Do you believe in evolution? (Christians vote only please)

Galvasean

Sorry about the delay. Now to set the record straight i only want Christians to vote because I don't want the A&As skewing the results. The ppurpose of this poll is to see what percentage of our Christians believe in evolution.

Also for the record if you vote 'yes' you are only stating in your belief of evolution as in species changing over time. This poll has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the big bang etc

If anyone has any questions or needs clarification on something(in case I'm being too vague) please don't hesitate to ask.

Oh and lets try to keep the heated debating to the 'superthread'.

I'm sure many of you have voted on a matter already to day, but this one is far more interesting I assure you.

edit: the word in option b) should be 'guided. Sorry.
Also, its a public poll. people will be able to see what you voted for. Again I only did this to stop the A&As skewing the results.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Also for the record if you vote 'yes' you are only stating in your belief of evolution as in species changing over time. This poll has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the big bang etc

Should you also make it clear that it is also not about abiogenesis? Only the evolution of life that already existed. I know that you know this, I know this and most people also know it, but there are a few that seem unable to separate the two. It might be worth reiterating the point.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

I do not believe in evolution at all.

Galvasean, it's an interesting thread. However, for a range of reasons, I think that some people probably don't want to publicly express their views on the matter. (I'm assuming that poll choices are viewable to the public. Apologies if I'm wrong.) To my mind, and in similar manner to a large percentage of the population out there, most Christians - and I realise you have covered such and opinion in your poll - really don't see evolution as an issue that impacts their daily lives. It's certainly not a topic that greatly draws my attention.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

and I realise you have covered such and opinion in your poll - really don't see evolution as an issue that impacts their daily lives. It's certainly not a topic that greatly draws my attention.

Wow, quiet in here......

I think it would still be interesting to see what people think though.

MrP

PDN

I don't care to be honest.

I ticked the "don't know" column. My reasons for doing so are entirely philosophical and theological.

For me, the defining authority is the Bible. Therefore the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis is crucial. If I was convinced that they purported to give a historically and scientifically accurate account then that would be the clincher for me. In that case I would reject evolution as incompatible with the revealed truth of the Bible.

However, if the beginning of Genesis is written as a poetic description, and not intended to be taken as scientifically accurate, then evolution is not ruled out at all. Some passages of the Bible are very poetic. For example, when Scripture speaks about God sheltering us under his wings I do not take that as providing literal anatomical information about God having wings.

I will admit that being a "don't know" bugs me. I'm not a fence-sitter by nature, and much prefer holding a definite opinion on just about everything in life - but I really don't see either interpretation of Genesis as convincing enough to totally rule the other one out.

No doubt some will still be annoyed by, or dismissive, of my views because I still put the Bible on a higher level than science. I am, by nature, a very sceptical person. I place little trust in the pronouncements of teachers, politicians, media outlets, church leaders or scientists. My faith in God and the Bible is, in this respect, entirely atypical of my personality. Everyone who knew me was amazed at my conversion to Christianity. However, my faith in God and the Bible is rooted in the beneficial, literally saving, effect they have had on my life. I trust the Bible in a way that a man once saved from drowning trusts the efficaciousness of lifebelts!

So, I do not see science as infallible or as the 'be-all-and-end-all'. I am grateful for the many benefits I enjoy as a result of scientific research, and I am full of admiration for those who understand such things that are way beyond my field of knowledge. I also see, historically, the role that religious faith has played in the development of science and of rational thinking.

But (and there's always a "but" in these kinds of statements, isn't there?) I am also sceptical of scientists. I think that they are human and, as such, sometimes have an axe to grind. I know of many occasions in the past where scientists have made pronouncements that have turned out to be totally false. Theories that were universally accepted can easily be swept away and replaced by something else. In some cases these now discredited theories could have been used to 'prove' that the Bible was inaccurate. So, if a scientific theory conflicts with my interpretation of the Bible there are two possible options
a) My interpretation of the Bible is wrong (very possible)
b) The scientific theory is wrong (possible, but, if I'm honest, less likely than me being wrong)
Unlike the Carlsberg ads there is no option c) that the Bible is wrong.

