Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

In the churches that I taught Sunday school in they had a teachers meeting during the week to help us prepare the class.My answer would be that the Biblical model must be taught.I would also recommend a few good books and internet sites on creation science to any of the teachers could teach sensibly.

 

Since God created life by using evolution to derive the species, and since He made the universe 13+ billion years ago, it is no dishoner to Him to mention those facts; it would be a dishoner to Him to deny those facts.

It is perfectly plausible to interpret Genesis to be consistent with the scientific truth, it would not be, however, a strictly literal interpretation. But God would not have us to interpret the Bible to be inconsistent with His creation; therefore the strictly literal interpretation is not required.

 

Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

I taught Sunday School (3rd grade) for about 5 years. When the topic was Genesis 1-2, I taught on Genesis 1-2. I wasn't there to teach science, I was there to teach Bible.

I'd be much more concerned with whether a Sunday School teacher is a KJVOist. But I don't think a KJVOists should be banned from teaching Sunday School.

 

What we have here is BobRyan's assertion that evidence does not matter, that all we have to do is accept our scripture on faith.

But the idea that we can accept our scripture on faith regardless of any and all evidence fails a few fundamental tests.

It fails the test of reciprocity. Because a Muslim or a Hindu can accept their scripture by faith and we can only hope to convert them by means of citing evidence; and it would be hypocritical to require others to accept evidence and not accept evidence ourselves.

It fails the test of circularity. The only possible reason for accepting the Bible as is because of the evidence for it; otherwise, we are simply accepting the Bible based on the circular reason that the Bible says to accept the Bible. But if we accept evidence FOR our way of interpreting the Bible, it would be inconsistent to deny evidence AGAINST our way of interpreting the Bible.

We see then, BobRyan's manyfold attempts to persuade us to fail to evaluate the reasons for an ancient earth and evolution are all simply unreasonable.

 

My short answer is no, I would not let them teach at all. Once again, I think it is important to define terms. Are some of you saying you would support an atheistic evolutionist teaching in your church? What about the theistic evolutionist? What about one who just subscribes to the "gap theory". There is significant difference between these views.

 

Discredited? Hardly! Evolution science continues to develop and explain the life we all participate in, and a glance at the science magazines and breaking news confirms it on a regular basis.

It's a telling blow to find the ultimate insult to evolutionism to call it a religion. Is your opinion of religion so low that it counts as a criticism to use the word? In any case, we should all know that calling evolution a religion is nonsense, since it doesn't involve a god of any sort, it doesn't call for any kind of devotion or sacrifice. It's merely science.

Evolutionism? There is no such thing. The theory of evolution, however, is established by evidence, including DNA family resemblances, including DNA flaws perpetuated across species lines, including age dating of fossil evidence, and so forth and so forth in such deep and astonishing detail that to deny the truth of evolution takes a kind of blind, deliberate act of the will.

I really have trouble parsing this. What is "evolutionism in a vacuum?"

The percentage of people who accept evolution in our churches is increasing and will continue to increase because it is God's truth. Requiring people to teach against evolution in our churches will weaken them, because the best and the brightest candidates for church membership will increasingly be aware that evolution is really true. As our churches try to win people to God, Satan will point to churches that foolishly oppose evolution as examples of how crazy you have to be to believe in God, and we will have asked for it!

 

"1. Abiogenesis and the monochiral problem - impossible for evolutionists to deny."

Bob, you have been repeatedly shown that common catalysts can yield the pure stereoisomers that you seem to have a problem with.

Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?

First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.

But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.

Please take a look at the following paper.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART

If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.

You might want to look up the following papers

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004

This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found
in DNA and RNA.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.

Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.

As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.

You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
-------------------------------------
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
---------------------------------
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
---------------------------------
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...

Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507

Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.

How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.

Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.

 

"2. Simpson's Horse series where EVEN SIMPSON admits that what he published never actually happened."

No, Bob, that is your misquote about Simpson.

