The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Topic started by: Dexter on June 01, 2015, 05:34:53 pm
-
:huh?:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/west-virginia-man-sues-education-officials-for-teaching-his-daughter-religion-of-evolution-10287709.html
A man in West Virginia is suing education officials for teaching his daughter about evolution, claiming it represents “the propagation of religious faith” and will prevent her from achieving her goal of becoming a vet. In a four-page complaint filed against a range of local, state and federal educators, Jefferson County parent Kenneth Smith said “evolutionary ideology just doesn’t exist and has no math to back it”. Representing himself, Smith accused the defendants of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the state from being biased towards or making laws respecting any religion. Smith said educators had ignored his “accurate scientific mathematical system of genetic variations that proves evolution is a religion”. “Their actions during the 2014-2015 school year affects my child’s future directly through the state grading system to enter college and the ability to earn economic security and a good job in her chosen veterinarian medical field of work,” Smith’s lawsuit said.
According to the National Centre for Science Education, which posted a link to the legal complaint in full, Smith appeared to be the author of a book called “The True Origin of Man”, which claims to have made “the ultimate discovery” about “the truth of man’s [sic] origins confirmed by DNA mathematical and scientific facts”. The Charleston Daily Mail, which initially reported Smith’s lawsuit, said he was seeking a trial by jury and concluded by requesting a judge declare that evolution violates the US Constitution. It said the lawsuit was yet to receive a formal response.
-
Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.
-
Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.
There must not be any reasonable judges, because I've seen cases a heck of a lot more frivolous than this permitted to proceed.
-
Any reasonable judge would immediately throw it out of court as a frivolous use of the court's resources and require him to pay all court costs.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy...
-
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy...
Ah, the argument by repetition fallacy...
-
There must not be any reasonable judges, because I've seen cases a heck of a lot more frivolous than this permitted to proceed.
Yes, and it's no wonder real cases stack up for months and years.
-
Ah, the argument by repetition fallacy...
Ibid...
-
Well, atheistic evolution IS a religion (with many devout adherents), but this lawsuit is frivolous, nonetheless.
-
If he doesn't like science, he shouldn't send his kid to a school that teaches it. He should home school or find a private school that fits his beliefs.
-
If he doesn't like science, he shouldn't send his kid to a school that teaches it. He should home school or find a private school that fits his beliefs.
Evolution is philosophical naturalism... which is not science... no matter how often the argument by repetition fallacy is invoked...
-
Evolution is a theory not a proven fact. I think bringing a lawsuit is stupid though just tell your child the facts at home out teach the liberal teacher.
-
Evolution is a theory not a proven fact. I think bringing a lawsuit is stupid though just tell your child the facts at home out teach the liberal teacher.
A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts. It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/scientific_theory.gif)
-
Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.
-
A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts. It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.
Theories are never 'proven' because of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Gravity is a particularly bad example to appeal to because 96% of the matter and energy needed to make the Standard Gravitational Cosmological Model 'work' is (by definition) 'dark', meaning that it is completely invisible to detection other than through the assumed effect needed to make the model 'work' (a nice bit of circular reasoning).
-
Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.
It is definitely a not a proven fact, even though it is TAUGHT as fact. (That's the problem, of course..... it's not taught as theory).
In addition, the theory began as an attempt to prove a philosophy................ which is no more scientific than the theory of global warming is.
Science is supposed to be objective.
Evolution is most definitely subjective and philosophical more than scientific.
-
A theory in science is not a 'guess', it is related to the term 'theorem' which is a concept that is proven through a culmination of facts. It is a 'theory' in the same way gravity is. It has been proven many ways, including recently DNA mapping.
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/scientific_theory.gif)
:thumbsup:
-
Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.
-
Yet another David Parker...WooHoo! **nononono*
-
Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.
Well said.
Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.
From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense. ^-^
-
Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.
Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.
Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.
-
Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.
Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.
Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.
No teaching science in schools? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology etc.?
What do you think needs to be in an education, to be a doctor, engineer, petroleum engineer, etc.
My grandmother had a masters in biology, my mother had a bachelors in chemistry. They both taught me a belief in science and in God. Evolution and the Bible were not mutually exclusive.
No wonder conservatives are losing their cultural war. Contemporary conservatism is accused of being anti-science, and I'm picking up on that here.
Looking backwards and going backwards, not forwards.
-
No teaching science in schools? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology etc.?
For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.
Did you misrepresent what I posted on purpose as it seems rather difficult to misunderstand this:
Scientism is the religion and belief in evolution is its bedrock, it's foremost article of faith.
Christianity is a religion and its bedrock is the Resurrection.
Neither is scientifically demonstrable and thus neither should be taught in public schools.
-
For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.
Did you misrepresent what I posted on purpose as it seems rather difficult to misunderstand this:
I believe evolution should be taught, and creationism can be as well. Let them both make their best possible and convincing presentations. Compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I favor my enlightened upbringing, whereby science and God are not mutually exclusive.
"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc.
No thanks.
-
Evolution is definitely theory, strong on general broad strokes, not so good on the details. It gets surprised with new data that doesn't fit with the current model, and scientists and supports have to scramble to make it fit. They don't do so well at times with that.
