Heather ... I don't think that people are so much pro-evolution as they are anti-creation.  If we realize the many flaws in evolution and understand that all this wonderful stuff around us must have been created by someone, then we are in a dilemma.  We are acknowledging that there must be a god.  Problem is, which god?  I think it's just simpler for some people to believe in evolution.  It gives them a reason for why they're here without having to face the God who put them here. 

I'm a Christian.  That solves it for me.  But here's an interesting side note.  If you study the beginning of the book of Genesis, I believe God is showing us that He also created beings long before Adam and Eve.  Too much to go into here, but I believe it's there.  God Bless.... and Keep that Faith. 

Rusty

Good point Rusty. It is true that many people don't want to believe in God, thus they deny creationism.  I have studied the works of many scientists,  however, who can reconcile within themselves the theory of creationism (because their science proves intelligent design) without admitting there is a God.  They simply say, "Someone created us just the way we are.  I can't say who, but we didn't evolve.  We were made."

  I know a pastor who says to admit there is a God, is to admit that you are not Him.  Big move for many people these days. 

  And God did create beings before humans...the angels, including Satan himself. 

I, too, took an honors course recently, wherein the professor claimed to be a Christian AND believe in evolution.  He said that by the time we finished studying evolution, we Christians would be able to reconcile our faith with science. 

I really tried.  I kept an open mind because I wanted to be able to say that I had listened to the arguments and came away with a theory based on clear thinking and attention to the facts.

Instead of having concrete answers, though, I was struck dumbfounded by how science phrases everything: "We believe..."  Wha?  I thought it was science.  Where are the facts?

This might be elementary, but I was also disappointed that science could not answer this for me: If we were to have evolved, then why do the primitive beings continue to exist today?

"We believe..."

Don't we find ourselves saying that everytime we talk about God and religion. I know I do. "We believe in God" but we have no concrete evidence that Jesus was the son of God. No scientific proof but we have absolutely blindfaith that there is a Heaven and Hell. And that if we, "accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior we will be accepted into his Kingdom." As a Christian, I have that faith but I also don't understand why it's OK to believe in one form of blindfaith but to question the existence of another.

Seems like extreme Christians are quick to point out that scientists are way off base on the Theory of Evolution but if there is any findings of say, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the possibility an Arc, those same Christians rejoice in those discoveries. Anthropologists still need the help of scientists for carbon dating, correct?

I am a Christian and I believe in forms of Evolution and Creatism. God was and is the Big Bang. The Earth has evolved because God has guided it. Humans have evolved from Neanderthals because God decided it. To me that's a simple way of qualifying both.

We continue to make something a black and white issue, and would rather live in a divisive landscape/climate, rather than accept both. We'd rather have conflict than find peace. We've rather prove right and wrong than come up with a sensible solution. That's what's truly wrong with our society.

"God was and is the Big Bang. The Earth has evolved because God has guided it. Humans have evolved from Neanderthals because God decided it. "

I think that's exactly what my professor meant when he said that Christians would be able to reconcile their faith with the theory of Evolution by the end of the quarter.  

Science is supposed to be black and white, or at least that's what scientists tell us.  The very basis for science is the ability to test and prove a theory.  The problem I had and have is that in THIS case, science uses the term "we believe" when discussing Evolution, "we think" or any other non-committal term.  They can't prove their own theory, but schools (colleges) teach Evolution as if it is fact.  Evolution isn't a germ that scientists "believe" came from a certain bird--it's a theory that needs to be proven if we are to consider it a part of science and not faith.  Faith is faith. 

Extreme Christians and extreme scientists are not much different from each other--each wants the issue to be black and white without allowing that there might be a case for more information.  You can ask a Christian to at least consider the possibility that God had a hand in microorganisms, etc., but try to tell a scientist about Creationism and you have a real problem on your hands.

Here is an interesting thought.  I was watching a History Channel documentary on what many believe to be are underwater Japanese pyramids. (http://www.lauralee.com/jap... These "pyramids" are made of nothing more than clean, sharp-angled steps.  At first glance, my reaction was that they do, indeed, appear to be man-made. However, what I find most interesting is that so many scientists believe, unflinchingly, that these are made by man.  I repeat, with nothing other to go on than these angluar steps, scientists conclude these are man-made. Interesting. Is that all it takes?

What if there were symmetrical shapes placed uniformly along these steps?  Would anyone doubt these were be made by people?  Probably not.  Turn back now to that single celled organism. Why is there not the same reaction.  My belief is it has less to do with science than it does with the responsibility of what the observer must assume if the answer is something other than a strictly evolutionary process.  If evolution is not the answer, the only alternative is some creator - whoever and whatever that might be.  The consequences to ones life would then be potentially staggering.  Law and life would no longer be relative to the culture and times we live in but very realistically could be based on eternal truths for which that observer might be held accountable.

I guess I am not so much concerned with the teaching of evolution as much as I am with the intellectual dishonesty that surrounds the teaching of evolution.A single, contrarian thought is dismissed as fanatical. Was Newton fanatical? If you can stomach reading through his Principia, the foundational text for classical mechanics, his Scholium at the end of the book  argues that due to the universal and consistency of unseen laws, they point to a God who accomplishes creation in the same way.  THe list of scientists and scholars throughout history who have had no problem supporting science with their faith and vice versa goes on and on.

It is only a product of this and the last century that we have become so "enlightened" that criticism, honest criticisms at that, are seen as the work of fanatics.  What scholars accused the church and religious people of doing to the likes of Galileo amongst others, they now do to those who dare to think differently.  THis is especially troubling in the classrooms and not allowing our children to take an honest, inquisitive, critical examination for themselves as to the nature of first things. My suspicions are that, in high school as it is in most colleges, if anyone questions certain fundamental principles of evolution in the classroom, they will be shut down.  

    This whole reaction to the fundamental questions that have brought on the Greeks, and all the thought that has flowed since, is absurd. If evoplution, or any theory or claim, is as verifiable as its supporters claim it to be, then the ability to examine it critically should be welcomed.

I could be wrong but it would be interesting to hear stories of whether or not honest discussions of these principles are even entertained in high school nowadays.