Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)

[CowboysFromHell]

If God planned evolution then man is exactly how he want us to be.

Then why do men have nipples?

And why are there nerves in teeth?

And why did he give us a foreskin...and then demand that it be cut off?

 

[shader]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creaturesAs for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

nothing, really?

I see nothing in the bible either.Full disclosure, I don't read the bible.

The bible tells you how long every one lived. Some people lived like 200 years. And then it tells you how long their children lived...and so on. He probably hasn't read the bible either.

Seriously? Yes, the bible is pretty clear how long man has been here, but it says nothing as to the age of the earth. This isn't an unusual or even new concept. If science finds new information next week and changes their estimate to 6 billion or 3 billions years, it's not going to affect what the bible says on the matter.

For the record, if you want to see what the bible says on the matter (I have in fact read it, to clear things up), you don't have to go very far. It's all summed up in the first verse.

 

[shader]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

Others do, and most of them come to the same conclusion....

http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

Creation of man, yes. This isn't a new debate guys. Young-Earth creationists and old-earth creationists have an internet full of debates to read about, and most of them revolve around the understanding of whether the creative days were actually 24-hour days, or periods of time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

The evidence for evolution, including common descent, is already sufficiently strong for that.

Fundamentalist Christians don't reject the evidence because it's insufficiently strong; they reject it usually because they don't know about it or understand it, or sometimes because it's trumped by their faith.

 

[matttyl]

Just curious Shader, because if memory serves you are a Jehovah's Witness. Do most Jehovah's Witnesses reject the theory of evolution? And are you a Young Earth Creationist as well?

Rejecting the theory of evolution is a loaded phrase, but yes I reject it in terms of believing man was created by God and didn't evolve from ape like creatures

As for YEC, definitely not. I see nothing in the bible that speaks to the age of the earth.

Others do, and most of them come to the same conclusion....

http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

Creation of man, yes. This isn't a new debate guys. Young-Earth creationists and old-earth creationists have an internet full of debates to read about, and most of them revolve around the understanding of whether the creative days were actually 24-hour days, or periods of time.

I'm very, very new to the "debate" here, and I'm not attempting to debate just hoping to have an honest conversation about the topic at hand. I've spent time the last few days reading this entire thread. Entertaining at times, very odd at other times. I'm trying to wrap my head around what's actually being debated, not really the meat of the debate itself.

I think a lot of it comes down to if science and religion can in fact co-exist, or if they are even at odds with one another. Can they be two paths to the same truth (getting a little Dan Brownish there), or can one actually disprove/nullify the other? If we as a species can scientifically prove the age of the Earth and also scientifically prove how it was created, does that invalidate or "trump" religion? If one particular part of the bible can be dis-proven (this thread originally was attempting to explain how the story of Noah could be taken literally) does that mean the entire thing needs to be thrown out? Can you pick and choose what parts of your religion's book you would like to follow and what parts aren't to be followed?

 

[The Commish]

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"?

Let's say iteration 100 resulted in the perfect man. Being perfect in the image of God, this iteration of man was without sin, yes? This could be the first man, Adam, mentioned by Paul in Romans, where sin entered the world. This "Adam" disobeyed God at some point which caused future iterations of man to be sinful. Because man is sinful, he is in need of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrifice in order to be saved from spiritual death... foundational Christian doctrine.

Does this mean sin was not part of this world prior to iteration 100 of man? In all the chaotic, violent years of evolution? Or was man's spirit always destined for death, from the start? If this is the case then how could any iteration of man be perfect? If he was born with a spirit ineligible for heaven, how can Paul say sin entered the world through him? It would have been here from the start which would render Paul's idea of the first "Adam" useless.

Anyway, I have a hard time seeing how evolution would fit in with these NT ideas. Hell, maybe those ideas are all figurative anyway and nothing really matters.

It seems that sin could be there all along and man just didn't know it was there. Goes back to "eating from the tree of knowledge" right? Whether literal or poetic, it was the moment that "man" now understands "good/bad". The "violent" years of evolution would have been "just how things are". Ignorance was complete and total bliss. The Bible talks about this specific iteration of man (if you will), so I'm not sure if we even care about anything prior to it. One might envision a mad scientist in his lab cranking out widget after widget. He could have millions of iterations all thrown by the wayside and never speak of them again. But that iteration where he sits back and says "that's what I'm talking about. Let's roll with this one" is where the BIble picks up and the focus of all the teachings.

I haven't fully vetted this of course, but I can't think of anything the Bible says that would explicitly disallow sin to be in existence yet Adam/Eve (first man, whoever) not know of it. One could argue that God's command to not eat of the tree would suggest that it did exist and he was shielding them from it.

 

[Jayrok]

That the earth is flat is no longer a belief since it was discovered that the earth was not actually flat. Antiquated opinions are updated when acceptable evidence is presented and accepted. The shape of the earth has no bearing on Christian doctrine so it is easy to discard antiquated opinions related to it.

Likewise with the notion of women talking in church or people praying with their heads covered or silly dietary restrictions once imposed on the Jews. Antiquated! update opinions to what is acceptable and move on.

