Poll: Origins of the World and Life

[Karin]

After a couple of interesting conversations with family and others on our holiday, I thought I'd do a poll to find out what the stats are in our hive mind. Since I'm limited to 10 options, I'm putting in other as the tenth, because I can only list so many. (Edited note--I've started a separate one on origins of the universe.)

I put the 3 different ones on evolution in part from these conversations--one of my brothers (a non-scientist) is convinced evolution is fact, but I don't think everyone who subscribes to it is. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1. I'm not sure about how Muslims interpret the Koran, but as I understand it each Muslim is to interpret the Koran themselves (at least, that's what a gentleman I recently had a discussion with told me--he's from western Africa in an area where women don't wear headcoverings. He brought it up because his wife was suprised when his mother came for a visit and wore no headcovering), so I'm putting in just one for that. This isn't to argue, but just to see. Posting is optional, but if you put other it would be interesting to see what that is.

[Daisy]

I'm not seeing the poll??

[Karin]

Wow, you're quick. This must have posted while I was writing the poll! It's there now.

[Novafan]

I fall into the category of:
Evolution is the most plausible explanation.

My husband, on the other hand, believes in:
God authored evolution.

We get along peacefully with our different ideas and we are both sharing our thoughts with our children, encouraging them to listen to and gather information and decide for themselves as they grow.

**I recently discovered a set of 3 wonderful children's books for anyone that needs books on evolution. Send me a PM if you would like to know the titles of the books. :)

[Plaid Dad]

I chose "God authored evolution," as the closest approximation of my understanding (http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp).

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

For me, I see "origin" and "evolution" as two separate issues, particularly when you throw in the word "universe."

Life on Earth changed and *developed* via evolution. Where all the original "stuff" came from? No clue. Not that smart. And don't own a crystal ball.

I think I knew what your intention in asking was -- how did what's here now "get" here. So I answered with the second one, though I do believe evolution is a "fact." But origins? Original origins? Dunno.

[Amy in NH]

I agree with Pam. Origin of the universe and development of life on Earth are two separate issues.
I chose Evolution is a Fact, because it is the only statement on the poll with which I agree.
Too bad there weren't more options or two separate polls.

[GothicGyrl]

And I am with Amy and Pam. ;)

[Karin]

For me, I see "origin" and "evolution" as two separate issues, particularly when you throw in the word "universe."

Life on Earth changed and *developed* via evolution. Where all the original "stuff" came from? No clue. Not that smart. And don't own a crystal ball.

I think I knew what your intention in asking was -- how did what's here now "get" here. So I answered with the second one, though I do believe evolution is a "fact." But origins? Original origins? Dunno.

You're right!!!! Foolish me. :o

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You're right!!!! Foolish me. :o

Not foolish at all.

[Karin]

I chose "God authored evolution," as the closest approximation of my understanding (http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp).

Thanks for the link. Doing these polls is very difficult as there are so many ways people think. But one of the people I was chatting with brought up statistics. I'm not sure how they collect them.

[Barb F. PA in AZ]

Evolution really cannot be described as a fact because a fact refers to a a single event or observation. The theory of evolution takes multiple facts and works them into an overarching explanation of how we came to be. A theory is not a guess or the opposite of a fact. By definition a theory cannot be definitively proven...only more or less supported. For example, we do not say "gravitational fact" but "gravitational theory." Does that mean there are some people who don't believe in gravity? Of course not! It just means gravity is an abstract phenomenon that we must go around the block to describe. Gravity needs an explanation, just like the origins of life. Good theories are well supported. As we learn more and more about how physics works at the micro and macro levels we are better and better able to explain how we think gravity works. A good theory is able to absorb new information and survive in a slightly altered form without the need to throw the whole thing out and start over.

