Separating Evolution from Atheism

[jonperry]

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is often seen by Christians as a doctrine of Atheism. This does not need to be so. Evolution says nothing about God or religion. It simply explains how biology works. As I've mentioned before, millions of Christians have found a way to accept evolution without rejecting their faith or losing their trust in the Bible.

In my work as an animator and science educator, one of my goals is to separate evolution from atheism so that people of all backgrounds can understand the theory without feeling threatened. In my recent debate with Steve I tried very hard to make this clear.

I'm currently working on a 21 part animated series which teaches genetics and evolution in a friendly, religiously neutral manner. I'm raising funds on kickstarter to pay for production and marketing of the series. The videos will be free to watch. I'd love all of your support either by contributing or by sharing my idea with those in your circles.

I hope you don't see this post as me spamming or trying to sell stuff on this site. I've enjoyed my conversations with you all on here and I honestly think this series might be of interest to you.

You can learn more about what I'm doing on my kickstarter page: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sta ... ed-clearly

In the video linked above you will hear testimonials of Jessica Stewart (a wildlife conservation educator) and high school teacher Tom Cochran. Both of them are faithful Christians as well as advocates for the theory of evolution. Tom will be highly involved in the script writing process for my future animations.

[backwoodsman]

millions of Christians have found a way to accept evolution without rejecting their faith or losing their trust in the Bible.

The biggest problem I have with "accepting" evolution isn't a conflict (whether real or perceived) between it and my faith or the Bible. Rather it's that both science and logic have so far failed to prove that evolution is any more than a theory. Specifically, everything I've ever seen set forth as proof of evolution fits as well -- sometimes better -- with a creation model as with an evolutionary one. Evolutionists list fact after fact as supposedly solid proof of evolution, never so much as admitting that there's a viable alternative theory, much less explaining why evolution is the better choice. I have yet to receive a thoughtful, knowledgeable answer from an evolutionist on this point; in fact, at the moment I can't recall ever having received any answer at all, aside from a deafening silence. Hopefully that will change at some point, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, it seems foolhardy and irresponsible to try to "find a way to accept evolution".

Part of the definition of scientific theory is that it's falsifiable, i.e. there's an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Hypothetically, what evidence would you accept as proof that the theory of evolution is false?

[Paidion]

[Paidion]

Unfortunately, evolutionists dismiss any creation model as doing no more than to say, "God did it" which they claim is not an explanation at all but a statement of (blind) faith.

[mattrose]

I feel pretty much the same way as my previous posters.

I just watched your first video on natural selection (very well put together by the way). The 'problem' that I have with it is that all the 'facts' that you noted are agreed upon by everyone (whether they believe in Darwinian evolution or not). So, while they are good things to teach students, they don't actually help your stated purpose (of proving that darwinian evolution is a reality). Both sides of the debate believe in descent with modification and both sides of the debate believe in natural selection.

Obviously common descent is not agreed upon. I'm sure you'll make your case for that in other videos. But that particular video does absolutely nothing to suggest darwinian evolution. In fact, I'd say it is somewhat misleading since it seems to suggest that the agreed upon facts are actually pointing toward Darwin's overall rightness.

That being said, I'm in favor of any well-produced, clearly stated arguments... so I think you're project is a good one.

[mikew]

I agree with the other replies regarding the lack of apparent evidence toward (Macro) evolution. What also is interesting is the zeal that many people have for promoting (Macro) evolution. I have chatted with people who said evolution was pertinent to Chemistry --now it is possible that such a person has had some biochemistry field in mind but when addressing chemical reactions there is no sort of evolution that I am aware of. So it seems there is too much zeal among some people to promote teaching of evolution.

Now it might be valid and pertinent in Biology to speak of the standard mechanisms of change under the direction of the DNA. It certainly is interesting to know aspects of DNA and of genes. It has been forever since I took any Biology class, but certainly this can be done without speculating on concepts of biogenesis. There is certainly enough to learn, if the primary schools will even focus on education, without having to promote unproven theories.

Now I have been interested in the idea of a website which somehow listed various scientific fields required to prove evolution, and different elements within those fields which also require evidence. The idea would be to have people contribute their expertise in their specific fields in order to get the whole 'proof' under one roof. I probably would then like the website to promote discussion of the evidence being presented and see where those discussions end up.

This proposal was with a strong sense of skepticism about the ability to get confirmation from enough scientific fields in order to complete the theory of evolution -- and get sufficient agreement on the details. This brings another question to mind "Is there any specific theory of evolution or are there only generalized frameworks that only house fragmented ideas of evolution?" The 2nd half of this question is proposing the idea that there might not be any complete proof of all the details that would be required in a full theory of evolution.

[jriccitelli]

Your video says people are ‘offended’ that man could have come from animals, no, I am offended by the complete ignorance of the necessity of design in creation. Reality proves nothing just forms of itself. Complexity is obviously impossible for non-thinking elements and matter. Things do not assemble themselves together anymore than mice come from piles of rags or rabbits from hats.

You are thinking this is the 15th century if you think religion causes people to not love or pursue science, if anything discourages people I know from science, it is the astonishment of working with and listening to those who would believe intelligence comes from non intelligence.

I am an artist also, and although I discovered I could illustrate and sell art of scantily clad women, occultic, heavy metal and new age subjects with high profit, but I refused these requests once I came to Christ, as some subjects are not at all pleasing to God in any form. I now work in construction, but I still illustrate and paint automobiles and such on the side. I would think that you as an artist would recognize form and design, I don’t draw with my eyes closed, and I don’t expect the canvas or paint to produce something on their own. I don’t scribble all day long hoping it will produce something. So why would God do such a thing?

I agree completely with Backwoods above. And I completely disagree with most of your video because you talk as if evolution has evidence for itself. You may think I am hostile to evolution , and you are right, I think it is ridiculous. But I accept that you may think Creationism is ridiculous, absurd and that I am an ignorant of everything under the sun, but that is ok. I do appreciate your good attitude and I think you are a likable and intelligent man, so don’t take my view of this debate as personal

Still I did not hear any response from you about design, such as how hearts developed valves that open and shut, all the while the creatures that needed hearts could not even exist until the heart valve system was completely perfected and functioning. Or how did cells know to stack themselves together to form long tubes that go from point a to point b, without leaking?

[Michelle]

Hi, Jon. I like your videos; there is a light tone, they are easy to understand, and the animation helps to make complicated concepts easier to understand. I can see why they are popular with educators. Good luck with your fund raising endeavor!

[steve]

I agree with Michelle's assessment. I like your artwork. It helps make your concepts clear and accessible.

[jriccitelli]

If Jon were doing videos promoting Mormonism, or videos promoting Islam would you be in favor of encouraging him in this also?