Slashdot Mirror

You are right in that Christianity encompasses a wide range of opinions. You are also correct that many promiment scientists were Christian.

However, at present, over 40% of the US population believes in a "young earth". That is not a very small minority.
Source: Reference #7 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

This has been an ever-increasing problem since the US decline in science education since the end of the Cold War. We aren't going to combat this with debates and statements from authority figures, especially when the debate is between an atheist and an evolutionary creationist. It's too bad we didn't see the debate, because it's almost certain that the debate wasn't over science, but rather theology. I'll bet they agree on the science part. This type of debate is a distraction from the real problem.

The only way we're going to improve this situation is to educate, educate, educate. Provide resources about geology and biology that are squarely directed at those who are Christian. Provide information that deconstructs their impression of science but does not attack their religion. There are Web sites specifically directed at this:

http://biologos.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://theistic-evolution.org/
http://truecreation.info/

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian (not a young-Earther)

In the original Hebrew, the word used is yom which can be translated to mean anything from a day to a year or an undetermined length of time (Sorry, source is evidently biased. I'd heard it before and this was the best Google could turn up). As it is, the whole argument over young earth/generally accepted age is stupid. If your a Christian and the age of the Earth is that important to you, then you're doing it wrong.

According to any religion-respecting Christian, the rocks are only 5,000 years old.

Your claim is Wrong. It is easy to find "religions-respecting(*) Christians" who accept old earth. It has been accepted (**) Catholic doctrine for at least fifty years.

(*) Beware of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy here.

(**) It is officially permitted but not required.

Look at it this way, freedom of speech also gives you the freedom to make a fool of yourself, which is what that museum is doing.

Misinformation, like mushrooms grows in the dark and damp, so trying to buy it does no good. It just festers, and finds justification because *THEY* want to smother "the truth" so it's your mission to spread it under *THEIR* noses.

But out in the open, it has no place to hide and no enemy so there is no self-justifying mission. One is forced to have a conversation and examine your views and see the inconsistencies.

But in order to have that conversation, you can't do a Dawkins and try to smother religion. As the saying goes, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.", only this time the "mission" becomes payback (after all, if *THEY* try to smother me, why can't I do it to them?) and entrenching yourself in your own beliefs becomes essential so that you can "do battle". The "fight or flight" response in humanity is still very strong, so don't be surprised if it shows up in the bible thumpers any more than it shows up in you.

The Socratic Method of continual questioning with humility and sincere desire for an answer (and not trying to prove them wrong) is the only way to get through. And if you do it right, you might actually learn something too (the way Socrates often did).

Here's a good conversation starter, "According to the Bible, by the end of the first day, there was no Sun. So the day was defined to be whatever God wanted it to be defined, and just as Adam lived for hundreds of years, so could a day be longer than what we currently know it to be. In Hebrew, the word used in Genesis for Day is "Yom" ( http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.ht m ) and Yom can mean a day or an eon which is God's time. Could it not be possible that, according to the Bible, that earth was created over several eons?"

No. In fact certain ID scientists do believe that certain constants were different about 4000 years ago. This has to do with the helium diffusion rates in zircon crystals and some other junk RATE project. Granted its a different constant, but it does mean that ID scientists aren't opposed to "constants" being changed. Now I don't really like their explanation as to how this happened (enter hand of God) but it does show some dating inconsitiencies (that greatly exceed error margins). But what really gets me is you're throwing around ideas without having any clue... I suppose thats /. for you.

When you explained why some people were so opposed to evolution, and when you explained "plain vanilla Christianity"... you admit it was not plain or vanilla to the majority of Christians. I think many sects have the view that they are merely the "basic" and "literal" meaning of their scripture, and they are often most emphatic exactly where they conflict with the more common view of the religion. Even some other creationists argue that No Death Before the Fall is a misinterpretation of the Bible. The second link explicity refers to it as "heresy". Chuckle.

I'm not going to attempt to argue theology or who is right or wrong. I'm just noting that what you call "plain vanilla Christianity" opposition to evolution is actually based on a particular interpretation of the bible and that most Christians dissagree. I would call the conflict you describe a point of dogma to the extent that some people seem actively blind to the notion that evolution does not equal atheism. Not that they reject the beliefs of other Christians... but an active blind spot that God other religions or even Christiantity exists or has any meaning absent that particular dogma.

