Harvard Jumps Into Evolution Debate

[Believer]

Well, this doesn't sound to good.

SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1037822

Harvard Jumps Into Evolution Debate

Harvard Jumps Into Long-Running Evolution Debate With Research Project to Study How Life Began

The Associated Press

Aug. 15, 2005 - Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.

The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.

The "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative" is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.

Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years. It has been standard in most public school science texts for decades but recently re-emerged in the spotlight as communities and some states debated whether school children should also be taught about creationism or intelligent design.

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university's vast resources could change that perception.

"It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now," said Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is one of the world's top chemists in origins-of-life research.

[Ark~Magic]

I think it just goes to show you how arrogant and **** up these **** eating monkies have gotten. They want to discredit God and give all the glory to some random mistake. It's a big lie and it will go nowhere.

[editted by moderator] Please watch the language.

[ochotseat]

We have to remember that most of the people in this country who believe in evolution happen to be Christians. Evolution isn't necessarily anti-God or anti-Bible, because God could have created or guided the process. The problem lies when teachers teach evolution with an atheist angle.

[Believer]

We have to remember that most of the people in this country who believe in evolution happen to be Christians. Evolution isn't necessarily anti-God or anti-Bible, because God could have created or guided the process. The problem lies when teachers teach evolution with an atheist angle.

"because God could have created or guided the process."

So by using the word "could", that implies we don't know. By saying the word "could", that also means that God wasn't even involved, therefore making Him a non-existent being.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Gould taught at Harvard, the place has been weighing in for decades.

[Prodigal Son]

i think that science will eventually prove God exists and no one will be able to deny it. it seems to me science is moving more in that direction; these are just desperate attempts by many to cover up what they see coming. does revelations talk about this (everyone knowing as a sign of the end?)...heard it somewhere.

[Believer]

i think that science will eventually prove God exists and no one will be able to deny it. it seems to me science is moving more in that direction; these are just desperate attempts by many to cover up what they see coming. does revelations talk about this (everyone knowing as a sign of the end?)...heard it somewhere.

I believe there are indeed cover-ups in the evolution field because we ALL know that evolutionists don't want there to be a God, AT ALL. This isn't the case with evolutionists that hold a religious faith, but there is a problem with theistic evolution. On this link, Gregory Koukl says the following short statements:

Can anything be designed "by chance"? Greg tells us why the term "theistic evolution" is an oxymoron.

and

Theistic evolutionists are fond of saying that the Bible doesn't say how God created, just that God created. God could have used evolution.

This link seems to have some good arguments against evolution, but they want evolution completely wiped out, even if it was by God. It is only creation with them, or there is no God.

I have given it reasonable thought over the past couple of months that I just can't accept evolution anymore. I felt compelled by God to know that something isn't right with it. God clearly states that we were created not evolved, but again this goes to the second statement in the quote above about theistic evolution. The Bible does not say how we were created except saying that Adam and the animals were formed from the dust of the ground and then Eve was formed straight from the rib of Adam. Eve isn't formed from the ground then. Still, it is formed and created, sounds a lot like a potter using his skills with a lump of pottery clay forming it by hand and creating it into the image he wants it to be seen by him.

I wanted in on a hint of Gods' secret on the creation of the planet and the universe, I had a dream, a very "blurred" dream, and it felt, I didn't see anything, but I felt a hint about evolution, and what I got from it was that it will indeed come out as the worlds greatest cover-up. My dream was more in-depth during the sleep process, but when I woke up, it was a mind wipe. Only a hint of what I explained is what I know of.

Does anyone have any credible statistics/articles on evolution such as something showing that evolutionists are covering something up to make the world Godless, or they aren't explaining everything there is to be explained, or whatever you might find?

[ochotseat]

So by using the word "could", that implies we don't know. By saying the word "could", that also means that God wasn't even involved, therefore making Him a non-existent being.

No. "Could" means that either creationism or evolution may have occurred. Obviously, God created both processes.

[Deborah]

My faith can withstand such a debate brain and so can yours.
I have seen you grow in faith, and I am very proud of my Christian Brother.
I beleive in Evolution, just not Macro evolution.

As Ochoseat said god created both Processes.
Isn't it possable they are part of the same process.
ie god created (creation) and his intention was that life would evolve.

[ochotseat]

My faith can withstand such a debate brain and so can yours.
I have seen you grow in faith, and I am very proud of my Christian Brother.
.

Who are you talking to?

As Ochoseat said god created both Processes.
Isn't it possable they are part of the same process.
ie god created (creation) and his intention was that life would evolve

Yes. As Christians, we shouldn't dismiss either creationism or evolution, because God obviously created either and we aren't completely sure which yet.

[Believer]

My faith can withstand such a debate brain and so can yours.
I have seen you grow in faith, and I am very proud of my Christian Brother.
.

Who are you talking to?

As Ochoseat said god created both Processes.
Isn't it possable they are part of the same process.
ie god created (creation) and his intention was that life would evolve

Yes. As Christians, we shouldn't dismiss either creationism or evolution, because God obviously created either and we aren't completely sure which yet.

Who are you talking to?