Science is ever evolving as our understanding of the universe around us grows, but I guarantee you can't show me one piece of data that has made science question the legitimacy of evolution.
-
Well said.
Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.
From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense. ^-^
Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.
-
Evolution is not a proven fact sorry but it is not.
No theory is ever proven fact. Facts are merely evidentiary observations. Theory explains facts, facts do not explain themselves.
Gravity "is not a proven fact sorry but it is not." That material objects tend to accelerate toward the ground - or, more generally, that a lighter material object tends to accelerate toward a heavier material object - is a fact, but it is not gravity. For example, that simple factual observation, by itself, can also be explained by the theory of electromagnetism. It takes further, more detailed observations, plus experimentation based on hypothesis - i.e., theory - and then explanation through theory before you ever get to gravity.
If you want strong evidence of evolution you need look no further than the local hospital where antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections on are the rise. Bacteria that have developed antibiotic resistance have evolved.
-
Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.
Not so. Science has repeatedly shown that the then-prevailing theory of evolution is wrong in one aspect or another. The reason evolution is science and not religion is that it is amenable to such falsification, and that it is therefore improved upon as a result of such falsification. So far, evolution has survived the various rounds of falsification and has emerged a stronger theory.
-
Well said.
Real scientists shouldn't always be surprised, and always be wrong about everything they've believed so strongly in the past.
From the outside looking in, evolutionists look kinda dense. ^-^
Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?
Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.
-
Not so. Science has repeatedly shown that the then-prevailing theory of evolution is wrong in one aspect or another. The reason evolution is science and not religion is that it is amenable to such falsification, and that it is therefore improved upon as a result of such falsification. So far, evolution has survived the various rounds of falsification and has emerged a stronger theory.
You misinterpreted my post. I wasn't implying that we've always had a perfect understanding of evolution. The legitimacy of the theory was never in question even though aspects of it changed.
-
I believe evolution should be taught, and creationism can be as well. Let them both make their best possible and convincing presentations. Compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I favor my enlightened upbringing, whereby science and God are not mutually exclusive.
"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc.
No thanks.
I agree that evolution should be taught in schools along with physics and the other sciences. Unless one is going to a Christian school of some type, the discussion of "creation" should be left for the churches and homes to discuss. There are numerous versions of creation, and if the Christian version is taught alongside science, then why not the Hindu, Islamic, Taoist, and perhaps a number more such stories? Gonna get kinda confusing...
I tend to support social conservatives because I believe they help stave off or at lest slow down the insane cultural changes rapidly taking place here pushed by the left and the media. But occasionally I'm at a loss to find a reason for such support. This case is one of them.
-
Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?
Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.
Now you're trying to make me sound like a know-nothing flat-earther, Oceander.
OF COURSE there is 'evolution' that has occurred, and is occurring.
I'm talking about the macro-evolution of species, and of human beings from primordial ooze that has never been proven, but is taught as "Scripture" in classrooms.
Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.
That's fine, as long as evolutionists know that their faith in something they've never seen and can't prove in a test tube is greater than mine in a Divine Creator, and the unique creation of human beings apart from animals as is taught in Scripture.
I'd like complete and honest education in classrooms; in science and in history.
It's not being taught in either discipline. There's not any more openness and honesty in science than there is in history. And in both cases, people who don't swallow the agenda are being called stupid.
And we're not..........
-
I personally see no conflict between evolution theory and creationism. There is, of course, conflict between creation stories based on the Christian bible (and the sacred texts of other religions), and the scientific (Darwinian) account of evolution, based on the fossil record and other evidence that organisms evolve (antibiotic resistance, animal breeding, plant hybridization, etc).
Science even conjectures the universe was created in a moment they like to call the Big Bang. Okay. Scientists believe that in that nanosecond the universe was created. Fine. I believe it was the creator who did that. Prove me wrong.
-
For heaven's sake, Truth_seeker, I said no such thing. I said evolution ought not be taught as fact because it is unproven., nothing more.
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s658/GourmetDan/dilbert_zpsgxo3xjum.jpg)
-
Now you're trying to make me sound like a know-nothing flat-earther, Oceander.
OF COURSE there is 'evolution' that has occurred, and is occurring.
I'm talking about the macro-evolution of species, and of human beings from primordial ooze that has never been proven, but is taught as "Scripture" in classrooms.
Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.
That's fine, as long as evolutionists know that their faith in something they've never seen and can't prove in a test tube is greater than mine in a Divine Creator, and the unique creation of human beings apart from animals as is taught in Scripture.
I'd like complete and honest education in classrooms; in science and in history.
It's not being taught in either discipline. There's not any more openness and honesty in science than there is in history. And in both cases, people who don't swallow the agenda are being called stupid.
And we're not..........
:amen:
-
Science is ever evolving as our understanding of the universe around us grows, but I guarantee you can't show me one piece of data that has made science question the legitimacy of evolution.
Your statement is self-contradictory. Science wouldn't have to 'evolve' if it weren't for the fact that new data comes in that doesn't fit the model.
