Evolution

[Dan Henderson]

(2) God did not, in fact, design heterosexuality into the way the world was created.
- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.

Therefore, monogamous homosexual marriage does not appear to violate the great command by which Christians determine sinful and righteous behavior and "natural design" as a fall-back reasoning is faulty, ultimately failing on both of its central claims.

Back for a limited engagement for a point-of-order, assuming "facts" not supported by scientific evidence:
- Even the Theory of Evolution presupposes a single common ancestor for all life on earth
- Evolution is still a Theory, you produce here a dogmatic statement about Evolution (the popular view), it does not reflect scientific thought.
- Some studies suggests that all humanity has a single African male as a common ancestor, then there is the scientific branch that considers the Mitochondrial Eve.

Regarding species:
-How many species did God create in his own image? Was it "some 2000"? If the answer is one, then "nature" does not support your argument for homosexual activity among humans.

Again, only points-of-order. I still see no basis for conversation or debate.

[Benjamin Burch]

Back for a limited engagement for a point-of-order, assuming "facts" not supported by scientific evidence:
- Even the Theory of Evolution presupposes a single common ancestor for all life on earth
- Evolution is still a Theory, you produce here a dogmatic statement about Evolution (the popular view), it does not reflect scientific thought.

So, I guess we'll be acting as though gravity isn't true now, since, you know, it's only a theory.

- Some studies suggests that all humanity has a single African male as a common ancestor, then there is the scientific branch that considers the Mitochondrial Eve.

Sure. Agreed. This has nothing to do with what I said. What I communicated was the basis of male-female marriage based upon God's creation of one male and one female to marry each other as the model.

Regarding species:
-How many species did God create in his own image? Was it "some 2000"? If the answer is one, then "nature" does not support your argument for homosexual activity among humans.

You seem to be misusing "image of God" here. The "image of God" directly relates to our ability to image the divine through righteous love. See this post.

Again, only points-of-order. I still see no basis for conversation or debate.

Unfortunately they didn't really add any order.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Back for a limited engagement for a point-of-order, assuming "facts" not supported by scientific evidence:
- Even the Theory of Evolution presupposes a single common ancestor for all life on earth
- Evolution is still a Theory, you produce here a dogmatic statement about Evolution (the popular view), it does not reflect scientific thought.
- Some studies suggests that all humanity has a single African male as a common ancestor, then there is the scientific branch that considers the Mitochondrial Eve.

Regarding species:
-How many species did God create in his own image? Was it "some 2000"? If the answer is one, then "nature" does not support your argument for homosexual activity among humans.

Again, only points-of-order. I still see no basis for conversation or debate.

The theory of evolution does not presume a single common ancestor. At least none of the theories I have studied did, and I studied most of them, well I think I did as I had several graduate courses in evolution.

Science assumes everything is a theory after it has passed the hypothesis stage (been tested and not disproved), yet it remains theory so as not to quash the possibility of being disproved. It cannot be a theory if it is NOT disprovable.

The most recent research suggests that humans arose in several different locales simultaneously (which has been the topic of a thread in this forum, the thread is here. If you want to skip the thread and just go straight to the article which started it just click here.

So, your points of order are not points at all.

[Dan Henderson]

The theory of evolution does not presume a single common ancestor. At least none of the theories I have studied did, and I studied most of them, well I think I did as I had several graduate courses in evolution.

Science assumes everything is a theory after it has passed the hypothesis stage (been tested and not disproved), yet it remains theory so as not to quash the possibility of being disproved. It cannot be a theory if it is NOT disprovable.

The most recent research suggests that humans arose in several different locales simultaneously (which has been the topic of a thread in this forum, the thread is here. If you want to skip the thread and just go straight to the article which started it just click here.

So, your points of order are not points at all.

Paul, you might want to re-familiarize yourself with most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, for male) and Universal Common Ancestor, the latter regarding Darwinism (Evolution via Natural Selection). These are just off the top of my head.

You might also look in the paleontology and genetics discliplines for a more detailed look both areas of study use common ancestry as an assumed fact for the basis of their respective research.

And I almost forgot Pathology.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, you might want to re-familiarize yourself with most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, for male) and Universal Common Ancestor, the latter regarding Darwinism (Evolution via Natural Selection). These are just off the top of my head.

You might also look in the paleontology and genetics discliplines for a more detailed look both areas of study use common ancestry as an assumed fact for the basis of their respective research.

And I almost forgot Pathology.