An even better example is planetary theory. Planetary theory advanced from Ptolomy through Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. Each of these men sharpened the theory by adding to the storehouse of facts and educated guesses, shifting and adjusting the theory where necessary, but never throwing the whole thing out and starting all over again. We still refer to our planetary system as planetary theory, because the term simply refers to an explanation for a complicated phenomenon. That the Earth revolves around the sun is a fact...how that affects our seasons, the phases of the moon, and what we see in the sky each night are all pieces of the theory. Think of it this way: it used to be a fact that Pluto was a planet. Recently that 'fact' was in fact disproven. We didn't throw out the entire theory of planetary movement simply because Pluto no longer fit into the definition of a planet. We dumped poor Pluto and moved on :)

So I suppose what I am trying to say is, the first choice in the poll is a false choice since we can never go back and directly observe the origins of the humanity. There will never be the "fact" of Evolution because the terminology is incorrect.

Barb

[Eliana]

The theory of evolution takes multiple facts and works them into an overarching explanation of how we came to be.
Barb

Snipping your *wonderful* post to quibble about this one line...

Evolution is defined as the change in a population's inheritable traits over time with the micro/macro distinction to indicate time frame.

What seems to be debated in this forum is the 'descent of man', or sometimes the origin of life. I have heard no debate about microevolution - which is not surprise as it can be easily observed in a lab.

Anyway, thank you for a fabulous post! I am often so frustrated with the misunderstanding about the word 'theory' and you responded so well to it.

Eliana

[Barb F. PA in AZ]

Snipping your *wonderful* post to quibble about this one line...

Evolution is defined as the change in a population's inheritable traits over time with the micro/macro distinction to indicate time frame.

What seems to be debated in this forum is the 'descent of man', or sometimes the origin of life. I have heard no debate about microevolution - which is not surprise as it can be easily observed in a lab.

Anyway, thank you for a fabulous post! I am often so frustrated with the misunderstanding about the word 'theory' and you responded so well to it.

Eliana

Yeah, you're absolutely right. "Descent of Man" is a better term for what we're talking about. Microevolution could be considered one of the facts on which macroevolution is based.

Barb

[Karin]

Evolution really cannot be described as a fact because a fact refers to a a single event or observation.
So I suppose what I am trying to say is, the first choice in the poll is a false choice since we can never go back and directly observe the origins of the humanity. There will never be the "fact" of Evolution because the terminology is incorrect.

Barb

While I agree with you, I put it as a choice because some people DO believe it is fact. David Barash wrote that in his book The Whisperings Within. And my kid-brother-the-actor said the very same thing last week. This is an opinion poll, not a technically correct poll:)

Also, it is the descent of man, but when most people I meet say evolution, they're referring to macro-evolution, not micro, and many aren't really clear on the difference or are aware of the difference. As for me, I was a die-hard evolutionist and an agnostic until I really studied evolution, but many who study it continue to adhere to it.

Theory is somewhere between hypothesis and proven, as I recall. Personally, had there been any links, I would probably still be some type of evolutionist. The complete lack of links is one of the key reasons I began to reject evolution, and since the new DNA data neither proves nor disproves macro-evolution, my stance remains the same. My brother's argument for evolution being a fact was that we share 99 percent of the same genes as a chimpanzee, but that's merely a fact and that argument doesn't use sound logic--it's not hard to come up with other explanations for that fact, including creationism. I didn't even bring up cataclysmic theory, because I would then have had to bring up uniformitarianism and it's too much for 1 poll. I wanted to put the Koran, etc as options because I'm guessing those are usually put in other, and I wanted to change things a bit.

[Barb F. PA in AZ]

While I agree with you, I put it as a choice because some people DO believe it is fact. David Barash wrote that in his book The Whisperings Within. And my kid-brother-the-actor said the very same thing last week. This is an opinion poll, not a technically correct poll:)

Well, we can't agree on anything, or even vote on anything, unless we first define our terms.

You wrote:

Theory is somewhere between hypothesis and proven, as I recall.