Not only am I sceptical of scientists. I am sceptical of posters on these boards who tell me what is science and is not. I get amused when they wax indignant because someone doesn't automatically accept their assertions, and even more so when they accuse someone of lying for not immediately agreeing with them. I recognise that such posters have a big ideological axe to grind, and in many cases I have noticed some of them spreading misinformation, misrepresentation or just being flat out dishonest. Therefore I will not accept something as being true just because an atheist poster insists it is true and demands that I should agree with him.

Where possible, with my limited knowledge and scientific understanding, I try to determine for myself if something is true. I am happy to accept most generally accepted theories as the best explanation of how things are, but I hold to them lightly, aware that they are subject to change. So, take the subject of global warming. It appears as if our activities are messing up the planet, and I have no wish to make things worse. Therefore I buy those ugly chunky light bulbs, try to put the right stuff in my green wheelie bin, and schedule my travel so as to minimise the amount of my air travel. Now, it may turn out that the global warming theories are all wrong, and that these activities of mine were needless and pointless, but better safe than sorry.

Now (at last!) back to evolution. Unlike global warming I don't see that it will benefit or harm anyone else whether I accept the theory of evolution or not. I lack the skill or knowledge to assess the scientific evidence and, since it doesn't really effect me or others, I lack the motivation to spend lots of time reading up on it or grasping it. I would much rather invest my time into things that I see as making a positive difference (being a good husband and father, doing my job of leading churches, organising aid for the developing world etc). I would much rather read a history of Africa, so as to better understand what is happening there and what needs done, than waste my time worrying about how the human race was created all those millions of years ago.

Sorry for the long post. What was intended as a simple explanation has turned into a Barack Obama speech.

AtomicHorror

PDN, given that the bible is to your mind ambiguous on the subject, would you not be inclined to follow the evidence? The bible may be mute about many things that can be measured by humans. On the topic of evolution, we've got a whole lot of very solid information that you can critically examine.

I welcome the poll- was thinking of starting one myself. I know you want to have it public so that the A&A crowd (not to mention the vast atheist-evolutionist conspiracy) won't bias the outcome but I'd be worried that this will also make people hesitant to vote.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

So, I do not see science as infallible or as the 'be-all-and-end-all'. I am grateful for the many benefits I enjoy as a result of scientific research, and I am full of admiration for those who understand such things that are way beyond my field of knowledge.

Science doesn't (or shouldn't) see itself that way either. At the core of scientific philosophy is skepticism and mutability. Nothing is the be all and end all because one good experiment can force us to change our understanding. Science is in fact a method for using reason to decide between conservatism and progressivism. It tends to be quite adversarial.

PDN wrote: »

I also see, historically, the role that religious faith has played in the development of science and of rational thinking.

And of course we accept that, as long as research stands up to repeated scrutiny. It's only when faith conflicts with reason that a scientist finds himself compromised.

PDN wrote: »

But (and there's always a "but" in these kinds of statements, isn't there?) I am also sceptical of scientists. I think that they are human and, as such, sometimes have an axe to grind.

Scientists are also obliged to be skeptical of scientists. A healthy skepticism is good.

PDN wrote: »

I know of many occasions in the past where scientists have made pronouncements that have turned out to be totally false.

Scientific pronouncements or personal ones? Can you provide an example?

PDN wrote: »

Theories that were universally accepted can easily be swept away and replaced by something else. In some cases these now discredited theories could have been used to 'prove' that the Bible was inaccurate.