Deborah was talking to me, my name is actually Brian not Brain, but thanks for the compliment!

Yes. As Christians, we shouldn't dismiss either creationism or evolution, because God obviously created either and we aren't completely sure which yet.

Well, true, it was either literal creation or evolution, but it goes as far as saying there never was a God in the first place that started everything up. Now that Harvard is jumping in on this, this is a bad sign .

[Deborah]

Deborah was talking to me, my name is actually Brian not Brain, but thanks for the compliment!

Ekkk so sorry hun

Well, true, it was either literal creation or evolution, but it goes as far as saying there never was a God in the first place that started everything up. Now that Harvard is jumping in on this, this is a bad sign

not all all Brian. It's jsut a last stitch effort to have the last say. but the jokes on them because the LORD god will have the last say.
And every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the truth.

[ochotseat]

Well, true, it was either literal creation or evolution, but it goes as far as saying there never was a God in the first place that started everything up. Now that Harvard is jumping in on this, this is a bad sign .

Well, that's what we've been discussing. The problem lies when they teach either creationism or evolution (with an agnostic or atheist angle) as fact. Some atheists want to exclude God from the evolution theory, but we Christians know better than that.

[chocloateonly]

Some of you here have just lumped all teachers (of this subject) as having an agenda against god. It has been my experience that such teachers are really the exception to the rule. In fact, most teachers of evolution are interested in teaching it properly.

It seems to me that creationists (those with a strict interpretation of the bible) simply must oppose evolution at all costs. If they don't, god will have been shown not to exist. Those with a less strict interpretation, don't have this problem.

In response to HelpMe God, there are no credible stats/articles that I have found that show a cover up. In fact, because there are just so many different points of view among people/scientists (here we already seen several, just multiply that by a whole a lot), it would seem difficult to imagine there being one. What's more, it would go against everything a true scientist believes in - which is striving for the truth whatever that may be and wherever that may lead.

What concerns me about the quote from the article is the guy's expectation. If he wants it too much, he may get what he wants because of bias. If, however, he is open to wherever the evidence leads, then there should be no problem.

[Believer]

Some of you here have just lumped all teachers (of this subject) as having an agenda against god. It has been my experience that such teachers are really the exception to the rule. In fact, most teachers of evolution are interested in teaching it properly.

It seems to me that creationists (those with a strict interpretation of the bible) simply must oppose evolution at all costs. If they don't, god will have been shown not to exist. Those with a less strict interpretation, don't have this problem.

In response to HelpMe God, there are no credible stats/articles that I have found that show a cover up. In fact, because there are just so many different points of view among people/scientists (here we already seen several, just multiply that by a whole a lot), it would seem difficult to imagine there being one. What's more, it would go against everything a true scientist believes in - which is striving for the truth whatever that may be and wherever that may lead.

What concerns me about the quote from the article is the guy's expectation. If he wants it too much, he may get what he wants because of bias. If, however, he is open to wherever the evidence leads, then there should be no problem.

Some of you here have just lumped all teachers (of this subject) as having an agenda against god. It has been my experience that such teachers are really the exception to the rule. In fact, most teachers of evolution are interested in teaching it properly.

Yes, it is true teachers do want to teach evolution properly, however many who teach it still don't have a faith in God, at least the ones who teach non-theistic evolution. Maybe they do but they are somewhat required by the school board to teach darwinian evolution. They also don't teach the flaws of it as well. So they teach it as fact, like I had to go through in my 4 years in school. Complete non-sense. At that time I wasn't even into God and I still thought it was junk and still do. As a matter of fact, Charles Darwin in his book the Origin of Species in the concluding chapters, he does mention God as a possible designer, but he wasn't too faith based to begin with anyways.

It seems to me that creationists (those with a strict interpretation of the bible) simply must oppose evolution at all costs. If they don't, god will have been shown not to exist. Those with a less strict interpretation, don't have this problem.

That is true, but the Bible can have several meanings to the word "create" just as the Hebrew word for day being "yom", can mean 12 hours, 24 hours, or an infinite time period. There are MANY different views on how we came into existence. Besides, if Darwin never did discover his evolution theory, someone else would have, probably a little different view on the theory, but not by much.

In response to HelpMe God, there are no credible stats/articles that I have found that show a cover up. In fact, because there are just so many different points of view among people/scientists (here we already seen several, just multiply that by a whole a lot), it would seem difficult to imagine there being one. What's more, it would go against everything a true scientist believes in - which is striving for the truth whatever that may be and wherever that may lead.

Actually, if you do a search for it, and I do mean a SEARCH, you will find cover ups at least in some form or another trying to hide evidence that there really is a designer and that secular scientists are hiding it from the public to turn us into a complete secular nation.

What concerns me about the quote from the article is the guy's expectation. If he wants it too much, he may get what he wants because of bias. If, however, he is open to wherever the evidence leads, then there should be no problem.

Yeah, people are open to it (where the evidence leads) and do turn from their atheistic views to a theistic or deist view. Many people have shifted their one time belief of no God to there having to be a God. Classic example, Anthony Flew, Lee Stroble, and multitudes of others.