A great example was the recent discovery that what was thought to be junk DNA was actually another layer of replication that controlled expression. So what seemed quite random was far more ordered than previously thought.
So add another 15 billion years to the evolutionary timetable so that those random changes can happen.
-
"Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc
.
Indeed. Let's look at a few of the goofballs who use the term, none of whom are Benny Hinn.
Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] "Scientism" has also been taken over as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge by philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg.[10]
For social theorists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen Habermas and Max Horkheimer, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural rationalization of the modern West.[9][21] British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."[22
Non-religious scholars have also linked New Atheist thought with scientism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues neuroscientist Sam Harris conflates all empirical knowledge with that of scientific knowledge.[39] Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton argues Christopher Hitchens possesses an "old-fashioned scientistic notion of what counts as evidence" that reduces knowledge to what can and cannot be proven by scientific procedure.[40] Agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny has also criticized New Atheist philosopher Alexander Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality for resurrecting a self-refuting epistemology of logical positivism and reducing all knowledge of the universe to the discipline of physics.[41]
Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, draws a parallel between scientism and traditional religious movements, pointing to the cult of personality that develops around some scientists in the public eye. He defines scientism as a worldview that encompasses natural explanations, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason.[42]
The Iranian scholar Seyyed Hossein Nasr has stated that in the West, many will accept the ideology of modern science, not as "simple ordinary science", but as a replacement for religion.[43]
Gregory R. Peterson writes that "for many theologians and philosophers, scientism is among the greatest of intellectual sins
I could go on but I won't. Stating "Scientism" is a goofball word, from those who would have us validate Rev. Benny Hinn and 6,000 and 10,000 year old earth proponents, in a world and in a time of moon walks, modern medicine, etc." is not only an erroneous statement in and of itself, but is also an example of the unwarranted assumption fallacy in logic.
-
Do you believe that various strains of dangerous bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics?
Then you believe in evolution whether you admit it or not.
This is how ridiculous the 'science' of evolution is. Bacteria do not 'develop' resistance to antibiotics. The 'resistance' (failure to die from the antibiotic) was always there. The antibiotic simply killed off the susceptible bacteria leaving those that are not susceptible.
All 'support' for evolution is based on this type of faulty logic...
-
A quick read from tufts.edu explaining how some bacteria develop resistance (yes, some are naturally resistant, but others develop resistance).
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml
-
A quick read from tufts.edu explaining how some bacteria develop resistance (yes, some are naturally resistant, but others develop resistance).
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml
The word 'develop' is used to imply an 'advance' to a higher or more effective state (implying teleology), rather than the word 'acquire' which correctly describes the pre-existing nature of the information. This makes evolution seem plausible to laymen while evolutionists deny that evolution is teleological.
In reality, bacteria constantly mutate and horizontally share genetic information. A mutated form may not be susceptible to a specific chemical attack (which is what antibiotics are), but those mutated forms exist whether antibiotics are present or not. It is only the presence of antibiotics that allows their numbers to increase. There is no 'evolution' going on, merely mutation of and sharing of genetic information by previously-existing complex systems.
It is a non-sequitur to believe that artifacts of an existing complex system actually created that complex system.
Re-defining what exists as uniquely supportive of evolution is the fallacy of affirming the consequent...
-
Science is not wrong about evolution and nothing has ever indicated otherwise.
So then, you believe that Africans are lower on the evolutionary chain than Europeans, and thus closer to the apes, as Darwin did?
That's not wrong? Hmmmmm....... :pondering:
Just as an anecdote, my Dad was in med school in the 1930's and was force-fed the evolution of the day by his profs. If you look at what he was taught as "fact" you'd fall on the floor with laughter. It was wrong.
To add to the discussion here...... the Scriptural account of Creation explains the uniqueness of humanity in our creativity, imagination, compassion, intellect, language, reasoning. We were created separately, in the image of God.
Evolution doesn't even have viable guesses for the most critical aspects of being human. (The left is pushing on us that animals are the same...... remember that some are seeking 'rights' for animals? Agenda).
Once again, modern-day 'science' is, at least in this area, an agenda seeking 'facts' to back it up. When those 'facts' are disproven, they come up with more 'facts' to support their agenda.
It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as Creator.
-
So then, you believe that Africans are lower on the evolutionary chain than Europeans, and thus closer to the apes, as Darwin did?
That's not wrong? Hmmmmm....... :pondering:
Just as an anecdote, my Dad was in med school in the 1930's and was force-fed the evolution of the day by his profs. If you look at what he was taught as "fact" you'd fall on the floor with laughter. It was wrong.
To add to the discussion here...... the Scriptural account of Creation explains the uniqueness of humanity in our creativity, imagination, compassion, intellect, language, reasoning. We were created separately, in the image of God.
Evolution doesn't even have viable guesses for the most critical aspects of being human. (The left is pushing on us that animals are the same...... remember that some are seeking 'rights' for animals? Agenda).
Once again, modern-day 'science' is, at least in this area, an agenda seeking 'facts' to back it up. When those 'facts' are disproven, they come up with more 'facts' to support their agenda.
It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as Creator.