Does evolution also fit into this category? Suppose for a moment the evidence becomes sufficient for even the most fundamentalist Christians to accept, resulting in creation being one of those antiquated opinions. Would this have any bearing on Christian doctrine? Would it be as easily dismissed as some of the above mentioned outdated ideas?

The evidence for evolution, including common descent, is already sufficiently strong for that.

Fundamentalist Christians don't reject the evidence because it's insufficiently strong; they reject it usually because they don't know about it or understand it, or sometimes because it's trumped by their faith.

Agreed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation.

Evolutionary skeptic: "I don't see how an eye could have evolved by mutation and natural selection."

Richard Dawkins: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Jayrok: "Assuming evolution is true, I don't see how we still need salvation."

God: "I am cleverer than you are."

 

[Jayrok]

I don't see how evolution can be reconciled with the need for salvation.

Evolutionary skeptic: "I don't see how an eye could have evolved by mutation and natural selection."

Richard Dawkins: "Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Jayrok: "Assuming evolution is true, I don't see how we still need salvation."

God: "I am cleverer than you are."

true enough

 

[Jayrok]

I don't like answering questions with other questions but I'm not sure where you're going. If there were iterations of "man X" that went from 1-100 why couldn't iteration 100 be "perfect"?

Let's say iteration 100 resulted in the perfect man. Being perfect in the image of God, this iteration of man was without sin, yes? This could be the first man, Adam, mentioned by Paul in Romans, where sin entered the world. This "Adam" disobeyed God at some point which caused future iterations of man to be sinful. Because man is sinful, he is in need of the redemptive power of Jesus' sacrifice in order to be saved from spiritual death... foundational Christian doctrine.

Does this mean sin was not part of this world prior to iteration 100 of man? In all the chaotic, violent years of evolution? Or was man's spirit always destined for death, from the start? If this is the case then how could any iteration of man be perfect? If he was born with a spirit ineligible for heaven, how can Paul say sin entered the world through him? It would have been here from the start which would render Paul's idea of the first "Adam" useless.

Anyway, I have a hard time seeing how evolution would fit in with these NT ideas. Hell, maybe those ideas are all figurative anyway and nothing really matters.

It seems that sin could be there all along and man just didn't know it was there. Goes back to "eating from the tree of knowledge" right? Whether literal or poetic, it was the moment that "man" now understands "good/bad". The "violent" years of evolution would have been "just how things are". Ignorance was complete and total bliss. The Bible talks about this specific iteration of man (if you will), so I'm not sure if we even care about anything prior to it. One might envision a mad scientist in his lab cranking out widget after widget. He could have millions of iterations all thrown by the wayside and never speak of them again. But that iteration where he sits back and says "that's what I'm talking about. Let's roll with this one" is where the BIble picks up and the focus of all the teachings.

I haven't fully vetted this of course, but I can't think of anything the Bible says that would explicitly disallow sin to be in existence yet Adam/Eve (first man, whoever) not know of it. One could argue that God's command to not eat of the tree would suggest that it did exist and he was shielding them from it.

Perhaps we can create a new newer testament and include how God used evolution to explain things to current and future generations who have accepted evolution as true. 5th Corinthians 1: God, the mad scientist.

The drama of life, indeed.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think a lot of it comes down to if science and religion can in fact co-exist, or if they are even at odds with one another. Can they be two paths to the same truth (getting a little Dan Brownish there), or can one actually disprove/nullify the other? If we as a species can scientifically prove the age of the Earth and also scientifically prove how it was created, does that invalidate or "trump" religion? If one particular part of the bible can be dis-proven (this thread originally was attempting to explain how the story of Noah could be taken literally) does that mean the entire thing needs to be thrown out? Can you pick and choose what parts of your religion's book you would like to follow and what parts aren't to be followed?

I don't see why not. There are already plenty of parts of the bible that are picked and chosen from, and plenty of Christians that don't believe in literal Creationism but still pattern their lives around other parts of the Bible.

I think it's odd the way that religions stick to their old archaic texts and ignore parts instead of just updating them. This goes for religions beyond just Christianity. Islam, for instance. If you want to be considered a religion of peace then why not remove the parts from your holy text that say to behead all infidels? Because you don't get to tell people that you're a religion of peace now here, go read this book that very explicitly tells you to violently kill people.

There's no reason that Christianity can't make the argument that evolution was God's means for creating people and that stellar dust was his means for creating the Earth. But I suspect that the fairy tales of Genesis are far better for recruitment of wide eyed children that don't yet have any concept of hard science.

As someone who was raised Jewish, this becomes even more disconcerting with things like Passover and the escape of the Jews from Egypt. Like other kids I never really gave it a second thought growing up, with it explained so abstractly. But as an adult I have a lot of trouble reconciling how people can interpret parts of the Bible like this literally and come to the conclusion that God is love. Because when taken literally, the story of passover is one of the most evil and heinous stories ever told.

