How Evolution Is Bad For Christianity and Science

There are no creationists who oppose the scientific method, what is that? The method consists of a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification. In cement like volcanic ash, footprints was discovered in 1978, paleontologist Ian Tattersall called a fossil of human behavior, prehistoric walking since it was assumed by the evolutionary time frame to be 3.66 million years old.

However, in 1990, a study challenged that very notion, biomechanics was used and it showed that the tracks i the volcanic ash resembled modern humans, and last year in 2010, another study confirmed as such which said the footprints “walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans.”

So how are things like this, bad for science? Why are researchers continue to question the footprints? Because these particular footprints were discovered in sediments deemed to be too old which makes it enormously complex to the point that even a Darwinist is unable to draw a reasonable conclusion (in his eyes). It would basically mean that modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking!

So these footprints which look like modern humans because they are, an old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s not half duck and half fish no matter what time line it’s in. Likewise evolutionists are creating something in order to fit it in their story which they believe is fact. The footprints would have to come from something half ape from the waist up and half human from the waist down. There is no scientific data that requires such a creature, only in the minds of men who believe in the evolutionary story. This why it’s bad for science.

Another example, one blogger in UC puts it this way…

“Darwinism is the only ‘science’ that has no real evidence, and requires force of law to keep it in public schools. Not to mention a large sum of money from public taxes to keep its ‘religion’ running.”

He is referring to a comment made by Ian Binns, a science education researcher at Louisiana State University, who suggested that Louisiana’s, law passed in 2008 was not accurately describing established scientific theories such as evolution as controversial while “tells our students and teachers that there are problems that there aren’t” and distort their understanding of the nature of science…” Ian Binns, where does it state in the law that evolution is controversial? This particular science educator is misleading the public, here is what the law actually says…

“C.  A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

“D.  This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

The law doesn’t undermined evolution in its ‘theory’ status neither does it label it controversial which is what Ian Binns is suggesting rather it treats it like any other scientific theory that is geared toward the scientific method rather than a religious ideal which requires students to drop their own religious convictions to conform to the teachings of evolution which Ian Binns has in mind with presenting the ‘theory’.

Evolution’s ideal consists of using it as a intelligent designer. Often times it is misused in this way, just recently in science daily, evolution was referred to as a “force that led to multicellularity”. Keep in mind natural selection doesn’t put orders in for the mutation to follow enabling it to obtain new information for better fitness. It’s a totally mindless process, which ones assumes that accidents and errors can design engineering feats (stuff happens) that has only been observed happening with intelligence doing certain engineering feats.

Evolution is bad for science because it goes beyond the scientific method for its story, even greater, the belief in it has caused some educators to use indoctrination for teaching it. No other scientific theory requires such an indoctrination.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “How Evolution Is Bad For Christianity and Science

  1. hey razorswift,

    For your first question, YEC and for your second question, yes I have heard of “Reasons To Believe“. In fact, I have read one of their books, “The Cell’s Design” by Fazale Rana.

  2. Why is Young Earth Creationism bad for Christianity? — Because it chances away potential converts.

  3. There are no creationists who oppose the scientific method, [sic] what is that? The method consists of a systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification [Rest of OED definition was omitted: “of hypotheses”]. In cement [sic] like volcanic ash, footprints was [sic] discovered in 1978, [sic] paleontologist Ian Tattersall called a fossil of human behavior, prehistoric walking [sic] since it was assumed by the evolutionary time frame to be 3.66 million years old.

    However, in 1990, a study challenged that very notion, [sic] biomechanics was used and it showed that the tracks i the volcanic ash resembled modern humans, and last year in 2010, another study confirmed as such [sic] which said the footprints [sic] “walked with weight transfer most similar to the economical extended limb bipedalism of humans.”

    So how are things like this, bad for science? Why are [sic] researchers continue to question the footprints? Because these particular footprints were discovered in sediments deemed to be too old which makes it enormously complex to the point that even a Darwinist is unable to draw a reasonable conclusion (in his eyes). It would basically mean that modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking!

    Even allowing for the grammatical infelicities and turgid prose, what is the point of these three paragraphs? Michael appears to refer to recent findings that bipedalism had existed in the human lineage much earlier than had been previously thought. In what contorted reasoning would this possibly indicate that “modern man descended from an ape-like creature that existed after modern man was already alive and walking”? And how could this possibly imply that “The footprints would have to come from something half ape from the waist up and half human from the waist down”? (What this sentence describes is a creature whose left half is human from head to foot, and whose right half is ape from head to foot. Go ahead; visualize it for yourself.)

    This is pure gibberish. Michael should lay off the home-brew dandelion wine while writing posts.

    Which reminds me. It’s time for a liliko’i cosmo. (Equal parts vodka and liliko’i juice, and a splash of Grand Marnier, with lemon zest). A popular hit at Stella Blue’s in Maui. Kamau!

