caddy
Puritan Board Senior
I have an agnostic friend that I have been talking with for over 2 years. This is his latest email. I am posting it in its entirety. Appreciate in advance your responses of which he will be able to see. For the record, I categorically deny T.O.E but refuse to let that be a stumbling block for others who need to work through that, much like Colson does here with Collins:
BreakPoint: A Religious Scientist?, 7/13/09 - 7/13/2009 12:45:33 PM.
My friends email:
Hi Caddy,
I recently read a very interesting feature in National Geographic about Darwin, I thought you might find it interesting so I found the on-line version, and I was wondering what your Puritan Board friends would think about this.
The first article talks about how Darwin came to consider the idea of evolution:
Darwin's First Clues — National Geographic Magazine
The follow-up article talks about the state of evolution science today and how it differs from what Darwin considered:
Modern Darwins — National Geographic Magazine
What I found fascination is that while "Darwinism" is often portrayed as stemming from the pursuit of a godless agenda, it seems to have really stemmed purely from looking carefully at the world and at various animal species, and from noticing the similarities between species. The leading scientific view at the time was that God created a series of successive "batches" of animals, but Darwin started thinking that these various species may have been interrelated, and this article talks about what he saw that made him reach that conclusion. Very interesting.
The second article talks about something that Darwin had no clue about: genetics. It's interesting how something that was discovered much later about the inner workings of life tied into Darwin thought based on observing the shapes of animals.
You seem to be of the opinion that belief in evolution is "blind", that there's really not that much compelling evidence for it. But while I was reading it, without evolution there is absolutely no way anyone can answer questions like "why does the male peacock have beautiful colorful feathers"? Without evolution the answer is simply "because God wanted it so", and we'll never know why. If evolution is true, we can know why, along with the answers to many MANY other such questions.
You said to me "keep evolution, deal with the man Jesus". I offer that back to you, I say you can keep evolution AND your beliefs. You can have your moral beliefs and still have the satisfaction of knowing the "why" for so many questions about nature, like the peacock's feathers. Who says you can't have both?
BreakPoint: A Religious Scientist?, 7/13/09 - 7/13/2009 12:45:33 PM.
My friends email:
Hi Caddy,
I recently read a very interesting feature in National Geographic about Darwin, I thought you might find it interesting so I found the on-line version, and I was wondering what your Puritan Board friends would think about this.
The first article talks about how Darwin came to consider the idea of evolution:
Darwin's First Clues — National Geographic Magazine
The follow-up article talks about the state of evolution science today and how it differs from what Darwin considered:
Modern Darwins — National Geographic Magazine
What I found fascination is that while "Darwinism" is often portrayed as stemming from the pursuit of a godless agenda, it seems to have really stemmed purely from looking carefully at the world and at various animal species, and from noticing the similarities between species. The leading scientific view at the time was that God created a series of successive "batches" of animals, but Darwin started thinking that these various species may have been interrelated, and this article talks about what he saw that made him reach that conclusion. Very interesting.
The second article talks about something that Darwin had no clue about: genetics. It's interesting how something that was discovered much later about the inner workings of life tied into Darwin thought based on observing the shapes of animals.
You seem to be of the opinion that belief in evolution is "blind", that there's really not that much compelling evidence for it. But while I was reading it, without evolution there is absolutely no way anyone can answer questions like "why does the male peacock have beautiful colorful feathers"? Without evolution the answer is simply "because God wanted it so", and we'll never know why. If evolution is true, we can know why, along with the answers to many MANY other such questions.
You said to me "keep evolution, deal with the man Jesus". I offer that back to you, I say you can keep evolution AND your beliefs. You can have your moral beliefs and still have the satisfaction of knowing the "why" for so many questions about nature, like the peacock's feathers. Who says you can't have both?