Like Oceander you have misinterpreted my post; perhaps I should have worded it differently. Some aspects of the theory have changed over time, but the theory itself has never been in question. At no point did scientists discover evidence that made them think we didn't actually evolve. Such evidence will never be discovered because evolution is real and we are simply one more species that has evolved on this planet.
-
Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.
-
Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.
Exactly. The order goes: Hypothesis > Testing > Evidence > Theory
-
Your statement is self-contradictory. Science wouldn't have to 'evolve' if it weren't for the fact that new data comes in that doesn't fit the model.
A great example was the recent discovery that what was thought to be junk DNA was actually another layer of replication that controlled expression. So what seemed quite random was far more ordered than previously thought.
So add another 15 billion years to the evolutionary timetable so that those random changes can happen.
No new data has ever suggested that evolution isn't real. Every scientist on the planet would know your name if you stumbled across evidence that put the entire theory into question.
-
Also, anybody that actually believes there is no solid evidence to back up evolution has obviously never studied it. A theory cannot exist without substantial evidence to back it up.
Exactly. The order goes: Hypothesis > Testing > Evidence > Theory
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin), "Billions and Billions of Demons"
-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin), "Billions and Billions of Demons"
That's a nice quote Dan. Do you have evidence to show that the theory of evolution is a sham?
-
That's a nice quote Dan. Do you have evidence to show that the theory of evolution is a sham?
"Well... other than that... how was your trip to Dallas, Mrs. Kennedy..."
-
I thought not.
-
I thought not.
Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...
-
Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...
I understand exactly what you're saying Dan; I simply think it's asinine.
-
:nono:
-
I understand exactly what you're saying Dan; I simply think it's asinine.
Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to. And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism. Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.
-
Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to. And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism. Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.
Nothing he said in any way demonstrates that the evidence backing the theory is not legitimate. You're using one man's opinion to completely avoid having to use logic in your argument.
-
Like Oceander you have misinterpreted my post; perhaps I should have worded it differently. Some aspects of the theory have changed over time, but the theory itself has never been in question. At no point did scientists discover evidence that made them think we didn't actually evolve. Such evidence will never be discovered because evolution is real and we are simply one more species that has evolved on this planet.
Evolution is real to you because you have faith in it.
Most people don't, because it makes no sense to anyone who has common sense.
And there has never been any proof for macro evolution, so it makes sense that there is no 'evidence' to disprove it.
But sometime, perhaps, you can explain to us stupid people how language, creativity, conscience, rationality, and any number of other human characteristics 'evolved' out of those other creatures who didn't have anything of the sort.
Oh........ and then you can go on to explain where all the other evolving creatures are now...
Never mind. You can't explain anything that it takes so much faith to believe.......
You can only guess. And believe those whose agenda is to make you believe what they want you to believe.
-
Evolution is real to you because you have faith in it.
Evolution is real to me because it is the most reasonable explanation and there is a plethora of evidence to support it. Even God has to obey the physical laws he created for our universe. People can't pop out of thin air; magic is not real.
Most people don't, because it makes no sense to anyone who has common sense.
It makes sense to the most educated people on the planet.
And there has never been any proof for macro evolution, so it makes sense that there is no 'evidence' to disprove it.
There is a lot of evidence to support macro evolution.
But sometime, perhaps, you can explain to us stupid people how language, creativity, conscience, rationality, and any number of other human characteristics 'evolved' out of those other creatures who didn't have anything of the sort.
Our advanced intelligence is most likely responsible for all of those things. I don't think you're stupid; I actually think you're quite intelligent. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. The fact that you're intelligent is a big part of what makes your ignorance frustrating. If I thought you were an idiot I wouldn't even talk to you.
Oh........ and then you can go on to explain where all the other evolving creatures are now...
All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.
Never mind. You can't explain anything that it takes so much faith to believe.......
Actually I can explain it, and so can the scientific community.
You can only guess. And believe those whose agenda is to make you believe what they want you to believe.
A theory is not a guess.
-
Still don't understand that it is not about evidence... but the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof, eh...
What guiding philosophies did Darwin possess? He was baptized an Anglican and steeped in religion as a child – his mother saw to that. He had the aim of becoming a clergyman when he entered the University of Cambridge.
-
Nothing he said in any way demonstrates that the evidence backing the theory is not legitimate. You're using one man's opinion to completely avoid having to use logic in your argument.
Again...the philosophies guiding the interpretation thereof is the issue, not the 'evidence'. I thought you 'understood' this?
By excluding anything but a materialistic conclusion 'a priori' he has completely discredited the entire philosophy guiding the discipline to a 'conclusion'. 'This is impossible by natural processes' is not an option, therefore any proposed materialistic solution is worthless. There is no other choice.
And he isn't just 'one man'. He is a top evolutionary biologist and geneticist who understands evolution better than you do.
The absence of logic is in your argument, not mine...
-
Richard Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. He understands evolution and science far better than you could ever hope to. And he admitted that science has an absolute duty to produce a materialistic 'theory' because of an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism. Because of that, it is impossible for science to acknowledge that any materialistic theory it produces is nothing more than fantasy.
And Richard Lewontin has no such a priori Commitments?
