Fear of Evolution

[That'sWhatItSays]

Well, you can't just play with genetic material without knowing where it came from. Does "micro-evolution" exist? Certainly, scientists have done a wonderful job of showing its process. Does "macro-evolution" exist? That is where creationists want to focus the debate. Evolution is not merely about the evolution of the species, it has to be about the evolution and genesis of life. As we know from our childhood indoctrination into "primordial slop", the message of evolution certainly does entail the history of the universe. The story has to deal with the concept of contingency, or it's a cheat.

[Zadig]

There is no difference in micro or macro evolution. That's a creationist term. Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolutions over time.

If it's the origins of life aspect of evolution that bothers Christians, that's a non-sequitur because evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. A person can logically believe both that the universe had a creator and that evolution is a fact. The only true conflict is with a Biblical literalist view of the creation stories and evolution.

[dramaturge]

Fundamentalists fear evolution for two reasons:
1) They need a 100% literal Bible.
2) They've been told and told and told that if Genesis is not 100% literal, then how can the death and resurrection of Christ be literal?
And since no dissent or debate is allowed, these two things are never analyzed for whatever value they may or may not have. Thus, they've created a house of cards that will crumble if they admit that evolution might be a viable idea. Thus, fear of evolution.

[That'sWhatItSays]

Micro could be defined as natural selection within the natural genetic order of a particular species, such that at some point a particular characteristic which might have existed within a population is no longer existent.

Macro, of a necessity, involves radical changes in the available genetic order of a species, and there are any number of theories as to how that happens. Perhaps you are correct that only creationists use the term, but I think it is fair to use, since they are describing two things, one of which is observable and the other of which is theoretical.

And Zadig, you are being disingenuous. Everyone knows that the tale of evolution, based on the logical principle of contingency alone, must deal with the origins of life. The story of evolution tells us that life in its simplest form appeared on the earth 4.5 billion years ago, as we need that amount of time in order to make the story plausible.

Yes, drama, the Christian (not just fundamentalist) house of cards falls without a literal Genesis 1 and 3. I see no reason to trust Jesus, or Paul, or the writer of Luke if Adam was not the first man. I will just stick to the study of Philosophy or maybe nihilism. I have no need to dress up Christianity when it is so preposterous as to deny the reality of man's origins for a faerie tale. The only reason that some Christian leaders do it is because they make their living off of Christianity, and thus cannot deny the faith entirely (which they probably should do if they are intellectually honest).

[Zadig]

(06-30-2012 03:00 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  Fundamentalists fear evolution for two reasons:
1) They need a 100% literal Bible.
2) They've been told and told and told that if Genesis is not 100% literal, then how can the death and resurrection of Christ be literal?
And since no dissent or debate is allowed, these two things are never analyzed for whatever value they may or may not have. Thus, they've created a house of cards that will crumble if they admit that evolution might be a viable idea. Thus, fear of evolution.

That I understand. If someone believes the Bible is the literal inspired word of God, obviously, there's a conflict with evolution. What I don't understand are people who claim not to be fundamentalists, who still have a fear of evolution.

[Zadig]

(06-30-2012 03:46 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Micro could be defined as natural selection within the natural genetic order of a particular species, such that at some point a particular characteristic which might have existed within a population is no longer existent.

Macro, of a necessity, involves radical changes in the available genetic order of a species, and there are any number of theories as to how that happens. Perhaps you are correct that only creationists use the term, but I think it is fair to use, since they are describing two things, one of which is observable and the other of which is theoretical.

Species are just how we categorize. They aren't some magical leap from one thing to the next. It's all gradual. Once a series of changes are met, we call it something else.

And the change is not theoretical. It can be seen throughout the entire animal kingdom.

[That'sWhatItSays]

(06-30-2012 03:57 PM)Zadig Wrote:  And the change is not theoretical. It can be seen throughout the entire animal kingdom.

I thought punctuated equilibrium was theoretical? I remember reading that most evolutionists did not like it, but that Stephen Jay Gould was too highly respected to contradict. I don't know, I don't read much about it anymore.

[Zadig]

Macro evolution and punctuated equilibrium aren't the same thing. And yes PE is theoretical.

[dramaturge]

(06-30-2012 03:55 PM)Zadig Wrote:  

(06-30-2012 03:00 PM)dramaturge Wrote:  Fundamentalists fear evolution for two reasons:
1) They need a 100% literal Bible.
2) They've been told and told and told that if Genesis is not 100% literal, then how can the death and resurrection of Christ be literal?
And since no dissent or debate is allowed, these two things are never analyzed for whatever value they may or may not have. Thus, they've created a house of cards that will crumble if they admit that evolution might be a viable idea. Thus, fear of evolution.

That I understand. If someone believes the Bible is the literal inspired word of God, obviously, there's a conflict with evolution. What I don't understand are people who claim not to be fundamentalists, who still have a fear of evolution.

I think they're likely still stuck in a version of #2--that the redemptive work of Christ is dependent upon a literal, 6-day creation.

Edit to say: I understand that not all YECers are afraid of discussing evolution or acknowledging it's possibilities. I'm a theistic evolutionist at this point, but I understand the thoughts behind belief in creationism, etc. My main issues are with YECers who fear evolution--who would question my salvation based on the fact that I'm not a YEC. I just wanted to say that I realize there are YECers on the board, and most of those here would never question my salvation or my faith based on my view of origins. But there is a group of non-fundy YECers who still seem to be in mindset #2 and do question the faith of Christians who are not YECers. They do fear evolution. And I think their fear of evolutionary science leads them to be unreasonably skeptical and fearful of other sciences as well. And that's not good.