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