Stump the Christian?

[SteveII]

And that is the issue. If you say that all of the various theories of evolution are scientific theories, that is grossly overstating our knowledge of such things and is just plain untrue and misleading.

What...."various" theories of evolution?

The term evolution is too broad. 

You can mean (1) the process of change over time, (2) the whole "history" from single cell to today (this fossil begat that fossil etc.), or you can mean (3) the actually mechanism -- change over time through natural selection and random mutations--accounting for the diversity all life today.

Which ones of these are theory (in the casual sense of the word) and which are fact? 

[FatAndFaithless]

The scientific theory of evolution is very well-defined and specific. No idea what your problem is with this. And nobody is talking about the 'casual' sense of the word, because we're discussing the scientific theory of evolution.

Science doesn't deal in "facts" in the truth sense, because all science is falsifiable and tentative. If you want flat absolute assertions of truth, head on over to your bible. Scientific understanding of reality is all probabilistic based on the available evidence.

[Regina]

Evolution isn't really a theory anymore, it's as good as solid fact. It was a theory when Darwin first coined the term. Since then we've found a wealth of biological, anthropological and archaelogical evidence that all back it up amazingly. Sure there are still gaps we need to fill in, but it's ignorant to deny it exists or to call it a "theory".

I guess you can call it a theory in scientific context since to some scientists "theory" has different meaning. In everyday usage though, it's not a theory anymore.

[SteveII]

The scientific theory of evolution is very well-defined and specific.  No idea what your problem is with this.  And nobody is talking about the 'casual' sense of the word, because we're discussing the scientific theory of evolution.

So you are saying we have proved #2 and #3? Or is it that #2 and #3 have to be true because there is no acceptable alternate explanation so their truth is therefore extrapolated from #1. 

[FatAndFaithless]

You really have no understanding of evolution, at all, do you?

[Cato]

It depends on the topic whether there is a proper Christian response. Some things are very clear (love your neighbor). Others things are open to interpretation. I think the proper Christian response to science is let the scientist experiment (within the bounds of ethics). Science has no opinions or worldview. It makes no claims. There are only facts. It is when people of science make philosophical statements that there is a problem--then you cross from science into philosophy.  

It's not this cut and dry. I will agree that science has nothing to say philosophically; however, religion doesn't just sequester itself to the philosophical realm. When Christians make statements of fact regarding our existence, science most certainly can and should be used to evaluate the claim. God exists and interferes in our world. There was a global flood. Leprosy can be cured with a couple birds, a bowl and some flowing water. Houses get leprosy. The sun stood still in the sky. The Earth was created 6,000 to 10,0000 years ago. Species were created in their current form.

I also take exception to this idea that philosophy exists separate from science. Science was born and incubated by philosophy. If philosophy is to have anything to say about our existence or have any practical application, it necessarily must be informed by science. Religion and science are incompatible. I think you'll find philosophy to be an only slightly more hospitable environment for religion since it's ideas don't hold up well to philosophical scrutiny either.

I think evolution should be studied. However, I do object to the teaching as fact, that all life has evolved from nothing and everything has a common ancestor. I think the science curriculum should stop at describing what the theories are and how they work and not stray into statements best left to other fields (like philosophy and religion).  

You are free to provide evidence that contradicts evolution. You are also free to propose another theory that supports the evidence at hand. Dismissing it because it contradicts the claims of an ancient religious text doesn't work; seriously sloppy philosophy.  What statements are better left to philosophy and religion?

And while I have not really followed the campaign for creationism in the science classroom, does it really matter? Is this really a disaster as some claim? If you want to discuss other creation stories from other religions, who cares? It might be better for students to understand there are other views. 

Yes, it does matter. Creationism is not science. Creationism should only be discussed in a comparative religion or mythology class.

Can you give me an example of the anti-science stance of the Christian right? I send my daughter to a very conservative Christian college (Grove City College). They have a stellar reputation in the STEM subjects and graduates are snapped up by Fortune 100 companies 4 weeks before graduation. 

From Grove City College's website:

Grove City College is committed to religious freedom and avoids narrow sectarianism, encouraging a diverse student body from a variety of faith perspectives, socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnic heritage.

http://gcc.edu/about/whoweare/faithandfr...eedom.aspx

Many of our finest educational institutions were initially chartered by religious organizations. The point you keep missing, or intentionally side stepping, is that nobody is claiming that all Christians are nut jobs out of touch with reality. Pointing to a respected college with a liberal view of religious freedom and stated aversion to sectarianism does not exonerate unsubstantiated Christian beliefs nor protect Christianity writ large from scrutiny. I am really struggling with why this is so difficult for you to understand.

[robvalue]

The thing about evolution via natural selection is that it totally makes sense, as long as I allow myself to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of generations. It is exactly would I would expect to happen. It would make no sense at all for it to be any other way.

If it doesn't make sense to someone, I'd say chances are they don't understand it. That's not an insult, it is advice to go study it.

[SteveII]

You really have no understanding of evolution, at all, do you?

I don't want to debate evolution. I just want to know your opinion on whether #2 and #3 below are facts or not.

(1) the process of change over time, (2) the whole "history" from single cell to today (this fossil begat that fossil etc.), or (3) the actually mechanism -- change over time through natural selection and random mutations--accounting for the diversity all life today.

[FatAndFaithless]

Again, science doesn't deal in "facts". If you're trying to ask what is the current consensus that is supported by mountains of evidence, then yes, #2 and #3 are the best model we have. "The whole history" is a goddamn gotcha bullshit trap, as you'll point to any single gap or hole and suggest that has implications on the entire theory of evolution. But I'll bite. Yes, the theory of evolution is one of the most substantiated scientific models we have in any regards to any field on any topic.

[SteveII]

Again, science doesn't deal in "facts".  If you're trying to ask what is the current consensus that is supported by mountains of evidence, then yes, #2 and #3 are the best model we have.  "The whole history" is a goddamn gotcha bullshit trap, as you'll point to any single gap or hole and suggest that has implications on the entire theory of evolution.  But I'll bite.  Yes, the theory of evolution is one of the most substantiated scientific models we have in any regards to any field on any topic.

Okay. I am not as sure as you about #2 and #3. Only time and further study will (may) tell. Many Christians will continue to beat on those two points but no one is going to yield because no one has to at this point. I don't find it productive.