Here you have a God that decides the best course of action to change the political policies of the pharoah is to murder all 1st born children. That includes the 6 week old baby of the rural farmer that doesn't even have knowledge of the slavery of the Jews. Here we have God, an omnipotent being that could just as easily coerce the Pharoah into letting the Jews go, but instead he chooses an unnecessary baby murdering spree. People read this and decide that God is love? That's really, really messed up. Just imagine Obama ordering the execution of every first born child of the middle east to root out ISIS and then proclaiming that he is the president of love. Oof.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Interesting discussion here on precisely the topic we went round and round on in here just last week: are science and religion compatible?

I still come out in the same place, but maybe this clarified it a bit more for me. Science and "religion" can be compatible - they can coexist, side by side, but can and should be kept separate. i.e. Tyson talks about "drawing a line". Science and the Bible (or Quran, etc.) really cannot, at least not a literal interpretation of every chapter and verse. The Jesuit priest seems to agree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting discussion here on precisely the topic we went round and round on in here just last week: are science and religion compatible?

I still come out in the same place, but maybe this clarified it a bit more for me. Science and "religion" can be compatible - they can coexist, side by side, but can and should be kept separate. i.e. Tyson talks about "drawing a line". Science and the Bible (or Quran, etc.) really cannot, at least not a literal interpretation of every chapter and verse. The Jesuit priest seems to agree.

Whether Biblical literalism is compatible with science is a boring question. It obviously isn't.

Whether more dignified versions of religion are compatible with science is a more interesting question.

For theists, I absolutely think that it's glorious to have one's religious and spiritual views, one's sense of the numinous, informed by modern science. The universe as revealed to us by modern science is wondrous and amazing, and appreciating its wonder can inspire feelings of such awe that a spiritual or religious response can seem natural. God is not some puny, bearded geezer with a magic wand: He is the perpetual sustenance for the infinite universe. Paul Tillich referred to God as the Ground of Being. How much more awesome does the Ground of Being become when one learns something of the magnificence and depth and sheer enormity of our universe as revealed by our best scientific understanding? The universe described by modern astronomy is way more impressive and awesome than the universe described by Genesis. The God of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a trifling nitwit. The God of quantum mechanics and general relativity and quarks and galaxy clusters -- and, yes, humanity and love, too -- now that God may actually be worth worshiping.

The best kind of theism is the kind that is not only compatible with science, but that affirmatively celebrates science.

On the other hand, any belief in a personal God is an inherently unscientific belief that necessarily relies on faith. Science is about evidence and rationally forming beliefs based on evidence. Taking full account of Occam's Razor -- and I realize that this is a more complicated topic than the one-sentence dismissal I'm giving it here -- a strictly rational evaluation of evidence necessarily leads away from belief in a personal God, IMO. (I could be wrong about that, but at this point I've encountered an awful lot of arguments contrary to my view, and I've been able to spot a fatal error in every single one. The chance that there's actually a sound counterargument lurking somewhere seems pretty unlikely at this point.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting discussion here on precisely the topic we went round and round on in here just last week: are science and religion compatible?

That was a fun discussion, and the Jesuit came off quite well. That's rather typical of Jesuits, in my experience. They're usually pretty sharp.

 

[Bucky86]

Did you know that Mormons have magic underwear? I just learned this fact last weekend.

 

[cstu]

Did you know that Mormons have magic underwear? I just learned this fact last weekend.

Unpossible:

Joined 31-October 11

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Interesting discussion here on precisely the topic we went round and round on in here just last week: are science and religion compatible?

Book on the same subject: Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.

I haven't read it. Coyne was on Sam Harris's podcast a little while ago discussing the book, but I fell asleep immediately -- not because he was boring, but because I was tired.

 

[joffer]

Interesting discussion here on precisely the topic we went round and round on in here just last week: are science and religion compatible?

Book on the same subject: Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible.

I haven't read it. Coyne was on Sam Harris's podcast a little while ago discussing the book, but I fell asleep immediately -- not because he was boring, but because I was tired.

I like Coyne. Might give this a try.

 

[joffer]

http://ncse.com/news/2015/05/antievolution-lawsuit-filed-west-virginia-0016380

Antievolution lawsuit filed in West Virginia

May 22nd, 2015 West VirginiaAnti-Evolution2015

"A parent of a Jefferson County student has filed a federal lawsuit against local, state and federal education officials claiming the teaching of evolution, which he says is a religion, violates his childs Constitutional rights," reports the Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail (May 21, 2015).

In a complaint (PDF) filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 12, 2015, Kenneth Smith contends that teaching evolution in West Virginia's public school constitutes "the propagation of religious faith" and that it hinders his daughter's ability to enter college and to become a veterinarian.

Listed as defendants are the Jefferson County School Board; Michael Martirano, the West Virginia state superintendent of schools; Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health; Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education; and the Department of Education itself. Smith is representing himself.

In his complaint, Smith contends that the defendants "wrongfully violated established clauses" presumably a reference to the Establishment Clause in continuing to allow evolution to be taught "[w]hile denying the Plaintiff's accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion."

Smith is apparently the author of The True Origin of Man (iUniverse, 2013), which "represents the truth of mans [sic] origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts." The about-the-author line explains, "Kenneth Smith after gaining his science degree has spent many years thereafter studying theology and made the ultimate discovery."

The complaint concludes by asking the court to "declare the policy of evolution, as to be violating of United States Constitutional Amendments" (presumably the First, prohibiting any government establishment of religion, and the Fourteenth, requiring state governments to abide by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights).