Actual vanilla Christianity sees no conflict, that there need not be any conflict between biological evolution and the soul of man being saved through Jesus. That a literal reading of Genesis can or does include death of animals before the initial sin of man, or that that much or all of the Bible must be read in a nonliteral way anyway.

no serious amounts of transition species in the fossil record

There are TONS of transitional forms in the fossil record. Anyone who doesn't think so either hasn't seen just how much evidence there is, or is setting impossible standards. (Post note: I guess I got carried away below explaining transitions, but it was something I wanted to read more on anway. Chuckle.)

In some areas the fossil record gives an extremely detailed sequence of forms, and in other areas the record is very spotty. And of course the longer the time span (and thus the bigger the changes) the more likely you are for solid chains to break up into almost connected chain segments or to hit a signifigant hole in the record. Especially when you start looking several tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.

The comical part is that whenever a major new missing link is found smack in the middle of a major "hole" - that somehow isn't evidence of evolution. It has half the features of one thing and half the features of something else, but it's somehow not an intermediate form. That new find merely increases the number of "missing links" - now there's a TWO missing links! One on either side of it. I don't know whether to chuckle or to groan.

One of the weaker parts of the tree is the chain between dinsarurs and birds. Even there we have fossils from about a dozen species in the chain. At each step one or more uniquely bird features is introduced and one or more uniquely lizard features is lost. At first we go from a pure lizard to a nearly identical lizard with feathers. The teeth change to a form unique to ancient true birds. Light porous bones are introduced. The arms/wings lengthening and going through several steps. The wrists and claws being lost peice by peice. The spine and tail go through multiple stages into bird forms. The eggs change form along with a change to bird-type nesting habits. The skull changes. The spine-skull attachment reverse from rear mounted to front mounted. The bird-wishbone appears. The development of a huge keel on the sternum to anchor powerful breast muscles. The ribcage changes and articulates with the sternum. The introduction of the single back-pointing bird-toe, and other leg changes. One of the last changes is the complete loss of teeth and the development of the bill. Over a hundred changes in all.

At least a dozen poi

is that people are starting to look like the ones who prosecuted Galileo. They used the Bible as a SCIENTIFIC BOOK (which wasn't meant to be), distorting all science. Geocentrism anyone?

Worse. These creationists want their version to be the truth so much, that they've dismissed carbon-14 testings, astronomy, quantum physics and everything that tells us the universe is older than 6 days, as lies, etc.

I remember a joke in a creationism book: "The answer book", it's a pink one (review and rebuttal).
Student: So, those 6 days could have been 6 microseconds?
Teacher: Yes.
Student: And 6 billion years?
Teacher: Yes.
Student: And 6 days?
Teacher (outraged) SIX DAYS NO!!!!

This ridiculization of science gets me scared at the whole creationism.

Now, on the other hand, I have something against Darwinian Evolution. I find it hard to believe that mere "random mutations" and a couple millions years have managed to create symbiosis and parasitosis. You know, an organism depending upon another (and possibly supporting it).

Take a look at the discovery channel. Is it really logical that random mutations will make a spider look EXACTLY like a species of ants, use EXACTLY the same pheromones to hunt them? Or how about this little worm which produces some kind of food that ants like? Or how about the orchid Mantis?

Symbiosis means SYNCHRONIZED evolution, and I don't think that random mutations can do that. Furthermore, HOW are these mutations produced?

I rather think that possible mutations are already hardwired into DNA, and there are some ways to trigger specific changes - genetic memory or something... since we don't even know what the rest of "garbage" DNA is, I believe that there are still many mysteries in genetics that we haven't even SUSPECTED.

Evolution? Yes. Darwinism? I doubt it. (And I do believe God designed DNA :)

(Note: As a plus, i'd like to point out Genesis 1:20-27. First God filled the waters with living beings, then birds, then the big sea monsters and all water beings, and then earth animals, reptiles, and wild animals. And lastly, man.

So, this kinda fits evolution, in that life came first from water, then evolved into sea creatures (sharks, fish), then dinosaurs, mammals, and finally mankind. Of course, this is just an interpretation, but I'd say it's quite accurate for a religious book. In any case, interpretation should follow Science, and not the opposite.