Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

I would hope Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is taught as truth. Parts of it may be shown to be false later, like Newton's laws of gravity in relativistic scales, but that is no reason not to teach it.

I would hope the Theory of Quantum Mechanics is taught as truth. Again parts of it may be shown to be false in the future, but that is no reason not to teach it.

The same with the theory of evolution.

All of science is based on theories that "could" be shown to be false in the future. That doesn't mean they are not truth and shouldn't be taught. For those who thing that "scientific laws" are immune to this, here are some scientific laws that scientists no longer consider valid, all-encompassing or accurate.

Dalton's Law of the Atom
Newton's Laws of Gravity
Newton's sin-squared law for the force of a fluid on a body

 

Yes,

It does hurt.

Evolution is being talk as proven fact, not as theory. It is also being taught as "contradictive" to Creation and to Intelligent Design.

Young people are made to feel ignorant, superstitous and stupid if they object.

Since many do have a strong background in science or in theology - it can do serious damage to their walks with God in that they end up thinking the bible is wrong, but not understanding how it can be wrong on one issue and right on anything else.

I work at a University. I recently heard a professor lecturing a student and saying, "I don't think this has anything to do with your faith. Fact is fact. Evolution is fact."

I stopped the student as they were leaving and saw they were crying. I hugged them and said, "I heard you stand up for your faith. I'm proud of you." She started sobbing.

I went to my boss about this, the supervisor of the faculty member. He is a scientist, and he told me that he tries to stress that faculty who teach evolution need to do so in a way that does not insult or criticize someone's faith.

Obviously people are not listening.

 

Agreed. Theories are truth. That is what the body of scientific evidence and criticism of that evidence currently points to. That may change in the future, but that doesn't make it not the truth now.

 

First of all I do agree that evolution should be taught -- completely. Right now it is taught as fact in secular schools and a total lie in Christian schools and, given the various definitions of 'evolution', neither is true! Evolutionists generally point to speciation as proof of evolution, but that is false. A species is generally defined as a population with interbreeds and refuses to interbreed with other, similar, populations and/or is separated geographically so as to appear to be a different population. First of all, speciation depends on the mating cues of animals! If the mating cues are olfactory, such as with dogs and horses, they don't care what the potential mate looks like -- it just has to smell right! But if the mating cues are visual, such as with hummingbirds, the slightest difference in appearance can make all the difference in mating choice. Thus we have ONE species of domestic dog that ranges from chihuahua to St. Bernard and zillions of species of hummingbirds, some so close in appearance that it takes an expert to tell the difference!

Second, species is often confused with the biblical 'kind'. Wrong. The biblical 'kind' or 'baramin' is a much broader group, often more closely associated with the family or sub-family taxonomic group -- such as canine, feline, bovine, equine, etc.

Evolutionists challenge us to define 'kind' and give it some kind of test. This when they cannot define ANY of their taxonomic classifications, such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or, often, species. However one useful test for kind is whether or not the animals can hybridize, such as the horse and zebra can (thus showing they were originally from one kind).

THAT needs to be taught truthfully by evolutionists, and it is not. It also needs to be taught truthfully by creationists, and it often is not.

Speciation exists, but it is NOT the same as changing from one kind of organism to another and it is NOT a precursor to that sort of change. Variation exists naturally, as you can see looking at anyone's family. The fact that some groups of animals get separated geographically has nothing to do with genetics. The fact that some animals prefer olfactory cues and some auditory or visual (or both) cues only says that animals are different. It would be interesting to hear some kind of fact-based evolutionary explanation about how the visual cues of the fish, for example, changed to the olfactory cues of the horse!

To get back more closely to the subject of the thread (with apologies to Phillip), the teaching of evolution is violently disruptive to the Christian faith, for it teaches that Genesis cannot be taken at face value. If Genesis, which is the foundation of the entire Bible, cannot be taken at face value, which part of the Bible can, and where does this change start?

All of which ends up depending on man's brains instead of God's Word in the long run -- and THAT is what is so entirely dangerous to any Christian, young or old. Using our brains is NOT a bad thing and is to be commended. However when we are encouraged, as Satan encouraged Eve, to 'think for yourself' when God's Word CLEARLY states the truth about something, then we are being invited to doubt and to sin against God.

Actual scientific data is showing that the Bible knows what it is talking about regarding creation not long ago in six literal, 24 hour days. It is not a matter of faith, although it probably should be for most of us (and I have apologized to God and to people many times for NOT believing Him for so long). But there is a tremendous amount of evidence regarding the truth of the Bible in creation itself.