Absent from the complaint is any mention of the relevant case law. In McLean v. Arkansas (1982), for example, the court commented, "it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause."

Similarly, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994), the court characterized the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) as holding "unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not."

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

http://ncse.com/news/2015/05/antievolution-lawsuit-filed-west-virginia-0016380

Antievolution lawsuit filed in West Virginia

May 22nd, 2015 West VirginiaAnti-Evolution2015

"A parent of a Jefferson County student has filed a federal lawsuit against local, state and federal education officials claiming the teaching of evolution, which he says is a religion, violates his childs Constitutional rights," reports the Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail (May 21, 2015).

In a complaint (PDF) filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 12, 2015, Kenneth Smith contends that teaching evolution in West Virginia's public school constitutes "the propagation of religious faith" and that it hinders his daughter's ability to enter college and to become a veterinarian.

Listed as defendants are the Jefferson County School Board; Michael Martirano, the West Virginia state superintendent of schools; Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health; Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education; and the Department of Education itself. Smith is representing himself.

In his complaint, Smith contends that the defendants "wrongfully violated established clauses" presumably a reference to the Establishment Clause in continuing to allow evolution to be taught "[w]hile denying the Plaintiff's accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion."

Smith is apparently the author of The True Origin of Man (iUniverse, 2013), which "represents the truth of mans [sic] origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts." The about-the-author line explains, "Kenneth Smith after gaining his science degree has spent many years thereafter studying theology and made the ultimate discovery."

The complaint concludes by asking the court to "declare the policy of evolution, as to be violating of United States Constitutional Amendments" (presumably the First, prohibiting any government establishment of religion, and the Fourteenth, requiring state governments to abide by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights).

Absent from the complaint is any mention of the relevant case law. In McLean v. Arkansas (1982), for example, the court commented, "it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause."

Similarly, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994), the court characterized the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) as holding "unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not."

Pretty smart way to sell more books.

 

[timschochet]

From the book description:

http://www.amazon.com/True-Origin-Man-Kenneth-Smith-ebook/dp/B00EF1H5TY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1432674967&sr=1-1&keywords=the+true+origin+of+man

Truth is an absolute. It can be ugly and scary or accommodating and soothingly caring. It can start wars and settle peace. No person alive can be defined in anyway without truth being the measuring rod of comparison. Quite often man sways from the truth, because it doesn’t side with their wants or views. This book represents the truth of mans origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts. Like truth this book brings conclusion to an age-old argument between Clergy and Scientist. A clear explanation of why we’re all so different when it comes to race, which it effects so many communities of different races living together. A major benefit of this book is that the very beginning of man’s history is unveiled in a new light, which will be the talk of many prestigious inner circles of elite social groups and higher arc political policy makers. Majoring student readers of this book will be informed first ahead of their college professors on the new direction of DNA’s future of calculating the mutated percentage cells in any genome. Truth! Some people love being first to know secrets. Others being ahead of the game and the readers of this book will have that cutting edge in life.

Available on Kindle!

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

From the book description:

http://www.amazon.com/True-Origin-Man-Kenneth-Smith-ebook/dp/B00EF1H5TY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1432674967&sr=1-1&keywords=the+true+origin+of+man

Truth is an absolute. It can be ugly and scary or accommodating and soothingly caring. It can start wars and settle peace. No person alive can be defined in anyway without truth being the measuring rod of comparison. Quite often man sways from the truth, because it doesn’t side with their wants or views. This book represents the truth of mans origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts. Like truth this book brings conclusion to an age-old argument between Clergy and Scientist. A clear explanation of why we’re all so different when it comes to race, which it effects so many communities of different races living together. A major benefit of this book is that the very beginning of man’s history is unveiled in a new light, which will be the talk of many prestigious inner circles of elite social groups and higher arc political policy makers. Majoring student readers of this book will be informed first ahead of their college professors on the new direction of DNA’s future of calculating the mutated percentage cells in any genome. Truth! Some people love being first to know secrets. Others being ahead of the game and the readers of this book will have that cutting edge in life.

Available on Kindle!

LOLOLOL

 

[CowboysFromHell]

http://ncse.com/news/2015/05/antievolution-lawsuit-filed-west-virginia-0016380

Antievolution lawsuit filed in West Virginia

May 22nd, 2015 West VirginiaAnti-Evolution2015

"A parent of a Jefferson County student has filed a federal lawsuit against local, state and federal education officials claiming the teaching of evolution, which he says is a religion, violates his childs Constitutional rights," reports the Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail (May 21, 2015).

In a complaint (PDF) filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 12, 2015, Kenneth Smith contends that teaching evolution in West Virginia's public school constitutes "the propagation of religious faith" and that it hinders his daughter's ability to enter college and to become a veterinarian.

Listed as defendants are the Jefferson County School Board; Michael Martirano, the West Virginia state superintendent of schools; Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health; Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education; and the Department of Education itself. Smith is representing himself.

In his complaint, Smith contends that the defendants "wrongfully violated established clauses" presumably a reference to the Establishment Clause in continuing to allow evolution to be taught "[w]hile denying the Plaintiff's accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion."

