[Bob Pr.]

Charles Darwin & Abraham Lincoln both have the same birthday --- 200 years ago.

What's your attitude about Darwin's theory of evolution?

1 -- The most fundamental cornerstone of all biological science

2 -- A useful view that can illuminate some relationships

3 -- A hypothetical theory that seems to explain some things but has yet to be proved

4 -- An erroneous theory that distorts the actual events

5 -- A falsification of the true word of God

Other (please don't vote, just reply & explain)

 

[Mary Jane]

Am I stupid here or what? I can't click on my opinion. I hve to choose my O and then reply it?

 

[BoatDog]

Bob - 1. When I was very little and in grade school, this was a problem for me...my mom asked me What does God look like? Now, from my story books I knew he was a nice looking man in a fedora...but she explained we really don't know what God looks like, just images of his son, and maybe God started out looking like a fish...not sacreligious, just a simple way to incorporate both theories into a little one's brain.

 

[labby]

I believe God created the world as it states in the Bible. However, I do believe that everything has evolved since then to survive.

I do not believe man was once an amoeba or even an ape. Some men are still apes, and not as smart as an amoeba but that's beside the point.

 

[Anne]

I like BoatDog's idea. It would be nice if there could be some sort of common intersection between the two "warring" theories.

So, I guess that would make me a #3?

 

[Jan]

A fundamental cornerstone of all biological science

"The most..." would be a bit much.

I was an adult before I ever heard anyone state that they really believed the earth-created-in-7-days story. My father was a scientist who believed in God & went to church every Sunday, who managed to reconcile the issue by taking the Bible as allegory.

 

[Paddysmom]

I guess I see it the way Laura described. God got the ball rolling and evolution is working the rest of it out. Oh... I do believe we are descended from apes, though.

A blend of the two theories for me.

 

[patm]

-- The most fundamental cornerstone of all biological science

I'm going to put that, because it's the thing I learned and it makes sense (more sense than the theory of God does - to me) I imagine that they've expanded on Darwins Theory since he came up with it. And although you didn't ask, the problem I have with teaching "creatinism" (now know as "intelligent design") is that it isn't a sciencetific theory, and the place they want to teach it is usually in science class. And if they teach that, then they would need to touch on all the other religious views of how the world was formed. ( and I'm not an aethiest, but I am agnostic, and an American)- oh, and it doesn't bother me to think I might be ascended from apes.

 

[sitali]

The most fundamental cornerstone of all biological science.

 

[Nick]

1 and 2, can I do that?

I think it is a (the) cornerstone of biology, but I think science in general is just one method of explaining something. Religion is a different method. I personally don't think the two are mutually exclusive, just different.

Science created names and descriptions to explain things that happen whether we're here or not - gravity, friction, force, names to elements, etc. There's nothing special about it, we created the language, it's not perfect and it's not necessarily true. It's just something we use to try and understand something as complex as the universe, or just our planet. It's something we can use to test our knowledge and explain things that are larger than us.

Religion may be the same way. It may have been created just so we could try and explain what we see. Or science and religion may both be right, just using different words and techniques to attempt to explain things that we see and many things we don't understand.

Some people believe evolution and religion can't possibly co-exist, but I go back to what I said about two different languages. Evolution isn't some god or power that chooses what survives and what does not. It's just a name science gave to the process of genes coming and going. It has nothing to do with perfection, just survival. Like a genetics professor I had explained, it's not that evolution caused orange rabbits to go extinct, it's just that evolution explains why they went extinct. (Orange rabbits probably never existed, but the point is that if they did, they'd be easy targets by their predators).

And I completely agree with Pat regarding the teaching of creastionism in science classes. We don't teach French is Spanish classes. If you want to learn French, take a French class. Science classes should teach science.

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

I guess I blend the two. I do believe God created the earth. In seven *God* days. Not human days. I also believe that there has been some evolution since then--survival of the fittest ensures that happens. I also believe that God designed it to work that way.

So maybe a partial #2?