I was never really Darwinian, while I think he had a good contribution I think that Stephen Jay Gould had more to say. And I really like the ideas of Sir Fred Hoyle, which never found any favour amongst biologists, yet his evidence is quite compelling. Not really enough to move it from the hypothesis stage.

I was, once, a molecular cell biologist and am familiar with the concept of common ancestor, just don't think that it necessarily implies a single organism and THE ancestor of all life. Even Natural Selection talks about things such as wings developing at different times from different species, that not are all traced back to a single instance. The common ancestor is a statistical convenience, I think.

Edited to add: You may well be more current than I am, I left the field 10 -12 years ago.

[Dan Henderson]

I was, once, a molecular cell biologist

I remember from an earlier post and the only reason I went after you I hang around pathologists whenever possible. I understand very little of what they say but always learn something new (new to me anyway). They are almost never entrenched in their thought process, rather open to new discovery.

This is a "How big is the universe" for me. If you tell me the universe started with (fill in your answer here), I always ask, Where did that come from? Pathologists are some of the few I've found smart enough to be able to say "I don't know"

[Todd Erickson]

Paul, you might want to re-familiarize yourself with most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, for male) and Universal Common Ancestor, the latter regarding Darwinism (Evolution via Natural Selection). These are just off the top of my head.

You might also look in the paleontology and genetics discliplines for a more detailed look both areas of study use common ancestry as an assumed fact for the basis of their respective research.

And I almost forgot Pathology.

I.e, you get to define particularly which theories of evolution Ben is talking about here, and how they can be discussed. That must work nicely for you!

[Dan Henderson]

I.e, you get to define particularly which theories of evolution Ben is talking about here, and how they can be discussed. That must work nicely for you!

No, just anecdotal examples (when you say "all", "nothng" or state something as if it were fact, the opponent has to only prove one case in which your statement is not true), I don't wish to take the time to do an annotated bibliography for you.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I remember from an earlier post and the only reason I went after you I hang around pathologists whenever possible. I understand very little of what they say but always learn something new (new to me anyway). They are almost never entrenched in their thought process, rather open to new discovery.

This is a "How big is the universe" for me. If you tell me the universe started with (fill in your answer here), I always ask, Where did that come from? Pathologists are some of the few I've found smart enough to be able to say "I don't know"

Our society and the pathologist society would meet up every few years and share meeting/conference space. Always a good party with them. So many researchers were studying pneumocystis carinii at the time. Learned a lot from them.

[Paul DeBaufer]

No, just anecdotal examples (when you say "all", "nothng" or state something as if it were fact, the opponent has to only prove one case in which your statement is not true), I don't wish to take the time to do an annotated bibliography for you.

That's true, right off the traditional square of opposition

[Daniel Hamlin]

- Even the Theory of Evolution presupposes a single common ancestor for all life on earth

Not necessarily.

- Evolution is still a Theory, you produce here a dogmatic statement about Evolution (the popular view), it does not reflect scientific thought.

Theories don't get promoted to "law". Theories must explain multiple lines of evidence across multiple disciplines. Consequently, theories have much greater explanatory power.

- Some studies suggests that all humanity has a single African male as a common ancestor, then there is the scientific branch that considers the Mitochondrial Eve.

This is wrong. Here is an explanation of what Mitochondrial Eve actually is:

http://biologos.org/blog/understandi...hromosome-adam

If the answer is one, then "nature" does not support your argument for homosexual activity among humans.

Physiologically we aren't much different than other mammals or other organisms in general. I see no reason why a person couldn't be born with a proclivity toward homosexuality.

EDITED TO ADD:
I see now that this is a split from the homosexuality thread, so my above response may not be applicable for this conversation since it's not really within the context of the original discussion.

Carry on.

[Jim Chabot]

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum toniht.

We are doing a study on worldview presented by Chuck Colson and Rick Warren. Tonights subject was Darwinism and why it's not strictly science.

Rick made an interesting comment that a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and evolution are not compatible, it's one or the other. Should natural selection be true and same sex attraction be genetically presupposed, homosexuality woul have been eliminated by natural selection many, many years ago.

[Paul DeBaufer]

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum toniht.

We are doing a study on worldview presented by Chuck Colson and Rick Warren. Tonights subject was Darwinism and why it's not strictly science.

Rick made an interesting comment that a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and evolution are not compatible, it's one or the other. Should natural selection be true and same sex attraction be genetically presupposed, homosexuality woul have been eliminated by natural selection many, many years ago.