Smith is apparently the author of The True Origin of Man (iUniverse, 2013), which "represents the truth of mans [sic] origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts." The about-the-author line explains, "Kenneth Smith after gaining his science degree has spent many years thereafter studying theology and made the ultimate discovery."

The complaint concludes by asking the court to "declare the policy of evolution, as to be violating of United States Constitutional Amendments" (presumably the First, prohibiting any government establishment of religion, and the Fourteenth, requiring state governments to abide by the restrictions of the Bill of Rights).

Absent from the complaint is any mention of the relevant case law. In McLean v. Arkansas (1982), for example, the court commented, "it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause."

Similarly, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994), the court characterized the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) as holding "unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not."

Let's play this out. Say this guy's daughter becomes a veterinarian and starts a practice leveraging his new "truth" about biology. Lol.

Actually, no. That would be really sad for those poor animals. :(

 

[Scoresman]

Scotland

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/creationism-banned-science-classes-scottish-government

 

[msommer]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32906836

tl;dr God put more bones n the ground in Ethiopia to make us believe in Evolution (humble God? Mischievous God?)

New species' of ancient human foundBy Rebecca Morelle Science Correspondent, BBC News

A new species of ancient human has been unearthed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, scientists report.

Researchers discovered jaw bones and teeth, which date to between 3.3m and 3.5m years old.

It means this new hominin was alive at the same time as several other early human species, suggesting our family tree is more complicated than was thought.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

The new species has been called Australopithecus deyiremeda, which means "close relative" in the language spoken by the Afar people.

The ancient remains are thought to belong to four individuals, who would have had both ape and human-like features..

Living with LucyLead researcher Dr Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator of physical anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in the US, told BBC News: "We had to look at the detailed anatomy and morphology of the teeth and the upper and lower jaws, and we found major differences.

"This new species has very robust jaws. In addition, we see this new species had smaller teeth. The canine is really small - smaller than all known hominins we have documented in the past."

The age of the remains means that this was potentially one of four different species of early humans that were all alive at the same time.

The most famous of these is Australopithecus afarensis - known as Lucy - who lived between 2.9-3.8m years ago, and was initially thought to be our direct ancestor.

However the discovery of another species called Kenyanthropus platyops in Kenya in 2001, and of Australopithecus bahrelghazali in Chad, and now Australopithecus deyiremedaI, suggests that there were several species co-existing.

Some researchers dispute whether the various partial remains really constitute different species, particularly for A. bahrelghazali. But Dr Haile-Selassie said the early stage of human evolution was probably surprisingly complex.

"Historically, because we didn't have the fossil evidence to show there was hominin diversity during the middle Pliocene, we thought there was only one lineage, one primitive ancestor - in this case Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy - giving rise to the next.

"That hypothesis of linear evolution has to be revisited. And now with the discovery of more species, like this new one... you have another species roaming around.

"What this means is we have many species that could give rise to later hominins, including our own genus Homo."

Dr Haile-Selassie said that even more fossils need to be unearthed, to better understand the path that human evolution took.

He added that finding additional ancient remains could also help researchers examine how the different species lived side-by-side - whether they mixed or avoided each other, and how they shared food and other resources in their landscape.

 

[matuski]

A Canadian who happens to be on the board of directors of Big Valley’s Creation Science Museum, a place that’ll try to prove to you that Earth is only about 6,000 years old, made a stunning fossil discovery, but the historic finding can’t actually shake his beliefs.

60M-year-old fossil can’t convince creationist that Earth is older than 6,000 years

 

[bosoxs45]

I don't understand why more high schools aren't teaching Biological (Physical) Anthropology.

If anything, it teaches a student how to critically think about things.

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/17/5_completely_insane_things_christian_fundamentalists_are_teaching_their_kids/

This has to be in a science class room. So much validation.

 

[joffer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/creationists-take-down-another-top-professor.html

Another evangelical denomination has voted Darwin and his champions off the island.

In a story becoming all too familiar, another pro-evolution faculty member has been forced to leave his evangelical institution. Jim Stump, longtime professor of philosophy, productive scholar, and popular, award-winning teacher at Bethel College in Indiana, resigned his position in June because of pressures put on the college by its sponsoring denomination, the Missionary Church.

The issue, once again, was evolution. Most members of the Missionary Church reject Darwins theory of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Book of Genesis. But many faculty members at Bethel College accept evolution and consider it part of their teaching ministry to help their students do the same, within the context of their faith. Such divergences exist in most evangelical denominations that sponsor liberal arts colleges but as long as faculty members are clearly evangelical in their faith the tensions are often manageable and an uneasy peace can be maintained.

The Articles of Faith and Practice of the Missionary Church, however, clearly reject evolution and affirm the reality of a historical Adam: We believe that the first man, Adam, was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution. In contrast, Bethel faculty members have historically affirmed a much broader statement on origins, which says simply God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. This statement is compatible with a wide range of positions on human origins, from a belief in the literal story in Genesis in which God creates everything in six days, to the belief that God created all lifeincluding humansthrough the process of Darwinian evolution over billions of years.

