From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:07:56 EDT
I would be willing to bet it might be because the idea that a "higher power"
waved a magic wand and it all occured is easier to understand than all the
intricacies and "theories" of evolution.
I can say that even after hanging around on this list for (I think) over a
year (maybe two) now and reading a good many (I'd say nearly all) posts on
the subject, I'm still not convinced about anything one way or the other. I
believe more than anything that I don't know and I really don't have time to
find out unless I want to get a major in biology instead of my current goal,
which is *not* going to happen since the only reason I would be doing it
would be to answer that one question (possibly) and even then I can't be
100% certain I would be convinced 100%.
I'd say that most people can't understand it and it seems that the "experts"
are even divided on the subject; do the scientists on this list agree on a
majority of the same things? Has anyone ever done a poll of this lists
members to see how many of them even agree on any aspect? You would have to
break it all down and not just make it like "do you believe that we
evolved?" you would have to specify how we evolved, what part was natural
selection, etc... "what and how" and see how many on this list answer the
same way. I would be willing to bet that the answers would be all over the
place, no wonder why poeple aren't accepting the thoeries as fact, "which
are the facts?" whose (which) truth would you want them to believe?
See, maybe you guys (and gals) can believe things without having all the
problems worked out, most people can't believe things unless they are neat,
complete, with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed and they have to
understand what it is they are believing, I've heard scientists say they
don't understand their own theories, but they work on paper or in science or
mathematically. Most people cannot "believe" anything they cannot come close
to understanding (especially if trusted scientists cannot agree) and I'm
sorry but evolution is one of those, there is so much that seems to the lay
person as "grasping at straws" it looks like a humanists (or scientists,
which to a lot of Christians are one in the same) fantasy instead of an
actual "scientific fact".
My opinion is that until you can all agree, yourselves, on everything from
what happened (and prove it) to how it happened (and back it up with facts)
most people who don't have the time or the education will just let it go
into one ear and out the other. I know, I know the YEC's have no "proof" but
that's because they hide behind hocus pocus and that is what makes it work,
whenever they get backed into a corner they say God did it with a special
creative stroke of his hand, people can believe that because they already
believe God is mysterious, he does miracles and he started all this anyway
(not to mention that the Genesis account seems to support that process) so
it's no leap at all for them to believe that if they cannot understand it it
was God's supernatural doing. But science on the other hand, is a study of
facts and of proof, and evolution is science's baby, so they need facts and
proof in order to buy it, plus they need to see at least a majority of
actual scientists buying it also.
I hope I'm making some sense.
Sondra
>From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
>To: gmurphy@raex.com, jwburgeson@juno.com
>CC: hvantill@chartermi.net, ASA@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
>Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:27:13 +0000
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
<b>Help protect your PC:</b> Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:10:21 EDT