No, this is incorrect. A theory is an explanation that used to be a hypothesis (an educated guess) and has long been properly supported by experimentation and can be used to predict new data. My point was, you wouldn't say that gravity, relativity, or the revolution of planets has not been proven, right? But we still refer to them as theories. A theory is not simply an imperfect or fuzzy fact. Theory = well-supported explanation that can predict future happenings. Fact = single data point. Apples to oranges. We refer to facts as proven and theories as supported, but the essence is the same. Someone who states evolution is a fact (or isn't a fact) is using incorrect terminology. There is no hierarchy that runs from wild guess to hypothesis to theory to fact. It is frustrating to have a conversation about evolution (or read an essay) that states "evolution is *just* a theory" like that explains it all. We need to at least get to the point where we're beginning at the same starting line. And hey, just to confuse the issue a little further...I'd like to reiterate that the 'fact' of Pluto's planethood has recently been refuted. So facts are not the infallible pieces of information we believe we rely upon.

Personally, had there been any links, I would probably still be some type of evolutionist.

Evolution isn't a religion and it isn't something you believe in. Evolution is a scientific theory you either rationally accept, partially accept, or reject. People aren't 'evolutionists' they way they are fundamentalists or democrats and one doesn't have faith in Evolution the way one does in the bible or in a deity or even a political party. A person can define oneself by her faith, but I've never known someone to define oneself in the same way by a small branch of Science. Unless of course someone makes his life work studying Evolution. That is the only time it becomes accurate to use the term 'evolutionist'. Just as someone who studies plants is a botanist or Physics a physicist. Because evolution is controversial in some circles doesn't make it any less true in this circumstance.

Barb

[Tutor]

For almost every poll, I find myself having to say "My answer isn't there". At least this time I could choose "Other" so thank you for putting that option there. :)

I believe that God created everything, but I don't know exactly when or exactly how. I believe that there is strong scientific evidence indicating an older earth, but I still have some questions. I believe there is conclusive scientific evidence of microevolution/ adaptation, but I do not see strong scientific evidence for macroevolution. I am not saying it couldn't or didn't happen, I am just saying that I don't see strong enough evidence to say, "Yup. That's what happened."

Science will never be able to answer the origin question because science depends on observation, experimentation and recreation:
1) No one was there to observe what happened (except God, and He has chosen for His glory to leave the specifics open to debate) although we are free to observe the effects of what has happened since.
2) Many scientists have and will continue to experiment. I did thesis work in evolutionary genetics, so I am one of those people who has experimented, and my colleagues from that time continue to experiment. Experimentation is good and reveals many useful principles and should continue.
3) Even if we come up with theories based on our observations and experiments, we can never recreate the earth's origins to test our theories. They will always remain theories and should be treated as such but should also be respected for the research and intelligence that went into their development.

Although I enjoy speculating and debating the specifics of origins and adaptations of life on earth, I am content to never know the specifics of the origins aspect. I am content to say, "I don't know."

[Eliana]

Microevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution and/or the origin of species/descent of man are scientifically sound theories (see Barbara's fabulous post if you aren't familiar with the scientific usage of theory!).

I believe that G-d is the source of life, the Creator of the Universe.
I also believe that no scientific truth can ever contradict Torah (in its broadest sense).

I find the hoopla over 'evolution' to be baffling. I fail to see why this aspect of science is so offensive to so many people. Scientific facts, theories, or even beliefs, can't alter by the smallest finger's breadth Divine Truth...

From everything I have seen and read, there are no valid scientific criticisms of macroevolution (and none at all of microevolution). And I say this as someone who believes without question in Divine Origin of the universe. I also believe that we are 5768 years post-creation of Adam. (Not post-Creation of the world or Universe. A literal 6 days of creation is not intrinsic to Jewish theology.)

How that fits with scientific fact I do not know, and I will not speculate here, but none of that should affect how I approach science and the scientific world.

Anyway, I believe G-d is the ultimate origin of everything, the mechanisms and timing aren't theologically relevant.

[JenneinAZ]

I voted other.

I just don't know.