-
What guiding philosophies did Darwin possess? He was baptized an Anglican and steeped in religion as a child – his mother saw to that. He had the aim of becoming a clergyman when he entered the University of Cambridge.
You're obviously trying to imply that Darwin was guided by a Christian philosophy when he wrote "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Are 'Favoured Races' a Christian philosophy?
-
And Richard Lewontin has no such a priori Commitments?
That's the point... he said that science has an absolute 'a priori' commitment to material causes in his book.
"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
And he's a guy who would know...
-
That's the point... he said that science has an absolute 'a priori' commitment to material causes in his book.
"Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
And he's a guy who would know...
Your belief that science is determined to not let God be the answer to anything is nonsense. If scientists found evidence of God they would share it with the world and become immortalized in history books.
-
Your belief that science is determined to not let God be the answer to anything is nonsense. If scientists found evidence of God they would share it with the world and become immortalized in history books.
Richard Lewontin, a committed evolutionist, says otherwise...
-
Richard Lewontin, a committed evolutionist, says otherwise...
So? He is wrong too.
-
You're obviously trying to imply that Darwin was guided by a Christian philosophy when he wrote "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Are 'Favoured Races' a Christian philosophy?
I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you think there are scientists, biologists, zoologists, geneticist and the like, who also have an abiding Christian faith and attend church?
And if so, how might they reconcile their religious faith to their scientific understanding?
-
So? He is wrong too.
No, he understands science and evolution far better than you do. He's exactly correct.
-
I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you think there are scientists, biologists, zoologists, geneticist and the like, who also have an abiding Christian faith and attend church?
And if so, how might they reconcile their religious faith to their scientific understanding?
You're obviously implying that there are committed evolutionists who are committed Christians as well. You already tried that with Darwin.
It means absolutely nothing and serves only to divert the conversation...
-
No, he understands science and evolution far better than you do.
Plenty of equally qualified scientists would disagree with him. You found one scientist that believes one thing and you cling onto it so you can completely avoid having to use logic. You've never engaged this conversation intellectually. You cherry pick quotes and use them to say the evidence doesn't matter.
He's exactly correct.
No, he's not, and neither are you.
-
His credentials do not make him right about everything. You do know plenty of equally qualified scientists would disagree with him, right? You found one scientist that believes one thing that you can cling onto and absolve yourself from having to use logic. You've never engaged this conversation intellectually. You cherry pick quotes and use them to say the evidence doesn't matter.
His credentials are certainly better than yours when it comes to explaining the underlying philosophy of science. Surely you can provide some quotes from qualified scientists who have said that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism. What philosophy would it be based on then? Supernaturalism? There is only naturalism and supernaturalism. There is nothing in-between.
And again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'. I thought you said you 'understood' this?
-
His credentials are certainly better than yours when it comes to explaining the underlying philosophy of science. Surely you can provide some quotes from qualified scientists who have said that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism. What philosophy would it be based on then? Supernaturalism? There is only naturalism and supernaturalism. There is nothing in-between.
That was a cute attempt to twist what I was actually saying. Lots of qualified scientists would disagree with the belief that science is determined to never let God be the answer. It would be difficult to find a quote for that because such an absurd opinion is most likely not something scientists discuss very often. Common sense should tell you that if a scientist found evidence of God he/she would use it to become one of the most famous scientists of all time.
And again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'. I thought you said you 'understood' this?
How else could one interpret the evidence? No interpretation would suggest that evolution is not real. I'm no longer interested in having this conversation with you. That will change if at some point you decide to actually engage this topic intellectually instead of quoting one man's opinion and using it to write off evolution completely. We probably won't discuss this further because you're probably incapable of doing that.
-
Lots of qualified scientists would disagree with your belief that science is determined to never let God be the answer. It would be difficult to find a quote for that because such an absurd opinion is most likely not something scientists discuss very often. Common sense should tell you that if a scientist found evidence of God he/she would use it to become one of the most famous scientists of all time.
Ah, so you're the one who can't come up with one scientist to 'cling to', huh? And you were so sure they're looking for God, too.
Science being based on naturalism and returning only naturalistic answers is an absolutely common sense thing to acknowledge. Nothing absurd about that at all. Utterly predictable in fact.
How else could one interpret the evidence? No interpretation would suggest that evolution is not real. I'm no longer interested in having this conversation with you. That will change if at some point you decide to actually engage this topic intellectually instead of quoting one man's opinion and using it to write off evolution completely. Chances are we won't discuss this further because chances are you're incapable of doing that.
Aside from invoking the non-sequitur of defining "what is seen is evolution therefore evolution is true" there really is no other option than to declare victory and blame your opponent...
-
Evolution is real to me because it is the most reasonable explanation and there is a plethora of evidence to support it. Even God has to obey the physical laws he created for our universe. People can't pop out of thin air; magic is not real.
Why in the name of all that is rational, did you bring up 'magic?' It has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.
It makes sense to the most educated people on the planet.
So does global warming, and it's a crock.
There is a lot of evidence to support macro evolution.
So, what species are in the process of evolving into a different species at the current time?