Simpson was actually talking about orthogenesis, the idea that evolution happens in a simple, stepwise, gradual, steady progression of A to B to C. This is what Simpson says never actually happened. The quote is actually arguing for a much messier, bushy and jerky version of evolution that pops out once you have more complete data. You just edit his quote down in a dishonest manner to make it seem he is saying something else. In the full quote, he discusses trends in the evolution of the horse. This would be strange if your claim was true and he was saying the horse series did not happen. What would he be basing his claims on if there were no series. He also concludes by calling the horse series a good example of a transitional series.

The full quote.

 

"3. The entropy problem where EVEN atheist evolutionists PUBLISH that what we SEE in the local system is INCREASED entropy - and then they admit that evolutionism NEEDS us to have found "massive DECREASE" instead of the observed INCREASE."

Your own expert in this disagrees with your conclusion in the very quote you hatchet down to get your snippet. If you trust him as an expert, then your should trust his conclusion that entropy is not a problem. If you do not trust him, then you should not quote him at all. You cannot selectively pull out bits and pieces to make it seem like he thinks something other than his actual opinion. That is dishonest.

 

"4. The flawed INTERMEDIATE between TRUE BIRD and TRUE reptile that was found to be - TRUE BIRD and even to come AFTER other TRUE BIRDs."

I see you continue to make your "true bird" claims without providing the citation for this as has been asked for since you first made the claim. DO you remember when you first made the claim? You said

I have shown you that not only Dodson and Howgate, you two claimed sources, presented only information consistent with archy as a transistional but also that the other presenters at the conference did the same.

In short, I have shown your claim to be false. Yet you refuse to either provide some justification for your claim or to admit mistake.

Instead, you continue to dishonestly make the same claim in spite of the evidence.

 

"5. The fact that the PREDICTED AVERAGE for the geologic column by evolutionism is over 100 miles - but the OBSERVED MAXIMUM is only a little over a mile.

Yes, please give me a citation where geologists predict that the geologic column should be over 100 miles thick. This is a made up and false claim.

Show me where the thickest column is only a mile thick. THis is a false and made up claim.

For one example of where the entire column can actually be seen in one place, see a site in North Dakota. The layers and depths.

Some other places where you can see the entire column at one spot.

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

Is it possible for you to make an honest claim?

 

No and I won't allow them to teach my grandson in a public school either!

 

Let's see. theory of evolution=something out of nothing given enough time will evolve into anything.A pile of mud over time will evolve into all of the known species.A microbe given enough time and enough mutations will turn into a chemical engineer.Given enough time a microbe will evolve into an intelligent being who can design buildings,rockets that go to the moon,advance medical science,design microchips for computers.Sounds logical to me.Talk about faith. To be an evolutionist takes great faith.

 

Teach in Sunday School? Nope.
One of the reasons my daughter went to Christian School, too. Not to mention she actually learned to read there as well.

 

Bob, where is your citation for where the archy conference back in the 1980s decided that archy was just a "true bird?"

"I said that the Geolgoic column was SUPPOSED to have an AVERAGE of 100 miles. It is really between 100 and TWO HUNDRED MILES!"

Yeah. This is the made up part that you are supposed to support. I do not see any support. As on the archy conference topic, when shown to be wrong, you simply reassert the same thing. It was wrong the first time and it is wrong the second time.

"Of course I would expect UTEOTW to dodge the point - but I personnally hold myself to a higher standard so here is the correction"



Higher standard. That's good. The standard of continuing to assert things that have been shown to be false.

It is also funny that you think I attempted to "dodge the point" by showing your claim to be wrong. You said there was no where the column was found in one spot. I detailed one particular location and listed over thirty other locations where the column could be found in a single location. What a dodge! You claimed that the column should be 100 miles thick (now extended to 200 miles in your last post) and I showed that in a specific spot the whole column was there and it was only about 3 miles thick.

For a good example of a dodge, see you actions over the past several months on the question of archy.

I guess it was a dodge to present data showing how to make chiral compounds of one stereoisomer orientation using common catalysts.

I guess it was a dodge to point out that your own entropy expert disagrees with you conclusion in the very quote that you use so you just cut that part out.

I guess it was a dodge to give the full Simpson quote and show how you are misquoting him.