[mcconnellboys]

I suppose I'll say God authored evolution because I don't know what the difference is between that and Intelligent Design. I used to think that's what Intelligent Design meant, but I think I remember a conversation on these boards a while back to the effect that this has changed.....

Regena

[Karin]

Well, we can't agree on anything, or even vote on anything, unless we first define our terms.

You wrote:



No, this is incorrect. A theory is an explanation that used to be a hypothesis (an educated guess) and has long been properly supported by experimentation and can be used to predict new data.

Barb

Well, I still take that as in between a hypothesis and proven. Particularly because I really think the evidence for evolution is terribly weak after examining it. As I said in a different post, I was once a die hard evolutionist and an agnostic until I really studied evolution, what it said, what the evidence is, etc. However, I don't expect everyone to come to that conclusion, particularly having studied the history of science.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well, I still take that as in between a hypothesis and proven. Particularly because I really think the evidence for evolution is terribly weak after examining it. As I said in a different post, I was once a die hard evolutionist and an agnostic until I really studied evolution, what it said, what the evidence is, etc. However, I don't expect everyone to come to that conclusion, particularly having studied the history of science.

I think the problem is that often when they two sides talk about theory, they are not saying the same thing. The scientific community uses the word theory differently than you are using it here.. It's not that others come to a different conclusion -- that's not the point -- it's that the very words do not mean the same thing.

[Mama Lynx]

Your answers didn't make sense to me, with the question you posed.

I am pagan, and I have my own ideas about the origin/purpose of the universe. But I accept the theory of evolution and teach it to my children.

[Daisy]

Young Earth Creationist here. It was an easy poll for me. I could understand all of those terms. Young (although almost 6,000 yrs isn't that young), earth (terra firma), creationist (believes God created everything) :D

[Karin]

Young Earth Creationist here. It was an easy poll for me. I could understand all of those terms. :D

Good. Had I been healthy and not jet lagged, I probably would have abstained from starting this poll or worded it differently. Usually I think more and don't post most polls I think about doing. And I'm too tired to do anymore on theory vs hypothesis tonight. I'm too sick to do anything but sit, but not sick enough to sleep.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Good. Had I been healthy and not jet lagged, I probably would have abstained from starting this poll or worded it differently. Usually I think more and don't post most polls I think about doing. And I'm too tired to do anymore on theory vs hypothesis tonight. I'm too sick to do anything but sit, but not sick enough to sleep.

LOL, me too. And when I hit reply, I thought, "Hmm. Not very humble, and sounds like I want to have the last word." But I don't. It's just that that word is the one both sides use and rarely does either side mean the same thing when they use it. So I threw in my reiteration of Barb, though Barb doesn't really *need* my reiteration, lol.

Good discussion begun, I think. Not a wasted poll, although you need a panel of consultants before you try it again! :D

Hope you feel better. I'm a sickie, too. And no fair, because the flu I had never went away, and now there's a wombat sitting on my chest and I'm coughing coughing coughing. Bleh.

[PrairieAir]

I'm glad you posted it, and I hope more people participate whether they would have worded it the same or not. I would struggle with how to word it as well since there are so many variations of what people believe regarding this subject.

I answered "Gap Theory", and I'm glad you noted that there are variations in what people believe within this category as well. I didn't realize there were so many until recently. While having this conversation with one friend she said, "Oh! Gap Theory!" Okay, I thought. I hadn't had a name for it before. I looked it up, and it seemed to fit. However, when talking to another friend, I mentioned that I believed in the Gap Theory and she was surprised because it meant something entirely different to her.:rolleyes:

Even if we never understand each other completely, the process of trying to understand can be interesting. I've learned so much that I never set out to learn that way. Ain't it fun?

I hope you feel better soon!

[Virginia Dawn]

I believe the Bible is truth but from the perspective of the people who wrote it, if that makes any sense. So Moses, being earthbound and timebound and knowing no modern biology, geology, or astronomy, was given the origin story in terms that he and his people could understand and relate to. I have learned to look at much of the Bible in the same way, as truth, but truth from a certain perspective. If you know the story of the elphant being described by 3 blind men, you'll have some idea what I'm trying to say.