Darwin and his theory, however, even when cast in a theological context, remain unwelcome in most evangelical communities. Many in the Missionary Church objected to the teaching and public promotion of evolution by Bethel faculty in an institution created to reflect their beliefs. The president of the Missionary Church, Steve Jones, spoke frankly in an email approved for public distribution: Genesis, he wrote, specifically and intentionally describes the creation of Adam and Evenot all lifeas a special creative act of God separate from all the rest of his creation, rather than as a process of evolution. And, although Jones was clear that the denomination he leads does not want to take over the college, or even get anyone fired, he was also clear that we dont want Bethel professors advocating for a view that humankind arose through a process of evolution, because God said otherwise.

The tension between Bethel College and the Missionary Church illustrates the ongoing and insoluble problem that American evangelicals have with evolution. Jones is the president of a denomination in which most members reject evolution, and affirm the creation story in Genesis, especially the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is an important article of their faith, at the heart of how they understand sin, salvation, and the meaning of Jesus. Jesus saves people from sin they inherited from Adam, who was created perfect by God but chose to disobey.

We believe that the first man, Adam, was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution.

The Missionary Church sponsors a college it influences through the Board of Trustees, which it controls. Members of the Missionary Church support the college financially. They send their children to Bethel College, expecting that the faculty there will support the beliefs taught to children in their homes and churches. The curriculum is intended to bring depth and breadth to this faith, as well as prepare young people for careers. But what happens when the scholarly pursuits of the faculty lead them into positions rejected by the denominationpositions perceived as corrosive and even hostile to faith?

Evolution moved onto the front burner for many in the Missionary Church in the wake of the national publicity that attended the creation-evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. In that widely watched confrontation, the biblical story of creation was defended by a Bible-believing Christian with whom many in the Missionary Church could identify. Evolution was defended by a well-known atheist.

Concerns arose that Bethel faculty were aligned with Bill Nye rather than Ken Ham on the question of origins. So, after considerable discussion30 meetings with more than 200 constituents over 2½ years, according to the Bethel presidentand some failed efforts to find common ground, the Bethel Board of Trustees on June 9 of this year approved a new policy specifying that college faculty must affirm the same position on Adam and Eve as the Missionary Church, namely that Adam was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution. The new policy further specifies that Bethel faculty should advocate this as the official, meritorious, and theologically responsible position of the College, without disparagement.

The new policy permits faculty to participate in academic communities which might be at variance with the Position Statement. This would allow a faculty member to be a member, for example, of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. However, faculty are not to advocate for, nor hold leadership positions for, nor sustain a contractual relationship with an academic community which may be at variance with the Statement.

The last part of the document created particular problems for Jim Stump. Stump was the content manager for the website at BioLogos, a Christian organization founded by NIH President Francis Collins to promote evolution to evangelicals. And, BioLogos is not committed to the belief that Adam was a historical figure. (Disclosure: I helped Francis Collins start BioLogos and was vice president and then president for a while.) Both Stumps position at BioLogos and his publications were incompatible with the document. In fact, Rev. Ryan Yazel, a Bethel graduate, former student of Stump, and pastor of a Missionary Church congregation near the college, told me he thinks the June 9 document was intentionally targeting BioLogos.

Stumpa Bethel alum, tenured professor with 17 years at the college and the 2003 professor of the yearchose to leave rather than create tensions between the college and the denomination.

On June 26, Gregg Chenoweth, Bethels president, and Stump penned letters to the Bethel College community. Stump wrote: I decided to resign from my position at Bethel in order to pursue alternate work, rather than remain under the new Statement and bring tension to the Bethel community. Chenoweth affirmed Jims teaching and professionalism and noted that many in the larger Bethel community name Jim as one star in the constellation of their Bethel experience.

Deborah Haarsma, the president of BioLogos, describes the organization she leads as disheartened by developments that put Stump in the painful situation of having to choose between the scholarship to which he feels called and the academic community to which he has belonged for decades.

The Bethel incident is sobering because it is a story without villains and thus provides the deepest possible insight into the depth of American evangelicalisms problem with evolution. A few weeks ago I reported the story of Tom Oord, who was terminated from a college very similar to Bethel. But Oords termination was engineered by a heavy-handed and unpopular presidentwho has since resigned in scandal. Another president might have responded differently and that led to hope that peace with evolution could be possible when cooler heads prevail. But the Bethel College incident suggests otherwise. No individual went after Jim Stump, most certainly not Bethel president Chenoweth, who by all reports accepted Stumps resignation reluctantly. Stump was squeezed out by the incompatibility of evolutionary science and the theology of the Missionary Churcha theology formally shared with many other denominations and informally embraced by tens of millions of Americans. As I explain in my recent book, Saving the Original Sinner, evangelicals will never make peace with any scientific theory that challenges the historicity of Adam and Eve.

The evolution wars are here to stay and heads will continue to roll.

 

[Mister CIA]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/19/creationists-take-down-another-top-professor.html

Another evangelical denomination has voted Darwin and his champions off the island.