Our advanced intelligence is most likely responsible for all of those things. I don't think you're stupid; I actually think you're quite intelligent. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. The fact that you're intelligent is a big part of what makes your ignorance frustrating. If I thought you were an idiot I wouldn't even talk to you.
Why, that's big of you to condescend to speak with me and try to get me out of my ignorant state. Would that you would not be so ignorant of the God who created the universe....
The problem you (and other 'educated' people) continue to ignore is that our intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air (didn't you say you didn't believe in magic?) Evolution cannot explain creativity or conscience, rational thought or language.
Logically, only a Higher Being could have brought those characteristics into being. But then, I don't think there's much logic in evolution. Just faith.
All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.
If you were old enough, you'd laugh at how 'scientists' kept adding time to evolution because their cockamamie theories didn't work out for them. As I said before, the facts change when the facts turn out to be non-factual.
That's not science.
Actually I can explain it, and so can the scientific community.
No. You can't.
A theory is not a guess.
Right. But evolution requires a lot of guessing to make up the 'theory.'
And most people have got that figured out....... even some of us who have advanced degrees, and are not in the least ignorant on the subject.
-
Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu
God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml
-
Why in the name of all that is rational, did you bring up 'magic?' It has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.
Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics.
So, what species are in the process of evolving into a different species at the current time?
All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look back and see what has already occurred.
Why, that's big of you to condescend to speak with me and try to get me out of my ignorant state. Would that you would not be so ignorant of the God who created the universe....
You think I'm ignorant and I don't take that personally. I actually like you; I'd even call you my friend if I didn't think you loathed me. I don't think you should take it personally either. I have always respected you as an intellectual.
The problem you (and other 'educated' people) continue to ignore is that our intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air (didn't you say you didn't believe in magic?) Evolution cannot explain creativity or conscience, rational thought or language.
No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.
Logically, only a Higher Being could have brought those characteristics into being.
I disagree.
If you were old enough, you'd laugh at how 'scientists' kept adding time to evolution because their cockamamie theories didn't work out for them. As I said before, the facts change when the facts turn out to be non-factual.
That's not science.
Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. Science definitely got that part right.
No. You can't.
I can. :laugh:
Right. But evolution requires a lot of guessing to make up the 'theory.'
It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.
-
Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu
God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml
Um, your link says "If ORP were completely true, it would certainly make constructing phylogenies a lot easier. We could study an organism’s development and read its history directly. Unfortunately, phylogeneticists are out of luck here."
Where does your link say that science has recognized that "God authored evolution"?
-
Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics.
The Big Bang isn't conducive to the laws of physics either. Is it also magic?
All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look backwards and see what has already occurred.
Cool, kinda like 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' which no one can see either. And you don't 'see what has already occurred', you infer it based on a materialistic philosophy. Big difference.
No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.
No, you *assume* that it "gradually increased over a very long period of time" because you *impose* certain levels of intelligence on people who were, in all likelihood, much more intelligent than modern humans; or were apes and may still have been more intelligent that modern humans...
Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. We definitely got that part right.
If only the Bible was wrong as much as science is, and could claim that being wrong is a strength; then we could claim it was 'scientific'!
It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.
Again, again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'. Most of what is claimed to be 'understanding' is merely inference based on a materialistic philosophy. Big difference.
-
Creating humans from dirt and ribs would be magic. It is not conducive to the laws of physics.
The God who created the laws of physics, soil, and humans, you included, has told us otherwise.
All of them, but none of us will be alive to see the progression of that evolution. We can only look back and see what has already occurred.
You can't look back far enough to see any of the things you believe in by faith.
You think I'm ignorant and I don't take that personally. I actually like you; I'd even call you my friend if I didn't think you loathed me. I don't think you should take it personally either. I have always respected you as an intellectual.
I think you're willfully ignorant. And extremely gullible, but I don't even come close to loathing you. In fact, though I find your arguments weak and your stubbornness remarkable, sometimes I even like you (I am commanded to love you, and I do, in Christ). I think you're one of many very intelligent young people who have been lied to so much that you have lost the sense God gave you. (Yes. HE did give you the mind you use to deny Him). And because of that, I feel badly for what you are missing. God loves you deeply, but you don't know that, and that's a very sad thing.
No, it didn't pop out of thin air. It gradually increased over a very long period of time.
When you have no answers, just add a couple billion years. That's what all people of your faith do....
The answers are in Scripture. You and I were made in God's image. Your creativity and mine are gifts from Him. It stretches any form of credulity to believe that all you need to come up with imagination and reason are time. It can't happen, and it's certainly not 'scientific' to believe it just happened because of a million years of nothingness.
I disagree.
Science is an ever evolving series of trial and error. We get it wrong until we figure it out and get it right. Some aspects of the theory have changed, but the theory itself has held strong. Science definitely got that part right.
Evolution is an ever evolving series of nothing but error. And in time, it always proves to be wrong.
Scripture hasn't changed for millennia............... and it NEVER is proven wrong.
I can. :laugh:
No. You can't.
It requires a lot of evidence just like any theory does. I will admit that some of our understanding comes from educated guesses that are based on the evidence we already have, but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.
Your undeniable evidence requires a pre-belief that it says what you hope and believe it says.