I believe that God was "the first cause." Other than that, not being omniscient, I can't presume to completely understand the process, but I do think we have glimpses of it and I do not rule out evolution, even though I think that is not the whole story.

I found it very interesting that my history teacher touched on Genesis the first day of class when he covered pre-history. He mentioned that many people do not realize that evolution does NOT say that we came from apes, but that we and apes have a common ancestor. Then he mentioned a specific difference that would have happened if we had experienced a change in the way our hips and legs worked in order to walk upright- much more pain in child bearing. I think it is worth thinking about.

But, since there are thousands of small questions that science has not attempted to answer and maybe never can, I think it would be arrogant for a scientist to make a categorical statement denying any possibity of an intelligent force at work within the origin and history of the world.

So I guess my answer to the question would have to be "God only knows."

[Friederike in Persia]

Christian young earth fitted me perfectly.

Friederike

[beansprouts]

I answered "Gap Theory", and I'm glad you noted that there are variations in what people believe within this category as well. I didn't realize there were so many until recently. While having this conversation with one friend she said, "Oh! Gap Theory!" Okay, I thought. I hadn't had a name for it before. I looked it up, and it seemed to fit. However, when talking to another friend, I mentioned that I believed in the Gap Theory and she was surprised because it meant something entirely different to her.:rolleyes:

I voted "Christian Young Earth" but I am interested in the "Gap Theory". Can you explain what this means to you?

[Shari]

I guess I'm an "Other" because I believe God authored Creation, but not evolution; and that the "day" spoken of in Genesis was not a 24-hour day (therefore, I believe in Old Earth). I don't know if this fits into the Christian gap theory or not. The Hebrew word "yom" translated as "day" in Genesis can be literal or figurative, just as in English.

[Soph the vet]

I answered young earth creationist as I understand that God is the author of all things. That the Hebrew word for day in the Genesis account is "yom" and any time it is placed alongside a number or morning or evening it does mean a literal 24-hr. period. Previously, I had not cared much about when God created everything until I began investigating the theological implications of that belief. I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll stop there.

[Amy in MS]

God authored evolution. Used to be young-earth creationist, but No More.

[Eliana]

That the Hebrew word for day in the Genesis account is "yom" and any time it is placed alongside a number or morning or evening it does mean a literal 24-hr. period.

I don't want to get into a debate, but that is not, as I understand things, accurate.

Eliana

[Karin]

I voted "Christian Young Earth" but I am interested in the "Gap Theory". Can you explain what this means to you?

The most basic part of the gap theory is that there is a period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The Hebrew word which is translated "was" in the KJV (for eg, in other versions, too, although not all) isn't the simple verb "to be." It's a word which can be translated either "proved" or "became." In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, it's translated "proved"--I was shown this once in a discussion with a pair of people at my door. If I have time, I enjoy discussions with people coming door to door because I learn what they teach and don't feel I have to hold back on anything I believe because they've come to me:). If new questions come up, I go back and study it myself and am never afraid of discussing things with people who think and believe differently than me when the conversations are civil. Intense is okay, but civil, not attacking each other.

Gap theorists go with the translation of "became." Now, after that, I don't know ALL the variations on the theory. Apparently Scovel is one gap theorist, but I haven't actually looked at his study Bible yet to confirm this. In my dd's science book from BJU they try to show it's wrong, but I wasn't convinced by their discussion on it, nor did they cover it completely enough to answer their arguments.

There are many other verses used to build on this theology, but it's beyond the scope of one post. In a nutshell, what I know is that the belief is that the cosmos (orderly universe is one definition of cosmos, there are others--it's one word translated world, too, among other things) was overthrown when Lucifer fell (the term "overthrow of the cosmos" is a more literal translation of the phrase "foundations of the earth" in the KJV for the phrase in the epsitles, so that's where I'm taking it from) and that that is what caused the earth to become without form and void--God would have created it perfect and complete.

