Afraid,

You are weak on your consistancy. The plain reading of scripture says that the earth is young, that Adam was a real man and that we all came from Adam and Eve. I have already read those anti-god web sites that you quote. They belong with those white power racist sites that you also like. Your last quote made me spit my Dr. Pepper out of my nose. The bible states that God created Adam on the sixth day. He lived the whole sixth day, the seventh day and then much longer. He wasn't millions of years old. If you believe those days were millions of years, you CANNOT believe Adam was a real man. Correct?

I find it curious that you have stated you don't believe the bible is true. Why do you quote it then?

Hint: The Adamic race is every single Human being ever born.

Deleted

You claim to know genetics and don't know that today's incest is entirely different than Cain marrying his sister? When the first two people were created, they were perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). That means their genes were perfect, no mistakes.

Scripture makes the fact very clear and it is stated in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Genesis is the book of beginnings. It is the place where we find the truth of the beginning of man and that man is Adam. The word "Adam" comes from a Hebrew word that means red or ruddy. It does NOT mean that he was white! The word “Adam” is translated as; first man, mankind, man or human. God made Adam from the "dust of the ground", which is the Hebrew word "adamah" and therefore Adam's name comes from the ground from which God created him.

Chief,

I appreciate being able to have a calm discussion with someone about this for a change. I am deliberately not responding to the troll on here in hopes that he will go away.

I do however need to clarify a few points.



I think you are missing the point here. IF God created the universe with a spoken word, science would not be able to find evidence, because science would not be looking for that answer. Science could look to see how that happened- meaning what physical laws were followed for the universe to come to exist in its present form, which is exactly what the field of physics studies. Again, science studies the natural world, God and His spoken word would be a supernatural explanation. Not a bad explanation, just not a scientific one.

The reason it is not a scientific answer would be that it would end the area of study. What would have happened if John Snow and simply said “God is making people sick and die” instead of tracing the source of the cholera outbreak in London to a water pump handle? We would not have deveolped the modern Germ Theory or medicine as we know it. The “God did it answer” is a dead end (I do not mean that in a negative context) for science because it ends the area of inquiry. Science is interested in the HOW, not the WHO.

To answer your last question regarding truth, that is a tricky thing to define. Different people have different truths. Again, I do not feel qualified to judge who's truth is better, I am just trying to discuss what science is- or should strive to be.



I would say that I would be extremely surprised if these scientists were conducting research in the biological fields, especially as related to genetics, cellular function, medicine, or phylogenetic relationships between organisms. There are many areas of science that an individual could conduct research and earn a PhD without using the Evolutionary theory such as Chemistry, Physics and Geology, etc. Still there are others who have PhD’s in the social sciences, who claim to be scientists.



A major criticism I have of the Anti-Evolution camp is their cherry picking of a few controversial (and widely discredited people even by scientists who helped develop evolution) and showing their flaws and then expanding them to the entire scientific body of research. Haeckel was a racist who did not even believe in Darwinian evolution at the time. He misapplied evolutionary theory and used it as a justification for the genocide committed by the Nazi's. This is not an accurate representation of those who support evolutionary theory. It would be akin to using our troll friend who has been posting on this forum as evidence against evolution. I do not know exactly what "fraud" you are referring to, but I have personally seen actual prepared slides of embryos from various diverse organisms, and seen similarities in their development. Mammalian embryos have structures that greatly resemble gill slits in fish, which eventually develop into the bones of the inner ear. I am not aware of any valid argument discrediting this evidence.



A clarification- I never presented my self as a fundamentalist Christian, only as a Christian (one who believes in God and His only Son Jesus Christ). I referred to a PhD Biologist I worked for who was a self described fundamentalist Christian who had no conflicts with evolutionary theory. I did not discuss his level of fundamentalism with him, but I do know he was a deeply devout individual- and a very good scientist. Regarding my own personal beliefs, I feel that they are and should remain personal. My intent for joining this discussion was not to change anyone beliefs, but to hopefully shed some light on this "controversy" and show how both sides are misapplying science for their own personal gains, and to show that there does not have to be a personal conflict between science and religion. In an answer to your last question above, I personally do find the Bible to be reliable, I just don't know that I am relying on it the same way you are.



Again, I would question several things. 1st- what are their areas in which they received PhD’s. I don't know which people you are referring to, but I have read of several people portraying themselves as "Anti-Evolution" Scientists with impressive credentials, but on closer inspection their PhD’s and other accolades are generally in fields that are not related to Evolution- such as theology, philosophy, Chemistry, etc. If they are new earth creationists, I seriously doubt their PhD’s were awarded in Biology, Geology, or Physics as those are all areas of study that generally involve vast amounts of time for their primary theories play out. Furthermore, being a good debater is not necessarily related to being a good scientist. Again, it seems as if the anti-evolution camp likes to throw around people like Haeckel to discredit evolution. The problem in a debate is the pro-evolution debater must agree, because Haeckel has been discredited by those who support evolution. To the lay person in attendance this looks like an admittance of a weakness of evolution, when in fact it is a misrepresentation of who Haeckel was and what his thoughts were. Fortunately for us, science is not a debate nor a political process (at least it should not be). This allows people of all faiths to be participants.



I have not, nor have I heard of it. Unfortunately with my job and young family there is precious little time for any other activities.



Ditto.

Good point. I will do the same.




You can readily see evidence of design. Homology is a problem for evolution, not a help. Also the study of radiometric halos point to a young earth.



The how shows evidence of design. Like you would look at a murder scene and know there is a murderer. It doesn't have to define who, just that it wasn't random chance. In my opinion time and chance requires a great amount of faith without evidence.




I have talked at length with these two among others...

Scott Minnich - a professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho.
Stephen Meyer - Cambridge University graduate and one of the smartest guys I know.




There are many other examples. I talked with Professors at KU that agreed with me that the textbooks are very slow to change and much is still being taught that should not be.




Kale, Two points that come to mind and I mean no harm in addressing them. Even the demons believed in God and His Son Jesus Christ. It is through true repentance and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ that we are saved. I am not saying that you haven't, I'm just stating what the bible tells us. The bible also says that every man is a liar and that the only truth is God's word. That word will set you free. Every single example of a regenerated believer in the bible reveals that believer as excited and unashamed of the Gospel. We are commanded to go tell others to the end of the earth. It is certainly not to be kept to ourselves.



PM me your address and I will mail you a copy of the documentary. It is really well done and I know you would at least find it interesting.