  4. Yes, by all means lets water down Biblical truth to get more people in the pews. You know the whole miracle thing like the resurrection and the virgin birth turns some people off, since science says that those types of things don’t happen, so I guess we should chuck those too. How about Christ being the only way to salvation, many find that offensive. Lets just get rid of any belief that might potentially keep someone away.

    The job of the church is to proclaim Biblical truth as faithfully as possible it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convert people.

  5. Michael’s title asserts that “Evolution Is Bad For Christianity.” Yet one may dredge his post forever without even finding a reference to Christianity, much less a reason for this statement.

    Michael alleges that “Evolution is bad for science because it goes beyond the scientific method for its story…” However, nothing in his post demonstrates that evolution does in fact go beyond the scientific method. Quite the opposite: Michael describes how the scientific method has been applied to ancient footprints.

    Michael also claims that “No other scientific theory requires such an indoctrination.” Such as anthropomorphic climate change, for example. Or big-bang cosmology, I suppose.

  6. @Michael

    Out of curiosity,…and honestly, I would love for you to answer this question:— If you were to ever become convinced that evolution were true, then: 1) how would you react? 2) how would it affect your faith? and 3) why?

  7. Kris has identified Michael’s fundamental [Pun? Who, me?] problem. Michael has an unshakable faith in the historicity of every event in the Bible: Old testament, New Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, everything.

    He has been forced to believe that if anything in the Bible is not historical, then nothing can be historical. An extreme from of the slippery-slope fallacy. A consequence of evolution is that some of the events portrayed in Genesis could not have been historical.[1] Since the faith is vastly more important to Michael than reality, he feels he must deny evolution in order to preserve his worldview.

    There are many examples of what happens when reality overpowers this worldview. Science blogger Abbie Smith, who was raised as a YEC, reversed course entirely. When undergrad studies in biology convinced her of evolution, she remained true to the dichotomy, and lost all of her faith, becoming a militant atheist; this outcome seems fairly common. Fundamentalist Lauri Lebo became convinced of evolution while covering the Kitzmiller trial for a local newspaper.[2] She made a quarter-turn into agnosticism. Kris, your own reaction seems to have been acceptance of the science while retaining faith.

    The ironic part, of course, is that these parts of the Bible were never understood as historical by the people who heard them when they were written. These ancients would have laughed at literalists as unsophisticated back-country hicks.[3] The early Church fathers cautioned against literalism—Augistine and Origen especially. There was in fact no literalist movement at all until the late 19thC—which, strangely enough was prompted by the increasing availability of, and interest in, science among the general population. That is, science writes in literalistic terms, and its narratives are meant to be understood exactly as written. Increasing literacy rates in the 19thC also made the Bible more accessible to everyone. So, the thinking went, why would the Bible not have been written the same way? This is the classic Whig fallacy[4]

    Finally, we have many examples of devout Christians who do accept evolution. Francisco Ayala comes to mind: A Catholic priest who is a prominent evolutionary biologist. And Ken Miller, prominent in the Kitzmiller trial in Dover.[5] And, of course, Francis Collins

    Michael and other YECs cling to an untenable worldview that has never been historically or theologically justified, and fears that their entire faith depends upon their mistaken belief.

    So it goes.

    ==================

    [1] This is also a consequence of scientific cosmology. And of geology. And paleontology and genetics and atomic physics.

    [2] And later wrote a book about it: The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America (New Press 2008)

    [3] Once again, I trot out Conrad Hyers, The meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (John Knox Press 1984). Not that Michael will read it—even though it is now also available in a Kindle edition from Amazon.

    [4] Sometimes called the “presentist fallacy”—because it interprets records from different times and contexts as though they had been uttered at the present time in the present context.

    [5] And author of Finding Darwin’s God (Harper 2007).

  8. @Michael,

    That is a statement made from pure dogmatism– “Only my interpretation of the Bible is true, or else the whole thing is false.” — Even if evolution is true, it would not follow that the Bible is not divinely inspired. It would only mean that your interpretation is wrong.

    Besides, you didn’t really answer my question. I asked for your actual response: How would it affect YOU if evolution would turn out to be true? Would it make you drop Christianity or Theism, for example?

  9. . . . . . . .How Evolution Is Bad For Christianity and Science

    Michael thinks that stopping evolution would stop the evolution of atheists.

    News flash, Michael. It is creationism that evolves atheists.

  10. @Olorin.

    It was Creationism (especially YEC) that ALMOST made me an Atheist.. Evolution is what saved my theism.

  11. When you have been soaked in literalism all your life by family and social milieu, the shock of discovering reality can be faith-shattering. Some die of it: the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs. I’m lucky; my religion has always encouraged me to use my head as God intended.

  12. Paula Kirby wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on this subject this morning. I penned a comment (as alter ego Quisquid). It’s about 150 comments in.

  13. How can evolution be bad for science when it actually is part of science ? This piece is just sad, Michael. And silly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s