Finally, in regard to TalkOrigin's quote from Gold Dragon, it is fallacious from the start. Genesis does NOT have a 'general theme'. It is a series of eyewitness reports of historical events. There is a vast difference between the two things. Then TO goes on to compare the creation account in Genesis with the story of the Prodigal Son. That is also fallacious, for the parable Jesus told was clearly a parable and treated in that way. Genesis presents itself as an historical narrative and should be accepted or rejected on its own account, and not on the premises thrust upon it by those who start out by disagreeing with it!

Treating Genesis as allegory, or myth, is necessary when presenting evolution as true. THAT is damaging to the faith of any Christian. Any time we have to depend on a man's brains when the man disagrees with God, we are in trouble.

 

Evolutionary theory has stood through much more rigorous criticism than either general relativity or quantum mechanics, being around for much longer and having more data to analyze.

Oops, correction about a post of mine a few posts back. I meant General Relativity but said Special Relativity.

 

Gold Dragon, evolution as in changes from bacteria to bear has NO empirical evidence and depends entirely up on faith and interpretation of data and ignoring a lot of other data. THAT is the fact of the matter.

As far as relativity of any sort is concerned, it is constantly being challenged by physicists, with some very interesting results. (No, Barry is not one of them -- at least at this time!)

 

Data is that emperical evidence. The interpretation of that data is part of all scientific theory.

That is how science works. Those theories, laws, etc that withstand the brunt of those challenges stick around. Evolution being one that has stuck.

 

DHK,

I'm sorry, but evolutionary theory changes all the time. I'm 48 years old and what they teach today is not at all what they taught when I was in school.

Even evolutionists say that Darwinism is wrong. Well, Darwinism used to be the theory of evolution.

So to say that it has stood the test of time is just inaccurate.

 

No.

 

Definitely, theories change as new evidence comes to light. That is science at work as well. While many aspects of Darwin's original ideas are no longer true in light of new evidence, the core principles of common ancestry and natural selection have withstood the test of time.

PS. You gotta stop confusing me with DHK. He is nothing like me.

 

My apologies to Golden Dragon and to DHK.

Yes, theory changes.
So - when the theory changes frequently - why are students who refuse to accept the theory treated like idiots and made to feel ashamed for not accepting a theory that changes frequently as if it were fact?

 

I think it is fine to refuse to accept a theory based on faith. Almost all of what we believe is faith-based and not scientific theory based.

I believe that some folks do appear idiotic when they try to exegetically read Genesis like a science textbook and have little to no understanding of the evolutionary theory they are criticising.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection and common ancestry of species are observed facts. The historical extent of those two concepts to explain the diversity of all current life on earth is a well supported theory that could be shown as incorrect in light of future evidence that we currently do not have.

Neither of those facts should lead one to believe that God was not the creator of all things or that the bible should not be trusted. That would be some very poor logic.

 

OK, Gold Dragon, please show me the empirical evidence which does NOT depend on interpretation which makes descent from a common ancestor (for all life) a fact. Thank you.

 

It is impossible to look at empirical evidence and not interpret it. It is impossible to read a word of my post and not interpret it.

Your separation of evidence and interpretation is a logical impossibility.

 

If you are looking for evidence of speciation, the usual source is :

Talk Origins : Observed Instances of Speciation

 

Is the teaching of evolution harmful to Christianity?

Yes.

a) If you think original sin is important to sotierology.

b) If you think that faith to the point of subjecting every human opinion and belief to the authority of scripture is important.

I'm sorry if this sounds offensive but we've had the case made here that certain educated people will not accept the gospel if biblical creation is part of the package. Saving faith includes the willingness to repent of any and everything... even strongly held beliefs on origins. At the very minimum, someone who comes to Christ should be willing to accept that the God of the Bible could have created everything by a word.

If someone wants to prove me wrong then please cite the scripture that says God allows people to negotiate the conditions under which they will accept the gospel.

 

Read my posts again. Common ancestry is a fact. A single common ancestor for all life is theory.

 

"I would hope Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is taught as truth. Parts of it may be shown to be false later, like Newton's laws of gravity in relativistic scales, but that is no reason not to teach it."-----------------------------------------------------------------------

All theories have fact in them that are ture, that is a prerequisite for a theory, or it would just be conjecture. But the simple fact that a theory contains facts does not make the theory ture, only possible ture, therefore it should not be tought as fact or truth, but only as a somewhat credible theory.