That just proves a misunderstanding of the science, but Colson and Warren aren't scientists. So, what's the point?

[Wilson Deaton]

Back for a limited engagement for a point-of-order, assuming "facts" not supported by scientific evidence:

I've said it before and I'll say it again (I may even say it every time a thread on the topic shows up here):

The anti-evolution Christians need to stop trying to argue the science. Their approach ought to be,"We believe it is a faith issue. Science can 'prove' that virgin births don't happen and that resurrections are impossible but we believe both those things anyway. We see creation/evolution the same way. Regardless of what science proves, we believe this..."

Wilson

[Dan Henderson]

I've said it before and I'll say it again (I may even say it every time a thread on the topic shows up here):

The anti-evolution Christians need to stop trying to argue the science. Their approach ought to be,"We believe it is a faith issue. Science can 'prove' that virgin births don't happen and that resurrections are impossible but we believe both those things anyway. We see creation/evolution the same way. Regardless of what science proves, we believe this..."

Wilson

This is not my thread (despite it saying I started it) and it is not germaine to the topic I originally alluded to. However, I will comment one more time on this subject.

Science is a general term for a plethora of discliplines too big for any of us to cover intelligently, to include our resident former micro-biologist. Science covers way more topics than religion. We can't even make accurate generalized comments about religion. We should not be trying to make generalized comments about a topic most of us cannot allude to in even one specialty.

I can make some generalized statements however. Evolution ans well as most other sciences, including the hard sciences, have faith elements as a part of their structure, its called a hypothesis. Most research includes assumptions as the basis for the direction of the research. Otherwise, there would be no reason to research. The main difference is that a scientist is supposed to attempt to disprove the hypothesis while apologists are always attempting to prove their beliefs.

Here is a little one question science quiz for you. What is the popular name for the Higgs Boson particle? Bonus trick question, When was it discovered?

Science CAN prove virgin births and science CAN prove ressurection (both have been observed in nature). However, neither has been observed by modern observers among humans. Nat Geo and others frequently publish articles on these topics around Christmas and Easter respectively.

Be very careful about making absolute statements, as I've said before, I only need to prove your statement false once. Its best to refer to things you don't know anything about in a less precise manner.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is not my thread (despite it saying I started it) and it is not germaine to the topic I originally alluded to. However, I will comment one more time on this subject.

Science is a general term for a plethora of discliplines too big for any of us to cover intelligently, to include our resident former micro-biologist. Science covers way more topics than religion. We can't even make accurate generalized comments about religion. We should not be trying to make generalized comments about a topic most of us cannot allude to in even one specialty.

I can make some generalized statements however. Evolution ans well as most other sciences, including the hard sciences, have faith elements as a part of their structure, its called a hypothesis. Most research includes assumptions as the basis for the direction of the research. Otherwise, there would be no reason to research. The main difference is that a scientist is supposed to attempt to disprove the hypothesis while apologists are always attempting to prove their beliefs.

Here is a little one question science quiz for you. What is the popular name for the Higgs Boson particle? Bonus trick question, When was it discovered?

Science CAN prove virgin births and science CAN prove ressurection (both have been observed in nature). However, neither has been observed by modern observers among humans. Nat Geo and others frequently publish articles on these topics around Christmas and Easter respectively.

Be very careful about making absolute statements, as I've said before, I only need to prove your statement false once. Its best to refer to things you don't know anything about in a less precise manner.

Ahhh the elusive God particle. The one that the math says should be there but has yet to be discovered.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is not my thread (despite it saying I started it) and it is not germaine to the topic I originally alluded to. However, I will comment one more time on this subject.

Science is a general term for a plethora of discliplines too big for any of us to cover intelligently, to include our resident former micro-biologist. Science covers way more topics than religion. We can't even make accurate generalized comments about religion. We should not be trying to make generalized comments about a topic most of us cannot allude to in even one specialty.

I can make some generalized statements however. Evolution ans well as most other sciences, including the hard sciences, have faith elements as a part of their structure, its called a hypothesis. Most research includes assumptions as the basis for the direction of the research. Otherwise, there would be no reason to research. The main difference is that a scientist is supposed to attempt to disprove the hypothesis while apologists are always attempting to prove their beliefs.

Here is a little one question science quiz for you. What is the popular name for the Higgs Boson particle? Bonus trick question, When was it discovered?

Science CAN prove virgin births and science CAN prove ressurection (both have been observed in nature). However, neither has been observed by modern observers among humans. Nat Geo and others frequently publish articles on these topics around Christmas and Easter respectively.

