From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 09:27:13 EDT
As I understand it, the question put to the students wasn't whether they
>accepted evolution but what percentage of academic biologists accept it.
>The 2 are, of
>course, related - those who don't want to think evolution is true would
>like to believe
>that "real scientists" agree with them.
-Coming out of high school, I had absolutely no quarrel with evolution
theory (what little I knew.) I was very eager to learn about science in
high school, but learned very little about evolution. I also had little
exposure to christian teachings at the time, so most of the influence on my
understanding was directly from classroom teachings. Thus in answering such
a question, I would have been unfamiliar with what professors thought of
evolution (having never considered the question and not being exposed to
their views at all- given poor textbooks) and would also have had very
little idea of what importance such an issue had. It is doubtful I would
have answered 90-100%.
> No magic solution here but 2 suggestions - 1 that I've long harped on &
>another
>prompted by Howard's post.
> 1) No headway will be made among conservative Christians who reject
>evolution
>unless one can convince them that a person can accept evolution without
>abandoning the
>traditional Christian faith.
> 2) To the extent that evolution is identified in the popular mind with
>dogmatic
>atheists like Dawkins, it's possible for anti-evolutionists to portray his
>whole
>position - including his insistence on the scientific correctness of
>evolution - as
>extreme & therefore an aberration. We need to get before the public as
>many examples as
>possible of evolutionary scientists who don't have extreme anti-religious
>views, some of
>whom (though not necessarily all) should be Christians.
I couldn't have thought of anything better. I am preparing a seminar on
Science, Faith and Evolution for our church body and have been thinking
deeply on the primary issue that I'd like to convey. For me, it isn't to go
around and set certain facts into people's brains, i.e. go on a campaign to
convince everyone that the earth is billions of years old. I have no reason
for this if it could cause my brother to lose his faith or stumble, see also
Romans 14. (Soap Box: My opinion is that those of you who have decided
that evolution is true would be better suited to pursue an attitude of
weaker/stronger brother towards young earth people rather than the
mockery/hostile approach often expressed here.) The primary goal is to
understand the nature of scientific fact and how it is interpreted, and to
understand the relationship between science and faith not as a war of
conflict but as complimentary but not completely overlapping sources of
truth. I have been exposed to people who are personally conflicted about
the existence of dinosaurs and it greatly astounds/troubles me. In my
opinion, the real source of the problem is the nature of Christian truth.
Most folks want their doubts completely dismembered and the way to do that
is to believe in a set of completely inerrant principles that cannot be
questioned from the Resurrection to a young earth. Thus every statement of
faith is given equal footing and challenging any of it can challenge the
veracity of the rest of it (is this the offspring of Howard's troublesome
observation of "biblidolatry?".) I think conveying some kind of
philosophy of knowledge, our infallible understanding, and our attempt to
understand ultimate truth (something like Platonic forms) are key principles
to help Christians open their minds to the possibilities wrt origins, and
feel secure about the unknown.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Chat privately with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige using MSN
Messenger! http://www5.msnmessenger-download.com/imastar/default.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 09:29:32 EDT