 

[Rushpuppy]

I believe God created the world as it states in the Bible. However, I do believe that everything has evolved since then to survive.

I do not believe man was once an amoeba or even an ape. Some men are still apes, and not as smart as an amoeba but that's beside the point.

I agree. You can see when looking at some creatures how they have evolved but God is the creator, it all started with him. Oh and what a great sense of humor he has, just look at the Giraffe, Ostrich, Horses (big body, little head), and most of all people. They are fun to watch!

 

[kaisdad]

My first degree is in Archaeology/Anthropology, so No.1!

 

[Bob Pr.]

My view is #1 - the most important foundation of biological science. I don't see any necessary or needed contradiction between science (& Darwin's evolution) and religion.

Science/evolution explains how something happens, religion deals with why.

Science is a tool and many animals use tools, none more so than humans.

IMO, religions deal with giving an acceptable answer as to why something happens (whether Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or that of the Aborigines of OZ, Maori, or any of the American Indian tribes, etc) -- why are we here and morality -- why is this the proper way to treat another, why is this right and that wrong?

When I was an undergrad the Episcopal priest in my church encouraged our large college student group (from 3 colleges: U of Missouri, Stephens & Christian colleges) to enter a UMizzou one act play contest. His previous background was in theater and he condensed Maxwell Anderson's 3 act play "Key Largo" into one act (& considerably improved it).

At a critical point, my character (King McCloud) proclaims everyone is selfish and only looking to preserve their own hides. A woman with him objects and asks her father to answer him; he says, (IIRC)

"Why girl, we're all alone here on the surface of a turning sphere,
cutting a great circle about the sun.
Where this voyage started, we don't know -- nor when it will end.
And that's our challenge -- to take this range of appetites and
build them toward some vision of a god of beauty, unselfishness and truth.
Could we ask better of the mud we are than to accept the challenge,
look up, and search for the godhead?"

I thought at the time, "WOW!", that's something I can believe, thinking at some point I'd outgrow it and replace it with something else. But I never have and probably never will.

 

[justine]

I'm not sure.. I'm probably somewhere in the middle. All of my education tells me its #1, but my personal beliefs end up making it somewhere in the middle, so I also agree with Labby.

 

[Trickster]

First option. No question to me. Evolution ultimately led to the modern theory of genetics, so to deny evolution but accept that genetic variability exists doesn't make sence. Darwins theory didn't go into the nitty gritty (although he touched on sexual selection, heredity of traits, etc.), but he certainly paved the way for modern science.

 

[Bob Pr.]

Trickster said

First option. No question to me. Evolution ultimately led to the modern theory of genetics, so to deny evolution but accept that genetic variability exists doesn't make sense. Darwin's theory didn't go into the nitty gritty (although he touched on sexual selection, heredity of traits, etc.), but he certainly paved the way for modern science

.

A very minor quibble: While Mendel's genetics clarifies how Darwin's evolution works, Mendel's work isn't derived from Darwin. They were completely independent except in the sense that both were 19th century men of science, both driven to understand as completely as possible how the subjects they investigated work and, as it happens, both were working on major foundational issues in biological science and, because they were both correct, their discoveries fit seamlessly together -- each amplifying and illuminating the other.

 

[Trickster]

I thought Gregor Mendel's work came out after Darwins? I know Mendels work was ignored for quite some time (it has been a year since I did evolutionary studies and genetics!). Mendel did the experients with breeding coloured pea plants if I remember correctly.

 

[PhoebeJeebies]

I think I'm #2 or #3. I agree with Labby's statement.
BTW Evolution is a theory, as is Creation...neither can be "proven" since there is no way to go back in time. Neither are more "scientific" than the other because they both rely on historical accounts, and both require faith since it is not possible for us to see things unfold as they have unfolded. It bothers me when people call creation "religious" and evolution "scientific." That just doesn't make sense. It's just 2 different ways of interpreting the same evidence, based upon worldview.

 

[Trickster]

neither can be "proven" since there is no way to go back in time.

What about archaeological records, then?