Be very careful about making absolute statements, as I've said before, I only need to prove your statement false once. Its best to refer to things you don't know anything about in a less precise manner.

I'll even go you one better. There was more to know about my organism than I could ever speak on and it was a protozoan. I studied one small aspect, one of the several signal transduction pathways that led to a specific transformation event. But I did spend my free time in the physics department hanging with my friend the theoretical particle physicist and studying quantum theory, a guy has to have a hobby.

[Dan Henderson]

Ahhh the elusive God particle. The one that the math says should be there but has yet to be discovered.

Yes! Though you were't supposed to be the one to answer. Entire discliplines are researching AND making discoveries based on the assumption that this particle exists. Yet even though they are making discoveries based on the assumption of its existence, it has not actually been observed.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yes! Though you were't supposed to be the one to answer. Entire discliplines are researching AND making discoveries based on the assumption that this particle exists. Yet even though they are making discoveries based on the assumption of its existence, it has not actually been observed.

Reminds me of Percival Lowell and Pluto (I do not accept its down grade )

[Wilson Deaton]

Be very careful about making absolute statements, as I've said before, I only need to prove your statement false once. Its best to refer to things you don't know anything about in a less precise manner.

Guy watching a baseball game with a group of other guys: "Man he just can't throw a strike tonight."
That guy in every crowd: "Actually, in the last inning he threw two called strikes."

Dan, in this thread, you are being, "that guy in every crowd."

You can point to whatever scientific "proof" you want but on a functional, practical level we Christians believe that the virgin birth was a miraculous event that isn't explainable by science. The same is true for the resurrection (of which Christ was the first fruit).

We Christians BELIEVE in that resurrection without needing science to prove it is possible. (Actually, I will even go on record and say that science has still NOT PROVED the kind of virgin birth or the kind of resurrection I'm talking about!)

Therefore, I stand by my assessment that Christians who believe that Genesis must be interpreted literally should be content stating they believe what they believe about creation, without feeling the need to try to support their belief using science.

Wilson

[Wilson Deaton]

Yes! Though you were't supposed to be the one to answer.

Believe it or not, I too, would have said, "God particle." Contrary to your apparent belief, all we preachers aren't illiterate, ignorant hicks.

Wilson

[Dan Henderson]

Believe it or not, I too, would have said, "God particle." Contrary to your apparent belief, all we preachers aren't illiterate, ignorant hicks.

Wilson

I hope you were joking. I would have said most preachers ...

I did not refute what we believe about the Virgin Birth or the Ressurection. I refuted Ben's inapproprate call to science to support his position. And, I refuted your false precision when refering to science fields.

[Hans Deventer]

This is not my thread (despite it saying I started it) and it is not germaine to the topic I originally alluded to. However, I will comment one more time on this subject.

That's correct. However, this thread was diverted from the original one since you didn't want to engage in the topic that was discussed on that forum, for good reason, and this was indeed a different topic. Happy to serve!

[Benjamin Burch]

I hope you were joking. I would have said most preachers ...

I did not refute what we believe about the Virgin Birth or the Ressurection. I refuted Ben's inapproprate call to science to support his position. And, I refuted your false precision when refering to science fields.

I don't think it was inappropriate at all.

[Scott Moseley]

I think the theory of Evolution is full of holes but I once held it as true. I don't anymore. I believe that parts of the theory are right on. The part about organisms and species adapting to their environment and changing over time, but I still cant bridge the cross species jump: a fish to a lizard, a lizard to a bird, etc. I am stating this not to debate (..no need for that ) but just to note where I personally am coming from.

My question is: within the Body of Christ (the church) why should it matter how one interprets the data around him how Man came to be so long as the believer believes that he/she was created by God, is unique, is special, and was not just a product of chance. For Evolution to have occurred the Hand of God most assuredly must have been in play as the odds of randomly forming something from nothing to create such a complex systematic universe from the cell level on up are astonishingly, preposterously, extraordinarily, unfathomably, outrageously, incalculable. I see God's hand all over nature and in his design and I don't buy TToE entirely at all. But why does that matter? to you if you believe in Evolution or those who Don't ? I just really don't get the anxiety the two sides hold. It may be simplistic, but to me I just doesn't really matter if the universe was formed in 6 days or 6 kajillion days as long as we Believe God made it happen.