On the contrary, sweeping aside a theory is quite difficult as a model only becomes so widely excepted by being extremely robust. Generally speaking, a significant challenge to a theory requires data that causes a sizable portion of the scientific community (in a given field) to adopt an alternate theory. Such crises do occur, but are rare and important events in science. They are, in fact, the moments which define the scientific method. They often precede what Kuhn called the "paradigm shift".

PDN wrote: »

So, if a scientific theory conflicts with my interpretation of the Bible there are two possible options
a) My interpretation of the Bible is wrong (very possible)
b) The scientific theory is wrong (possible, but, if I'm honest, less likely than me being wrong)
Unlike the Carlsberg ads there is no option c) that the Bible is wrong.

We'd differ on the existence of point c). Naturally as an agnostic I would say that, however I would in the past also have viewed the Bible itself as an interpretation of the infallible word of God. Words written by humans and reproduced through oral and written tradition over some 4-5 thousand years.

PDN wrote: »

Not only am I sceptical of scientists. I am sceptical of posters on these boards who tell me what is science and is not. I get amused when they wax indignant because someone doesn't automatically accept their assertions, and even more so when they accuse someone of lying for not immediately agreeing with them.

In some cases there have been some very deliberately misleading anti-science comments made here which were rightly labeled as lies. I'm sure there's been some emotive and unjustified rhetoric on the part of the atheist posters, but you shouldn't let that guide your view of any given piece of science. People are flawed in all walks of life. Science recognises that, hence publication and peer-review. The data itself is there for all to consider.

PDN wrote: »

I recognise that such posters have a big ideological axe to grind, and in many cases I have noticed some of them spreading misinformation, misrepresentation or just being flat out dishonest. Therefore I will not accept something as being true just because an atheist poster insists it is true and demands that I should agree with him.

Do you have an example of such deliberate dishonesty? I would have thought you'd taken some punitive action in that case. Whilst a random poster may expect you to take them at their word, a good scientist would never expect that.

PDN wrote: »

Now (at last!) back to evolution. Unlike global warming I don't see that it will benefit or harm anyone else whether I accept the theory of evolution or not. I lack the skill or knowledge to assess the scientific evidence and, since it doesn't really effect me or others, I lack the motivation to spend lots of time reading up on it or grasping it. I would much rather invest my time into things that I see as making a positive difference (being a good husband and father, doing my job of leading churches, organising aid for the developing world etc). I would much rather read a history of Africa, so as to better understand what is happening there and what needs done, than waste my time worrying about how the human race was created all those millions of years ago.

A very fair position. I guess the reason why it has become so important to scientists is specifically because it has come under attack. The fight has widened in context to become an attack on science in general, which is why we think it should be important to a broader audience. We want to demonstrate how robust Evolution is.

PDN wrote: »

Sorry for the long post. What was intended as a simple explanation has turned into a Barack Obama speech.

Good post actually. Apologies for the massive piece-by-piece response.

PDN

I don't care to be honest.

Atomic Horror, you raise some good points, and I will respond properly in a couple of days.

Tomorrow is my 22nd wedding anniversary (and the 14th anniversary of our daughter's death) so I will be away for the weekend with my wife and thinking of more important things than evolution. My only visits to the board over the next two days will be as a moderator carrying out brief search and destroy missions for trolls - no long posts.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

My only visits to the board over the next two days will be as a moderator carrying out brief search and destroy missions for trolls - no long posts.

I'll get me coat.

MrP

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Galvasean, it's an interesting thread. However, for a range of reasons, I think that some people probably don't want to publicly express their views on the matter. (I'm assuming that poll choices are viewable to the public.

The choices are indeed viewable. Although the reason they are is so atheists etc. don't try to skew the results by speaking for the Christian posters.

I'll read everyone else's posts soon, but first lunch!

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Atomic Horror, you raise some good points, and I will respond properly in a couple of days.

Tomorrow is my 22nd wedding anniversary (and the 14th anniversary of our daughter's death) so I will be away for the weekend with my wife and thinking of more important things than evolution.

Well a congratulations and a sincere condolences to you also.

