Re: Student perceptions re evolution

From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 13:11:51 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    I think creating the set of questions Sondra proposes makes a lot of sense.

    Jay

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Sondra Brasile" <sbrasile@hotmail.com>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:07 PM
    Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution

    > 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 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 - 13:13:19 EDT