I happen to believe that God formed all the species and the earth.. Continental drift happened along with other catastrophes and separate species developed that adapted and changed and migrated (if they could). I Don't feel threatened if you think otherwise or believe we came from a branch of African chimps... If you believe God worked his miracle that way Fine. Come let us reason together. Why a divide?

[Jim Chabot]

That just proves a misunderstanding of the science, but Colson and Warren aren't scientists. So, what's the point?

Perhaps, yet the science isn't what is important. They were speaking upon beliefs, I believe that these two are well qualified to speak on this.

The issue for me is the arrogance of a science community unwilling and apparently incapable of bringing their science to folks in an understandable and cogent way. Sorry, but the science just isn't believable. Whenever simple questions of logic arise, the "scientists" hide behind complexity and criticism of the questioners.

In any case, I offered my post as a humorous aside. I don't see a need to defend creationism and intelligent design, rather it is the Darwinist's who are the interlopers and pretenders to the throne. They cannot adequately explain themselves and yet they really need to if they expect others to engage them in cogent fashion.

For those who see evolution as a theory with promise, fine, no problem. Please forgive those of us who see this in a different light, and please accept that an air of superiority will generally be met with just a touch of derision. I've found that this isn't something where we are able to actually discuss the merits, those who trust the science insist upon taking the discussion into the infinitesimal details that form questions regarding creationism while not bringing veracity to Darwin, and those of us on the other side just aren't ready to speak to the nit picking details until our larger questions are answered. We cannot decide upon a field in which to play, thus there will be no "game."

[Paul DeBaufer]

Perhaps, yet the science isn't what is important. They were speaking upon beliefs, I believe that these two are well qualified to speak on this.

The issue for me is the arrogance of a science community unwilling and apparently incapable of bringing their science to folks in an understandable and cogent way. Sorry, but the science just isn't believable. Whenever simple questions of logic arise, the "scientists" hide behind complexity and criticism of the questioners.

In any case, I offered my post as a humorous aside. I don't see a need to defend creationism and intelligent design, rather it is the Darwinist's who are the interlopers and pretenders to the throne. They cannot adequately explain themselves and yet they really need to if they expect others to engage them in cogent fashion.

For those who see evolution as a theory with promise, fine, no problem. Please forgive those of us who see this in a different light, and please accept that an air of superiority will generally be met with just a touch of derision. I've found that this isn't something where we are able to actually discuss the merits, those who trust the science insist upon taking the discussion into the infinitesimal details that form questions regarding creationism while not bringing veracity to Darwin, and those of us on the other side just aren't ready to speak to the nit picking details until our larger questions are answered. We cannot decide upon a field in which to play, thus there will be no "game."

I was just pointing out that Rick Warren's statement reveals a non-understanding of either the science he was trying to criticize or the orientation he he seems to disagree with. I think that is why instead of attacking, critiquing the science preachers should promote God as Creator that is within their purview and they can speak authoritatively, with expertise. I think that they hurt their point and cause when they simply convey disinformation as real knowledge. Scientists should do the same realizing that theology is a true discipline of which they don't have expertise.

[Kyle Borger]

I'm kind of with Scott on this one. God created. That is what I believe. If you tell me that an inert piece of material exploded all on its own, I will ask you where that material came from. No matter the claim, I still see God as being responsible for whatever we claim happened.

[Jim Chabot]

I was just pointing out that Rick Warren's statement reveals a non-understanding of either the science he was trying to criticize or the orientation he he seems to disagree with. I think that is why instead of attacking, critiquing the science preachers should promote God as Creator that is within their purview and they can speak authoritatively, with expertise. I think that they hurt their point and cause when they simply convey disinformation as real knowledge. Scientists should do the same realizing that theology is a true discipline of which they don't have expertise.

Understandable, yet science does not have an answer for his observation. His understanding of the science isn't at issue.

He did not convey disinformation, not at all. We must remember that science is based upon belief, and that given this equal footing, it is science which needs to provide answers to honest questions. Believers should have the intellectual integrity to require this. Preachers have every right to encourage their congregations to require more from science.

Of course it isn't good to have preachers who are so dogmatic that their minds are closed to anything. While at the same time, preachers who are gullible aren't a positive either. The presentation we have been watching show Rick and Chuck following the middle road showing wisdom and reason. Obviously reason is no stranger to Chuck, he is highly trained and accomplished in this.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Understandable, yet science does not have an answer for his observation. His understanding of the science isn't at issue.