In a story becoming all too familiar, another pro-evolution faculty member has been forced to leave his evangelical institution. Jim Stump, longtime professor of philosophy, productive scholar, and popular, award-winning teacher at Bethel College in Indiana, resigned his position in June because of pressures put on the college by its sponsoring denomination, the Missionary Church.

The issue, once again, was evolution. Most members of the Missionary Church reject Darwins theory of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story in the Book of Genesis. But many faculty members at Bethel College accept evolution and consider it part of their teaching ministry to help their students do the same, within the context of their faith. Such divergences exist in most evangelical denominations that sponsor liberal arts colleges but as long as faculty members are clearly evangelical in their faith the tensions are often manageable and an uneasy peace can be maintained.

The Articles of Faith and Practice of the Missionary Church, however, clearly reject evolution and affirm the reality of a historical Adam: We believe that the first man, Adam, was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution. In contrast, Bethel faculty members have historically affirmed a much broader statement on origins, which says simply God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. This statement is compatible with a wide range of positions on human origins, from a belief in the literal story in Genesis in which God creates everything in six days, to the belief that God created all lifeincluding humansthrough the process of Darwinian evolution over billions of years.

Darwin and his theory, however, even when cast in a theological context, remain unwelcome in most evangelical communities. Many in the Missionary Church objected to the teaching and public promotion of evolution by Bethel faculty in an institution created to reflect their beliefs. The president of the Missionary Church, Steve Jones, spoke frankly in an email approved for public distribution: Genesis, he wrote, specifically and intentionally describes the creation of Adam and Evenot all lifeas a special creative act of God separate from all the rest of his creation, rather than as a process of evolution. And, although Jones was clear that the denomination he leads does not want to take over the college, or even get anyone fired, he was also clear that we dont want Bethel professors advocating for a view that humankind arose through a process of evolution, because God said otherwise.

The tension between Bethel College and the Missionary Church illustrates the ongoing and insoluble problem that American evangelicals have with evolution. Jones is the president of a denomination in which most members reject evolution, and affirm the creation story in Genesis, especially the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is an important article of their faith, at the heart of how they understand sin, salvation, and the meaning of Jesus. Jesus saves people from sin they inherited from Adam, who was created perfect by God but chose to disobey.

We believe that the first man, Adam, was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution.

The Missionary Church sponsors a college it influences through the Board of Trustees, which it controls. Members of the Missionary Church support the college financially. They send their children to Bethel College, expecting that the faculty there will support the beliefs taught to children in their homes and churches. The curriculum is intended to bring depth and breadth to this faith, as well as prepare young people for careers. But what happens when the scholarly pursuits of the faculty lead them into positions rejected by the denominationpositions perceived as corrosive and even hostile to faith?

Evolution moved onto the front burner for many in the Missionary Church in the wake of the national publicity that attended the creation-evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. In that widely watched confrontation, the biblical story of creation was defended by a Bible-believing Christian with whom many in the Missionary Church could identify. Evolution was defended by a well-known atheist.

Concerns arose that Bethel faculty were aligned with Bill Nye rather than Ken Ham on the question of origins. So, after considerable discussion30 meetings with more than 200 constituents over 2½ years, according to the Bethel presidentand some failed efforts to find common ground, the Bethel Board of Trustees on June 9 of this year approved a new policy specifying that college faculty must affirm the same position on Adam and Eve as the Missionary Church, namely that Adam was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution. The new policy further specifies that Bethel faculty should advocate this as the official, meritorious, and theologically responsible position of the College, without disparagement.

The new policy permits faculty to participate in academic communities which might be at variance with the Position Statement. This would allow a faculty member to be a member, for example, of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. However, faculty are not to advocate for, nor hold leadership positions for, nor sustain a contractual relationship with an academic community which may be at variance with the Statement.

The last part of the document created particular problems for Jim Stump. Stump was the content manager for the website at BioLogos, a Christian organization founded by NIH President Francis Collins to promote evolution to evangelicals. And, BioLogos is not committed to the belief that Adam was a historical figure. (Disclosure: I helped Francis Collins start BioLogos and was vice president and then president for a while.) Both Stumps position at BioLogos and his publications were incompatible with the document. In fact, Rev. Ryan Yazel, a Bethel graduate, former student of Stump, and pastor of a Missionary Church congregation near the college, told me he thinks the June 9 document was intentionally targeting BioLogos.

Stumpa Bethel alum, tenured professor with 17 years at the college and the 2003 professor of the yearchose to leave rather than create tensions between the college and the denomination.

On June 26, Gregg Chenoweth, Bethels president, and Stump penned letters to the Bethel College community. Stump wrote: I decided to resign from my position at Bethel in order to pursue alternate work, rather than remain under the new Statement and bring tension to the Bethel community. Chenoweth affirmed Jims teaching and professionalism and noted that many in the larger Bethel community name Jim as one star in the constellation of their Bethel experience.

Deborah Haarsma, the president of BioLogos, describes the organization she leads as disheartened by developments that put Stump in the painful situation of having to choose between the scholarship to which he feels called and the academic community to which he has belonged for decades.