-
For the record, I am fully aware that there are many theists who believe in evolution, and even Christians.
I find it a difficult balance, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how old the rocks are, nor even how long the days of Creation were.
What I do know, is that we have a Creator, and that we, as humans, were created uniquely, and given at Creation the ability to think, reason, make fire, create beauty, care for others, and were also given a soul. We were in-breathed with the very breath of God.
There is no way, IMO, to support humans' evolving from apes without discarding the essence of Scripture.
-
For the record, I am fully aware that there are many theists who believe in evolution, and even Christians.
I find it a difficult balance, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how old the rocks are, nor even how long the days of Creation were.
What I do know, is that we have a Creator, and that we, as humans, were created uniquely, and given at Creation the ability to think, reason, make fire, create beauty, care for others, and were also given a soul. We were in-breathed with the very breath of God.
There is no way, IMO, to support humans' evolving from apes without discarding the essence of Scripture.
Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?
-
Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?
Why is nothing impossible except that when God communicated with humans all those years ago that he told them the truth about what he had done and how long it took?
Oh yeah, because man doesn't agree with it...
-
Interesting statement:
but most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils and DNA.
Why interesting? Because eminent paleontologist and devout evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once observed: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
In other words, even Gould recognized the fossil record does not support evolution. Nonetheless Gould denied his own observations and remained an evolutionist until his death. Talk about faith!
Gould rationalized his devotion to evolution by inventing the theory of punctuated equilbria: The theory that new species evolve suddenly over relatively short periods of time (a few hundred to a thousand years), followed by longer periods in which little genetic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium is a revision of Darwin's theory that evolution takes place at a slow, constant rate over millions of years.
Say, what was that about changes taking place over long periods of time and thus not being observable?
-
Interesting statement:
Why interesting? Because eminent paleontologist and devout evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould once observed:
In other words, even Gould recognized the fossil record does not support evolution. Nonetheless Gould denied his own observations and remained an evolutionist until his death. Talk about faith!
Gould rationalized his devotion to evolution by inventing the theory of punctuated equilbria: The theory that new species evolve suddenly over relatively short periods of time (a few hundred to a thousand years), followed by longer periods in which little genetic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium is a revision of Darwin's theory that evolution takes place at a slow, constant rate over millions of years.
We've learned a lot since 1987
Say, what was that about changes taking place over long periods of time and thus not being observable?
I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested. It's very possible that Gould was right, which would make it likely that humans will eventually observe evolution, but certainly not within one or even several lifespans. A time table that stretches as far as a thousand years would be pretty hard to observe for a while; Darwin died only 133 years ago. The long periods of no evolution would also be a challenge because you'd have to somehow pinpoint a species that is in its evolution phase and then observe it for possibly 1000 years. I think you're wrong if you're suggesting that we should have observed evolution by now if it's real.
-
No theory is ever proven fact.
Not sure I can entirely agree with that. A theory in say the 1880s stating that man can fly, would be proven true in a couple of decades.
Similarly a theory in the late 1930s that man can make a nuclear bomb, proven true in a few years.
Maybe what you mean is so long as it is an unproved theory, it is not certain. And when it is certain, it is no longer merely a theory?
-
Those who believe that one animal developed and branched out and became another, and that it all happened from nothing take it on faith.
There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species. The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.
There are a great many such similar patterns.
And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.
A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
-
Knowledge is power. A quick review of evolution starting with Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, or the Recapitulation Theory, explored here at evolution.berkeley.edu
God authored evolution; it's up to us to understand it.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml
That is what I was taught, by my church going grandmother (Masters, biology) and my church going mother (bachelors, chemistry).
And later by a couple of supervisors, churchgoing Masters degree holders in Geology and Petroleum engineering, respectively.
Those four learned people, have vastly more credibility than some whacko bird cited by people espousing 6,000 year earth nonsense.
The narrow mindedness necessary to cling to a literal-only view of the Bible, its concepts, sells God way, way short.
-
Seriously?
We've learned a lot since 1987
That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?
Again, seriously?
I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested
All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.
-
Seriously?
That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?
Again, seriously?
"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02
Fossils provide significant and undeniable evidence of evolution. Quoting a paleontologist from 1987 does not change that. I know you desperately want to wave your hand and remove fossil evidence from the equation, but you can't, sorry.
I never said it's impossible for evolution to occur at a quicker rate than Darwin suggested
All creatures evolve, but evolution happens slowly over immense periods of time. It's not something you can watch in one lifetime.
Those two quotes don't contradict each other. Punctuated equilibrium is still debated, and even if it wasn't it would still be impossible to observe in a single lifetime.
-
Is it impossible that when God communicated with humans all those years ago He was bearing in mind their limited capacity to understand the complexities of the universe around them?
Do you honestly think that we have the capacity to understand the complexity of the universe now?
The most brilliant scientist in the universe never comes close to understanding what God created with a mere breath. It is God who gives us the minds to understand what He has done.
And won't ever come close.
What happened philosophically a century or so before Darwin came up with his (racist) theory that is now called science, is that people stupidly started believing that man was the center of the universe, that rational thinking was the be all and end all of existence.