He did not convey disinformation, not at all. We must remember that science is based upon belief, and that given this equal footing, it is science which needs to provide answers to honest questions. Believers should have the intellectual integrity to require this. Preachers have every right to encourage their congregations to require more from science.

Of course it isn't good to have preachers who are so dogmatic that their minds are closed to anything. While at the same time, preachers who are gullible aren't a positive either. The presentation we have been watching show Rick and Chuck following the middle road showing wisdom and reason. Obviously reason is no stranger to Chuck, he is highly trained and accomplished in this.

I think you must have forgotten what you said Warren stated:

Rick made an interesting comment that a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and evolution are not compatible, it's one or the other. Should natural selection be true and same sex attraction be genetically presupposed, homosexuality woul have been eliminated by natural selection many, many years ago.

This is a misrepresentation of the science of evolution. He is portraying as fact, scientific fact, something that the science would not, could not say. This is not a matter of belief. Warren's opinions about sciences are not in any manner equal to those of the actual scientists writing the papers and books as you seem to be implying. The same with scientists thinking that they are theologians. Both err when they think that the realm of the other is within their purview. Of course they can and should hold opinions of the others' work, but their opinions are in no way equal.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

I think the theory of Evolution is full of holes but I once held it as true. I don't anymore. I believe that parts of the theory are right on. The part about organisms and species adapting to their environment and changing over time, but I still cant bridge the cross species jump: a fish to a lizard, a lizard to a bird, etc. I am stating this not to debate (..no need for that ) but just to note where I personally am coming from.

My question is: within the Body of Christ (the church) why should it matter how one interprets the data around him how Man came to be so long as the believer believes that he/she was created by God, is unique, is special, and was not just a product of chance. For Evolution to have occurred the Hand of God most assuredly must have been in play as the odds of randomly forming something from nothing to create such a complex systematic universe from the cell level on up are astonishingly, preposterously, extraordinarily, unfathomably, outrageously, incalculable. I see God's hand all over nature and in his design and I don't buy TToE entirely at all. But why does that matter? to you if you believe in Evolution or those who Don't ? I just really don't get the anxiety the two sides hold. It may be simplistic, but to me I just doesn't really matter if the universe was formed in 6 days or 6 kajillion days as long as we Believe God made it happen.

I happen to believe that God formed all the species and the earth.. Continental drift happened along with other catastrophes and separate species developed that adapted and changed and migrated (if they could). I Don't feel threatened if you think otherwise or believe we came from a branch of African chimps... If you believe God worked his miracle that way Fine. Come let us reason together. Why a divide?

I am not trying to get into a debate here. Last time I did, I was told that I was lying and it got ridiculous enough to drop out of Naznet for awhile. But the reason it does matter to some of us is because if one believes that God used the evolutionary process to create man over millions of years, then there had to be death, dying, suffering, and decay before sin even entered the world. To some of us, that is not consistent with Scriptures (see Romans 5) and leads to a different theology of God's redemptive plan.

Again, I'm not trying to debate this. I'm just trying to let you know why it does matter to some of us, and that's why it continues to be an issue.

[Billy Cox]

Rick made an interesting comment that a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and evolution are not compatible, it's one or the other. Should natural selection be true and same sex attraction be genetically presupposed, homosexuality woul have been eliminated by natural selection many, many years ago.

Warren's comments seem to be predicated on these two notions:

1. That most/all homosexuals would historically 'select' themselves out of the gene pool by never procreating.

2. That a genetic component for homosexual orientation has to be deterministic; i.e. that the offspring of a gay man and a gay woman would be far more likely to be homosexual than the offspring of two straight parents. (even if the gay couple's child was raised by straight parents)

Neither of these ideas has basis in fact, so Warren makes himself look foolish by trying to discredit the theory of evolution by pointing at the continued existence of homosexuals in the human population.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, in this thread, you are being, "that guy in every crowd."

I used to be, Wilson, very much so. Now I only do it when the speaker or writer is insistent in their false precision or accuracy. We have a young man in our Wed Bible studty that constantly gets his stories and Bible references mixed up. Its not his fault, he tries hard, but just can't keep his details straight. No one chastises him. Most of the time we let him speak or our leader will nudge him towards the reference he is trying to get to and then gently move along.

I read a lot, and when I mean a lot, it should be in all caps. For example, in News, I survey Fox, CNN, and MSNBC Drudge Report AND Drudge Retort. Gov't people have this thing called "Early Bird" that draws topics from everywhere. It takes me an hour to look up a word. I've been cought many times just reading the dictionary, so engrossed in learning new words that I have long forgotten which of the words I was trying to look up. I've been blessed with a wonderful memory and an isatiable thirst for knowledged. I have my own weaknesses. One is that I can remember details about an article I've read, but often can't remember where I read it.