What I would like to say is that most gap theorists believe that everything God spoke into being that day where the word create isn't used existed before the world became without form and void. This would include dinosaurs and other fossilized life forms. This theology states that what was newly created is soul life as we know it (nephish kai or kai nephish is the transliteration from the Hebrew I'm most familiar with) not the flesh life of animals (body, soul, spirt--animals now being body & soul--again, lots of verses go into this!).

My version of the Gap Theory is in the midst of new considerations based on more study I've done of different theories regarding the earth--not just the uniformitarianism version, but the cataclysmic version and other assumptions made in science. From the time I was in university I've had serious questions about carbon dating and the assumptions made about it, how much data has been tossed that doesn't line up with uniformitarianism, etc. I do not believe that science is truly objective (and I really, really enjoy science, which is why I did biology in university--it was fun) and that there are many factors involved. But here I go getting into more hot topics. I just wish it weren't hot topics that mostly interest me because I'm liable to get a reputation for starting stuff I don't really want!

There are strong arguments for the cataclysmic theory--IMO often much stronger. I have a difficult time believing that oil was formed slowly--it makes far more sense to me that it would have happened quickly with intense heat and pressure. Same with petrification. I have many, many other questions, but I could go on all day! It's illogical to think that dinosaurs the size of school buses would be in the ark--it wasn't big enough, especially since there were 4 or 14 of each animal (2 pairs of unclean animals, 7 pairs of clean animals). So I have to wonder if they existed before Gen 1:2 ff, if they became extinct before the ark (I don't think so, but don't know), if they went on the ark when they were still small, shortly after hatching (if they were precocial as many reptilian offspring are, this could be), etc. It's my nature and personality to think about things like this--I've been asking big questions about God, life, the universe, etc, since I was 4, according to my mother. My dad and his family believe that God authored evolution (even my Mennonite Grandfather, but they were liberal Mennonites) and I did, too, until I thought some universal intelligence authored it (I hadn't heard of intelligent design--was it around in the 1970s? Probably).

I don't spend all my time thinking about it, but I've always been one to be thinking and wondering about things when I don't have to focus on my kids, etc:). I read many books about many different religions and theories from 12-22. I went to Church until 15, and even volunteered to help teach Sunday School even though none of my friends went to church much, and then I took 7 years as mostly an agnostic and only went to Church on Christmas Eve with my family. Getting back to Christianity is a lot more involved than just my questioning evolution, but that was one thing.

As for posting my definitions, as Eliana (I think it was her) suggested, I'm working on it. However, I'm just well enough today to do the dishes and a few things (yesterday I managed to load and unload the dishwasher and that was almost it!) so I need to do that, too.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Gap theorists go with the translation of "became." Now, after that, I don't know ALL the variations on the theory. Apparently Scovel is one gap theorist, but I haven't actually looked at his study Bible yet to confirm this. In my dd's science book from BJU they try to show it's wrong, but I wasn't convinced by their discussion on it, nor did they cover it completely enough to answer their arguments.


Do you mean the Scofield study bible? If you do, that's correct.

And the funny thing is, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. believed in the gap theory. :)

[Karin]

Do you mean the Scofield study bible? If you do, that's correct.

And the funny thing is, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. believed in the gap theory. :)

Oops--I DID mean Scofield. :o I do have this thing about mixing up people's names. I used to know someone with the surname Scovel. At any rate, Scofield's Study Bible is on my want to get list just because I want to see what he has to say on that myself.

[Diana in OR]

I suppose I'll say God authored evolution because I don't know what the difference is between that and Intelligent Design. I used to think that's what Intelligent Design meant, but I think I remember a conversation on these boards a while back to the effect that this has changed.....