I can't edit my previous post but just realised that I said Popper instead of Kuhn.

Asiaprod

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can't edit my previous post but just realised that I said Popper instead of Kuhn.

Done:)

AtomicHorror

Asiaprod wrote: »

Done:)

Thanks! My ignorance is masked for another day. So long as nobody reads this message or the preceding one.

J C

I don't know if I do or not.

Please clarify what the word 'evolution' means in your voting choices.....does it mean Evolution 'from goo to you via the zoo'.....or is it merely Evolution within Created Kinds?

Fanny Cradock

I do not believe in evolution at all.

I'm pretty certain it is the former, JC.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Please clarify what the word 'evolution' means in your voting choices.....does it mean Evolution 'from goo to you via the zoo'.....or is it merely Evolution within Created Kinds?

Good heavens, he escaped from the other thread!
If by 'goo via the zoo' you mean the concept that animals can change into different types (or kinds, species, genera etc. whatever way you want to say it), then yes I mean 'goo via the zoo'.
But certainly not 'muck to man'.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Good heavens, he escaped from the other thread!
If by 'goo via the zoo' you mean the concept that animals can change into different types (or kinds, species, genera etc. whatever way you want to say it), then yes I mean 'goo via the zoo'.
But certainly not 'muck to man'.

Creationists call it "macro evolution" since they've had to concede that the mechanisms driving evolution have been demonstrated to work to drive variety within species.

Galvasean

There really is no such thing as 'macro-evolution' since its described as the evolution as the evolution of one species to another as opposed to 'micro-evolution' which is evolution within a species. Also, the term 'species' is merely a classification guide invented by us humans which as it turns out is a fairly 'grey area'. The exact moment when an animal stops being one species and becomes another is not properly defined.
But I digress..

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

There really is no such thing as 'macro-evolution' since its described as the evolution as the evolution of one species to another as opposed to 'micro-evolution' which is evolution within a species. Also, the term 'species' is merely a classification guide invented by us humans which as it turns out is a fairly 'grey area'. The exact moment when an animal stops being one species and becomes another is not properly defined.
But I digress..

It is terminology used to suggest a division where none exists. The unfortunate implication of accepting that the mechanisms driving evolution exist is having to accept that if the world is old, evolution caused speciation.

Slav

Yes, but I also believe that human evolution in particular has been guied by God

Voted yes though I don't like the way the question and the poll options are worded. I don't "believe" in evolution, come on, it's a scientific theory. You can "accept", you can "agree with", you can "share the views" but you normally believe in different sort of things.

Poll option 2 again mixes science with theology which does not make a lot of sense. In these days they have very little in common so what's the point of such a union? What theology can give science? How theology can benefit from science? Maybe in the future they'll complement each other, who knows, but not now.

AtomicHorror

Slav wrote: »

Voted yes though I don't like the way the question and the poll options are worded. I don't "believe" in evolution, come on, it's a scientific theory. You can "accept", you can "agree with", you can "share the views" but you normally believe in different sort of things.

I have often been asked, after watching a conference presentation, whether I "believe" the data or the hypothesis that was presented. There's a distinction between faithful belief and scientific belief. Perhaps the use of the word belief is misleading. We do mean "have confidence in" or "accept".

Galvasean

Slav wrote: »

Voted yes though I don't like the way the question and the poll options are worded. I don't "believe" in evolution, come on, it's a scientific theory. You can "accept", you can "agree with", you can "share the views" but you normally believe in different sort of things.

Poll option 2 again mixes science with theology which does not make a lot of sense. In these days they have very little in common so what's the point of such a union? What theology can give science? How theology can benefit from science? Maybe in the future they'll complement each other, who knows, but not now.

Fine, "Do you think that the Darwinian theory of evolution is correct?"
Is that any better?
Seriously, I'm not trying to pull anyone on phrasing here. I just wanted to get some kind of consensus.