So when I say that I have read that a geneticist has concluded, based on his DNA research that everyone currently alive is most likely descended from a single african male, I know I've read it, but finding the article again may be problematic because I don't remember if I saw it in Nat Geo or if I clicked a reference on another article and found it that way. For a guy like me, hyperlinking online can get me across the universe in seconds flat. Its more dangerous than giving me a set of encyclopedias.

I'm asking for conversation with people smart enough to leave the Creation story alone. It is not incompatable with hard science. It is only incompatable with popular dogmatic "scientific thought." Evolution in the popular sense is every bit a Religion and is espoused as such. There are hard science discoveries that point towards some parts of evolution thought. There is an at least an equal amout of scientific discovery that points to creationism.

None of it though. Nether the six-day creationist nor the hard-core evolutionist can tell me how much time trasmired between Gen 2 and Gen 3. No science has not and cannot disproved the creation story. Science cannot even prove or disprove whether or not it happened in 6 literal days.

Leave the creation story alone. Its a non-issue. God said...and it was so. What's so hard about that.

[Jim Chabot]

I think you must have forgotten what you said Warren stated:

This is a misrepresentation of the science of evolution. He is portraying as fact, scientific fact, something that the science would not, could not say.

And we are repeating ourselves. Look, I'm quite comfortable with Warren and Colson's view on this. Should you or anyone else like to point me to answers that would show his conclusion wrong, I'm all ears. Whether it is a misrepresentation of the science is not important to me. I've decided which field we will play on, should you wish to play on another field, there will be no game.

This is not a matter of belief. Warren's opinions about sciences are not in any manner equal to those of the actual scientists writing the papers and books as you seem to be implying. The same with scientists thinking that they are theologians. Both err when they think that the realm of the other is within their purview. Of course they can and should hold opinions of the others' work, but their opinions are in no way equal.

You are correct Warren & Colson are not in the name league as the scientists. For them and for me, this is an interest to which we stake our lives on, and it's part of a greater issue to which we allow control of our lives. So please forgive me when I say that the scientists have the burden of proof here.

Lorie also has a valid point. While it may be the case where evolution is concerned. I can tell you that the flood is something to which I will not be comfortably moved from. Should someone prove to me that the flood did not happen, then I'm gone, Jesus has clearly lied, the Bible is not true and I'm gone. I fully realize that some folks can comfortably reconcile a scripture without a flood, I cannot for logically my life would then be a fools errand. This is too important to trifle with.

[Jim Chabot]

Warren's comments seem to be predicated on these two notions:

1. That most/all homosexuals would historically 'select' themselves out of the gene pool by never procreating.

2. That a genetic component for homosexual orientation has to be deterministic; i.e. that the offspring of a gay man and a gay woman would be far more likely to be homosexual than the offspring of two straight parents. (even if the gay couple's child was raised by straight parents)

Neither of these ideas has basis in fact, so Warren makes himself look foolish by trying to discredit the theory of evolution by pointing at the continued existence of homosexuals in the human population.

I believe that you have accurately captured the notions that appear to be behind his statement. I'm comfortable with his thoughts on this. Probably better if we don't debate who looks foolish here, it's a matter of perspective.

[Wilson Deaton]

Leave the creation story alone. Its a non-issue. God said...and it was so. What's so hard about that.

.... To some of us, that is not consistent with Scriptures (see Romans 5) and leads to a different theology of God's redemptive plan.

... I'm just trying to let you know why it does matter to some of us, and that's why it continues to be an issue.

It would be great if opinions concering creation/evolution were in the nature of "live and let live" as Dan and others have suggested. I just don't think it is that easy.

I agree with Lorie that there are important implications that matter a great deal.

Wilson

[Dale Cozby]

I did spend my free time in the physics department hanging with my friend the theoretical particle physicist and studying quantum theory, a guy has to have a hobby.

I bet you were a real chick magnet in college.

[Paul DeBaufer]

And we are repeating ourselves. Look, I'm quite comfortable with Warren and Colson's view on this. Should you or anyone else like to point me to answers that would show his conclusion wrong, I'm all ears. Whether it is a misrepresentation of the science is not important to me. I've decided which field we will play on, should you wish to play on another field, there will be no game.