The Bethel incident is sobering because it is a story without villains and thus provides the deepest possible insight into the depth of American evangelicalisms problem with evolution. A few weeks ago I reported the story of Tom Oord, who was terminated from a college very similar to Bethel. But Oords termination was engineered by a heavy-handed and unpopular presidentwho has since resigned in scandal. Another president might have responded differently and that led to hope that peace with evolution could be possible when cooler heads prevail. But the Bethel College incident suggests otherwise. No individual went after Jim Stump, most certainly not Bethel president Chenoweth, who by all reports accepted Stumps resignation reluctantly. Stump was squeezed out by the incompatibility of evolutionary science and the theology of the Missionary Churcha theology formally shared with many other denominations and informally embraced by tens of millions of Americans. As I explain in my recent book, Saving the Original Sinner, evangelicals will never make peace with any scientific theory that challenges the historicity of Adam and Eve.

The evolution wars are here to stay and heads will continue to roll.

Granted it's all about the ####ing, but still they should change their name to something that will garner more support, like The Doggy Style Church.

 

[Mario Kart]

An Evolutionists Nightmare 2.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-RgquKVTPE

 

[cstu]

Four legged snake fossil found.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Star-Forming Clouds May Spit Out Life’s Building Blocks

Astronomers have discovered one of the largest and most complex organic molecules yet in a gaseous star-forming region of interstellar space. Clara Moskowitz reports
October 9, 2014 |By Clara Moskowitz
The ingredients for life on Earth may have gotten a start in space. Many biologically important molecules have been seen in space or found in meteorites. Now astronomers have discovered one of the largest and mostcomplex organic molecules yet in a gaseous star-forming region of interstellar space.

Most organic molecules seen in interstellar space, thanks to their spectra, are just straight chains of carbon atoms. The newfound molecule, isopropyl cyanide, on the other hand, has branching carbon chains. Such branches are needed for many molecules crucial to life, such as the amino acids that build proteins.

Researchers found the isopropyl cyanide’s chemical imprints in light from the Sagittarius B2 cloud about 27,000 light-years away. To reach the sensitivity needed to spot the faraway molecule, the scientists used the connected web of 66 radio telescopes that make up the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, also known as ALMA, in Chile. They report their findings in the journal Science. [Arnaud Belloche et al: Detection of a branched alkyl molecule in the interstellar medium: iso-propyl cyanide]

The discovery supports the idea that life’s building blocks may have originated in interstellar space. The molecules could have arisen during the process of early star formation, and been transferred to our planet later. Of course, that still doesn’t explain the origin of life—or why it ultimately came up with that wacky cousin you have to see at Thanksgiving.

—Clara Moskowit

link

Philae the little lost lander finds organic molecules on cometA handout photo released by the European Space Agency (ESA) on November 13, 2014 shows an image taken by lander Philae on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

The European Space Agency's probe Philae may be struggling to stay in touch, but its first finds on its new home are pretty special.

Transmitting from a shadowy corner of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko nicknamed "Chury," Philae found several organic molecules -- including four never detected before on a comet, which are important building blocks of life.

Data analyzed in seven studies published Thursday in the American journal Science were gathered with 10 instruments on board Philae during the first 60 hours after its arrival on Chury, between November 12-14 of last year.

"None of this was known before," said Professor Jean-Pierre Bibring, head of science for the Philae mission, telling AFP that "the physical properties and composition of a comet are nothing like we imagined."

Philae found the 4.6-billion-year-old body around 75 to 85 percent porous, with a granular surface in places and a rigid crust elsewhere.

Bibring said scientists had expected to find an object held together by ice, but instead found complex organic molecules formed at the birth of the solar system.

Those molecules may have been the seeds of life in Earth's oceans when they fell on our planet.

"We have already found fascinating molecules that we've never seen on a comet before," he told AFP.

- Time capsule in space -

In total, 16 compounds have been identified from six classes of organic molecules, including alcohols and amino acids.

According to Bibring, some of these chemicals form the "start of an evolutionary chain that could lead them to form complex organic components."

The comet has remained in a fairly stable condition since the formation of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago -- a time capsule in space.

"I'm convinced that Philae will help us progress considerably in our understanding of the origin of life," Bibring said.

The little lander separated from the Rosetta probe on November 12 last year and made a dramatic interception of the comet Chury.

Hitting the comet at all was an achievement, but disaster almost struck when landing harpoons failed to fire.

Philae bounced before falling into a shadier nook than planned, under cliffs, where the sun could not reach its solar panels.

The lander was able to work for only 60 hours before going to sleep, but seven months later, as Chury neared the sun, it awoke.

Since June, it has been able to communicate with its mothership Rosetta, holding 200 kilometers away to avoid the comet's dust and gas plumes.

On it eighth and so far last transmission on July 9, Philae sent a long burst of data.

So far, unfortunately, Earth-bound scientists have not been able to send back fresh instructions to their brave explorer.

But in the meantime, Philae is making the most of its mission.

"Philae is not dead," Bibring insisted. "It's making efficient use of its survival mode."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/philae-the-little-lost-lander-finds-organic-molecules-on-comet/ar-BBlfuXc?ocid=ansnewsafp11

 

[matuski]

Four legged snake fossil found.

You Evolutionists are dolts. That is clearly just a really long lizard.