Regena

I chose Intelligent Design based on what I think it is: God created the earth and everything in it, hence He is the Intelligent Designer. Exactly *how* it happened and exactly *how old* the earth is is unclear to me, but it doesn't really matter to me, either.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I agree with that, too. But do you happen to know if this perspective includes the idea that things have evolved over time since He created them? I can't remember what the differences were that someone pointed out to me before, but I think it had to do with the argument to try to get ID included in school science classes, and that perspective had changed over time. I can't remember if they had excluded any form of evolutionary change, if they were moving toward a young earth approach, or just what that difference was.....

Regena

[lwilliams1922]

Now I'm finding out all the stuff I just don't know.


:confused:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Now I'm finding out all the stuff I just don't know.


:confused:

That's the whole point of self-education. You find out all the things you don't know and you find that this is a GOOD thing.

It really is. Don't be afraid of the quest. And don't be afraid to say to your students, "I just don't know. I'm still studying about that."

[lwilliams1922]

Yes it becomes a quest for me a christian in my 30's.

My concern is how to present this to dd who has just started her study.

I've been trying to google to find some where that ties things together.

I can't purchase any more books for a while so i'm looking for some sites that we can use to learn.

thanks

[H.S. Burrow]

Now I'm finding out all the stuff I just don't know.


:confused:

Me too! :001_huh: I just posted the other day on another forum how I didn't realize there were *so* many different variations on what people believed and how I naive I felt!

I feel better after realizing that I'm not the first homeschooler to be exposed to the different viewpoints only after beginning to homeschool!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Yes it becomes a quest for me a christian in my 30's.

My concern is how to present this to dd who has just started her study.

I've been trying to google to find some where that ties things together.

I can't purchase any more books for a while so i'm looking for some sites that we can use to learn.

thanks

A thoughtful creationist site is Reasons to Believe. They aren't the ID crowd, and they tend to (or rather, as I've not delved into the site for at least 8 years I'll say they used to) have a good handle on what "peer review" actually means. And they are not shrill. They don't go on and on about how unfortunately deluded their opponents are while failing to make their own strong arguments. ETA: Looks like they now are ID'ers. Sorry about that. Oh well.

An interesting man who holds evangelical Christian faith and a strong knowledge of genetics and evolution is Francis Collins. His interview here (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/interview-francis-collins) in Discover magazine is interesting.

University of California (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) is a good resource for understanding the mechanisms of evolution. Blogs like Panda's Thumb are good, but sometimes get too snarly for my comfort. You can learn a lot reading the comments if you ignore those who won't be civil or humble.

And here's my favorite guy, Sean Carroll. He has free DVD's for teachers (http://seanbcarroll.com/teachers/) and students. And getting his books in the library are some of the better resources you could spend your time on, IMO.

And here's our own Eliana, who you could argue is one of our more strongly devout board members. Here's one of her threads (http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=166991#poststop).

[H.S. Burrow]

Yes it becomes a quest for me a christian in my 30's.

My concern is how to present this to dd who has just started her study.

I've been trying to google to find some where that ties things together.

I can't purchase any more books for a while so i'm looking for some sites that we can use to learn.

thanks


I found these while doing the same search!

This one is Young Earth: www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)

This one is Old Earth: www.answersincreation.org (http://www.answersincreation.org)

This one is also good, but I believe (haven't read it all!) that it is also an Old Earth: www.bibleandscience.com (http://www.bibleandscience.com)

This one is Old Earth and (somewhere) has a link to a complete online biology textbook: www.reasons.org (http://www.reasons.org)

Hope those help you!

[lwilliams1922]

very helpful

thanks!!

[Karin]

very helpful

thanks!!

For an interesting lecture on evolution, creationism and ID you may wish to check out the gravitas publications site to see if Rebecca Keller has had time to post her lecture(s) on this. She said she'd try to get that done. There have been a couple of other threads on this subject, and one or two thread hijacks--Phred is in every one of them, so if you search his posts, you'll find them, or you can do a search on "evolution".

ETA- This is a link to one of the more recent ones: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37850