Actually salty.... quite the opposite.... Through evolution I can explain God's existence. For myself, it is part of what defines my beliefs. As I put it on this forum long ago:
I've heard this argument also. I see where you are coming from, in a way. As a matter of fact, I just read a really long article on this very subject, Faith with evolution. When I was young, and had every teacher in school teaching evolution, it caused some major issues with me. I was being taught one thing in the Church and another in the schools. I spent many, many hours searching for answers. At one point I tried to rationalize it by thinking that "who are we to say how long a day was to God?" one day could have been thousands of years for him. Creation is explained by using days as a time frame. I just told myself that maybe we shouldn't think of it as days, just periods of time. Of course my pastor disagreed with this logic. Over time and with more soul searchinig, I do also. I believe that from dust, God created Adam. What wasn't there was now there. For me, the Bible doesn't leave any room for an evolutionary process.
And that's cool. I believe in God and the evolutionary process. And on those same lines I don't think anyone should attack you for your views and vice versa.
I think this is a crucial point. I firmly believe that organisms that are sophisticated enough to reproduce in such a manner that allows them to adapt to their environment were unquestionably the work of a supreme being, namely God. Some people get entirely too offended that others don't want to interpret the Bible literally, so much so that they assume the others are denying God's existence. That is off-base, to put it mildly. I don't have time to dissect every ridiculous sentence in your article, salty, as I am leaving town soon. But let's examine a few of them that jumped out at me. These statements prove that the author clearly has very limited knowledge of the dynamics of natural selection. He seems to have an inherent misunderstanding of the basic idea of it. The theory of evolution/natural selection does not assert that the homosapien body continually modifies itself so as to perfect itself. The traits that were passed on through the selection process were mutations which were imperative for the survival of the particular species, not comfort or convenience. Let's say, for example, Eskimos had to have fur to keep them warm and thus, alive(which they obviously do not). Eons ago, the only Eskimos that would have survived and, therefore, procreated, would have been ones whose genotype mutated in such a way as to give the body a coat of fur. If that was a dominant gene, it would have continued to get passed on, while the number non-mutating specimen would have slowly diminshed from the gene pool. Over time, the 'fur gene' would have dominated the gene pool, until almost all Eskimos were born with fur. However, Eskimos have proven quite sufficient in surviving without the need for fur on their body. That's why Eskimos do not have fur. Same goes for the human skin example. We simply do not need reflective skin to survive. I wonder why he offers nothing at all to substantiate thjs iron-clad claim. Reading and information are abundant on the Big-Bang Theory, it would have been easy for him to find material if he was so sure that he could debunk it. It is widely agreed upon by astro-physicits that the walls of the universe are still expanding. This expansion is thought to have been propogated by the 'bang', which sent unheard of amounts of light engergy into the primordial soup. Brainwashing? Examing and drawing conclusions from scientific evidence is considered 'brainwashing?' I wonder how he feels about people believing in something that has no proof because they fear an eternity of misery and suffering? I guess, then, we'll just have to completely do away with the fields of medicine and engineering, since they're only breeding grounds for brainwashing. Crap, sucks for me. I don't know what's with this silly 'communist' bit, either. We are not, nor will we ever be, a communist country. I suppose he feels that perhaps we will become communist if children continue to learn about evolution? That is one of the silliest, most feebly-based articles I've ever read against evolution. Did that come from someones blog or something? I can understand why the author left his name off of it.
Most atheist jump at the oppritunity to attack a Christian. I think that it is some sort of defense mechanism. Most Christians would like to avoid an argument and move on. I even tried begging out of this whole conversation. I suppose it's the Marine in me that won't let me back down from a fight. Even if we are using a keyboard as weapons.
I hear ya. I even saw a column where a newspaper, a real live US newspaper said it was "Time to throw the Christians to the lions." It's become in-vogue to hate Christians. I don't consider myself a know-it-all of Christian faith. I know what I believe in most of time, I question things like everybody else but it all falls back to what I believe. You ever read a book called "Faith and Practice" by Frank Wilson? For me, it helped to answer many of the questions people like me have. I know what's right but sometimes my mind can't fathom the truth of faith. It helped to put many of the questions to rest.....not necessarily the state you're in I know, but it was mine and I think many people have the same thoughts. I was drawn to the truth but couldn't fathom how to logically reason it. Hard to explain I guess. Keep up the fight.
