firstpusk

Rooster7, I can understand your annoyance. I reread your original post and can understand the position you are taking. No one hear said God had to use evolution. I am simply saying the evidence is clear He did. If you were simply setting up a hypothetical, my profound apologies. I did not respond to your complaint because you ignored my hypothetical situation and complained about being taken out of context. My comments indicated that your comments would be problematic in a very specific context - questioning the faith of a boy because he accepts the evidence for evolution. I don't agree with your specific theological position and your interpretation of scripture. I come from a different tradition. I can accept your position and have studied that position. I had to because a number of my inlaws agree with you. I have also studied the science. My point was simply it is not the job of a scout leader to convert his charges to his particular religious belief. Instead, he is to respect that belief and not question their faith because he does not agree with them.

Scomman, I expected disagreement from you. When you talk of terms like theory, they have a different meaning in a scientific context. Theory means that it is a well established explanation for the observe phenomenon. That is why both gravity and evolution are referred to as theories. Quote mining does not address the validity of the theory. Especially when the statements are as hopelessly out of date as the ones you are using. In order look at them. The first is Darwin. When he wrote the Origin of Species, we did not have genetics, DNA analysis or a myriad of other methods of determining the inter-relatedness of species. He was brilliant no doubt, but was a trailblazer and as such sure to get some things wrong. It has become clear that instead of steady change there are long periods of stasis puntuated by periods of evolution. The pattern is not even. This is what the second quote deals specifically with this issue. It has been taken out of its original context. The two gentlemen did not mean to endorse creationism in any way. Go out and read the original source. Creationists pick these gems to imply that the authors are near denying evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The authors weren't denying evolution. They were saying it does not proceed as Darwin first envisioned nearly a century and a half ago. I have a question for you. Have you read the original book, article or speech in entirity for any of the quotes you have given? Or did you just lift them from some creationist website? The next two are both dead men also. Wald died in 1997. I am not sure how old the quote is, but it could easily be 20 or 30 years old. The other is not even worth mentioning. 1925? Have you any idea how fast the science is changing? The folks lifting these quotes know the context and understand the ethical implications of what they are doing. It is unethical for them to do this. I have read both of the books you mentioned as well as many other creationist books and articles. I understand the basis and arguments for their position. You can not say the same of evolution. Go read the links that were provided by Merlyn. Educate yourself about Denton. They will give you an idea of what I am talking about. What got me started in this thread was Rooster7 deciding he had to question the faith of someone who can dispassionately look at the evidence and accept evolution. I don't think he has a right to say that without understanding the theory. And I don't think it is right for you to quote other peoples' work without at least making sure you understand the original context.

Scomman, You are right, "There are plenty of authors and scientists who come down on both sides of the debate." Generally, the authors of questionable books come down on one side and the scientists the other. Very few trained scientists favor creationism. Such folks are anomalies. As I said earlier, I am glad you are reading on the subject. If you care to broaden your choice of reading material on the subject, I can make some recommedations. I read both of the books you recommended years ago and found them seriously wanting. The arguments were weak, old and uninformed. Aging has not improved them. You provide a few quotations in your latest post and they are even older than the books you cited. Belief in the Genesis account can be justified on the grounds of religious belief, not science. A few quotes strung together, don't refute the scientific evidence supporting the theory. You may take comfort in them, but they don't make the reality of evolution go away.

Rooster7, You seem to be confusing the ideas of Lamarck with those of Darwin. Lamarck died in 1829 years before Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle. He thought that creatures could will changes, i.e., the giraffe can't quite reach the leaves in the trees and wills his neck to lengthen. If you confuse this with natural selection, I can understand why you find evolution ridiculous. You are absolutely right that such willful changes don't happen and if they did, they would not be inherited. Evolution works on populations. Those individuals within a population that are better adapted survive and breed those that aren't, don't. Any change in a poplation over time constitutes evolution. Given the right conditions, populations that are isolated for long enough could become a new species. I am sorry if you are offended by the snip. I think this discussion is important and stimulating. We just need to respect the beliefs of others, especially the boys.

Sorry Scomman, but your analysis of both the Theory of Evolution and Micheal Denton's book are far off the mark. Closer to the truth is the statement by Theodosius Dobzhansky that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Denton's 1985 book has long since been debunked and is certainly out of date. The notion that scientists are abandonning evolution and it is ready for the ash heap is simply untrue. You also mentioned Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial. Both Denton and Johnson consistently misrepresent the Theory of Evolution and the evidence supporting it. Their presentation makes me question if they truly understand the subject at all. I am glad that you are interested enough in the subject to read some books. The problem is these two sources are not the most reliable. I would not view either author as an authority on anything other than authoring sensationalist books for the non-scientific reader. I respect your right to your beliefs. That is my duty under the last point of the Scout Law. Your belief, however is far from universal even within Christianity. My concern is that scouters make statements like following one from Rooster7. "However, I would question someone's faith that claimed that the God of the bible had to use evolution to create the earth." The doubts he has about my faith are of little concern to me. However, if he were to approach any boy in my troop making a statement like that, you and I would have a discussion about the meaning of the last point of the Scout Law.

I know that many think they are too loud and maybe too expensive (about $100), but I still prefer my Dragonfly. The stove allows me accurately adjust flame level for the proper cooking temperature. I can cook some great food with this one. It allows for multiple fuels and works great in the cold winters that we have up here. I love it. As with any pressurized fuel appliance, proper care and knowledge are a must. No good leader should take any such equipment out with scouts unless they understand and apply the wisdom from the Guide to Safe Scouting.