You are correct Warren & Colson are not in the name league as the scientists. For them and for me, this is an interest to which we stake our lives on, and it's part of a greater issue to which we allow control of our lives. So please forgive me when I say that the scientists have the burden of proof here.

Lorie also has a valid point. While it may be the case where evolution is concerned. I can tell you that the flood is something to which I will not be comfortably moved from. Should someone prove to me that the flood did not happen, then I'm gone, Jesus has clearly lied, the Bible is not true and I'm gone. I fully realize that some folks can comfortably reconcile a scripture without a flood, I cannot for logically my life would then be a fools errand. This is too important to trifle with.

I don't care one way or the other about Warren's opinion is concerning homosexuality or evolution. But his statement as related is not true. Where as you are agreeing with his conclusion that homosexuality is a choice. I am fine with your holding such an opinion based on your faith and beliefs within your faith. I don't agree, but we already know that. My only issue with Warren's statement is that it is false. It is not necessarily the case that if there were a genetic component to homosexuality it would've died out log ago. Yes, you did decide the field, but then you refuse to play on it and want to play on another. You chose science when you posted a scientific statement on an evolution thread, and that IS the field which I have been playing on. I've said nothing as to Warren and Colson's opinions. I criticized the misinformation they use to justify that opinion/conclusion.

Refuting Warren's contention would be the evolution of altruism in the naked mole rat. Most of the population of these colonies do not reproduce, yet the traits of the workers are carried on and the social behaviour is selected for. The altruism, the giving up of reproducing in the individuals benefits the community and therefore the species. So the altruistic individuals do not need to reproduce to be selected for.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't care one way or the other about Warren's opinion is concerning homosexuality or evolution. But his statement as related is not true. Where as you are agreeing with his conclusion that homosexuality is a choice. I am fine with your holding such an opinion based on your faith and beliefs within your faith. I don't agree, but we already know that. My only issue with Warren's statement is that it is false. It is not necessarily the case that if there were a genetic component to homosexuality it would've died out log ago. Yes, you did decide the field, but then you refuse to play on it and want to play on another. You chose science when you posted a scientific statement on an evolution thread, and that IS the field which I have been playing on. I've said nothing as to Warren and Colson's opinions. I criticized the misinformation they use to justify that opinion/conclusion.

Refuting Warren's contention would be the evolution of altruism in the naked mole rat. Most of the population of these colonies do not reproduce, yet the traits of the workers are carried on and the social behaviour is selected for. The altruism, the giving up of reproducing in the individuals benefits the community and therefore the species. So the altruistic individuals do not need to reproduce to be selected for.

Nope wrong field, we are playing on the theology field or there is no game.

And no, Warren wasn't speaking on homosexuality by choice, he and Colson were speaking on the false notion that Darwinism is science. His point is that on such a large scale, here science is contradicting itself. In order for Christians to take science seriously enough to look at their own theology, science must do much more than better.

I really like what Dan has said here;

Leave the creation story alone. Its a non-issue. God said...and it was so. What's so hard about that.

Once I believe that the resurrection actually happened, the other fantastic claims of the Bible become easy to believe as well. I believe the creation story as written, until proven otherwise. The bar is high, no apologies. While I am interested in science and I read quite a bit that captures my interest. So far the science is insignificant as an agent avaunt creation's story.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Nope wrong field, we are playing on the theology field or there is no game.

And no, Warren wasn't speaking on homosexuality by choice, he and Colson were speaking on the false notion that Darwinism is science. His point is that on such a large scale, here science is contradicting itself. In order for Christians to take science seriously enough to look at their own theology, science must do much more than better.

I really like what Dan has said here;

Not in the quote you provided, he was using evolution to shoot down a genetic component to homosexuality. Maybe in the overall study they were ripping on evolution and Darwin in particular, but NOT in the quote you provided. With such you moved off the theology field and onto the science field. You may think "Rick made an interesting comment that a genetic basis for homosexual attraction and evolution are not compatible, it's one or the other. Should natural selection be true and same sex attraction be genetically presupposed, homosexuality woul have been eliminated by natural selection many, many years ago." is a theological statement, but it is most certainly a scientific statement and an erroneous one at that. This statement does not even try to make a theological statement. I believe you are arguing from a position of having seen all of what they have said, where as I only have the single statement you have provided, and that statement is false. I haven't touched upon creation only an erroneous statement. A statement which does indeed make them look foolish, especially if they are attempting to discredit Darwinism with it.