It was that so-called 'enlightened' thinking that has led to this struggle to prove that the world exists without God.
In short, it is an attempt to prove an agenda, and not an objective search for truth.
That's part of the reason that 'facts' about evolution change so often. The agenda is that there is no God; no Intelligence behind what exists, and science in the last several hundred years has been nothing but an attempt to prove that point.
That's why it will always be proven wrong over time.
It's not really science.
(Incidentally, you never addressed Darwin's racism, that his 'theory' codified cultural racism and made it 'official' in academia and in the progressive movement in America. When you said evolution wasn't 'wrong,' you evaded that direct problem).
-
Seriously?
That's your response to the admission by one of America's top paleontologist (and ardent evolutionist) as to the "extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record..." even though you claimed that "most of our understanding comes from undeniable evidence such as fossils..."?
Again, seriously?
Good question, Paladin.
I wonder, in addition to the absence of fossil records, where the transitional forms of life are today?
If macro-evolution is a reality, then why did it stop? Why no more Lucy's?
And another question I have for the true-believers................ where are all the people? If we've been reproducing for millions of years (without the progressive ZPG ideology and birth control which exist now), where are all the people? There ought to be a lot more of us than there are. Right? :smokin:
To be an ardent evolutionist, one has to have the capacity to ignore the obvious.
-
Do you honestly think that we have the capacity to understand the complexity of the universe now?
The most brilliant scientist in the universe never comes close to understanding what God created with a mere breath. It is God who gives us the minds to understand what He has done.
And won't ever come close.
What happened philosophically a century or so before Darwin came up with his (racist) theory that is now called science, is that people stupidly started believing that man was the center of the universe, that rational thinking was the be all and end all of existence.
It was that so-called 'enlightened' thinking that has led to this struggle to prove that the world exists without God.
In short, it is an attempt to prove an agenda, and not an objective search for truth.
That's part of the reason that 'facts' about evolution change so often. The agenda is that there is no God; no Intelligence behind what exists, and science in the last several hundred years has been nothing but an attempt to prove that point.
That's why it will always be proven wrong over time.
It's not really science.
I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science. Science completely recognizes our extreme insignificance in an unimaginably massive universe. Science understands that we are just one species that has evolved on one planet. Religion would have you believe that humans are special to God. Religion suggests that God created this entire universe just for us. That is incredibly arrogant.
(Incidentally, you never addressed Darwin's racism, that his 'theory' codified cultural racism and made it 'official' in academia and in the progressive movement in America. When you said evolution wasn't 'wrong,' you evaded that direct problem).
I already conceded that certain elements of evolution have changed. Darwin was not right about everything, but he was right about a lot of things. The most significant parts of his theory still stand strong.
-
There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species. The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.
There are a great many such similar patterns.
And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.
A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Of course not. There are many who believe that God created the earth and used evolution as a means to do it.
There is some Scripture (besides the first books of Genesis) that has to be distorted a bit to make that possible, but many do it. As I said before, I don't care how old the rocks are. We'll find that out in the end, and it won't matter. But to deny the unique creation of humans and the God-inspired beginning of our human race makes it a bit thornier an issue. Whether one believes that the story of Adam is an allegory, not factual, is open for discussion. But if the understanding of original sin goes away with the denial of Adam....first man........ then Christians are getting themselves into some serious theological deep weeds.
My issue here has been with those for whom science IS their religion, and the blind, unquestioning faith it requires to continue believing in that religion. I know you have problems with blind faith among Believers (I do too), but there is at least an equal share of blind faith in the science that flowed out of atheistic philosophy.
-
"The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time."
It is in the assembly where the rub lies. The fossil 'record' is a mess with assumed time frames often missing or inverted. Fossils are defined as 'reworked' when they appear in layers where they shouldn't.
Again, again, again, again, again... it is the philosophies guiding the interpretation of the evidence that is the issue, not the 'evidence'. Most of what is claimed to be 'understanding' is merely inference based on a materialistic philosophy. Big difference.
There is no fossil 'record', just the imaginations of people wholly committed to naturalism passing their fantasies off as 'science'...
-
I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science. Science completely recognizes our extreme insignificance in an unimaginably massive universe. Science understands that we are just one species that has evolved on one planet. Religion would have you believe that humans are special to God. Religion suggests that God created this entire universe just for us. That is incredibly arrogant.
Well, I'm not going to do it here, but I will say that, from this statement, you are completely ignorant about what the Bible says, and who man is in relation to Him. There can't be an intelligent debate about a subject that you clearly know nothing about.
In addition, you obviously are ignorant about modern philosophy and its humanism, so until you get at least a basic grasp of history, I don't think anything productive can be accomplished here.
I already conceded that certain elements of evolution have changed. Darwin was not right about everything, but he was right about a lot of things. The most significant parts of his theory still stand strong.
The racist aspect of Darwin's 'research' deeply influenced academia and is entwined with the progressive movement of the early 20th century. One of the most racist Presidents we have had was Darwinian Woodrow Wilson, who was also an intense segregationist and racist. There are those who try to extricate racism from evolutionist philosophy, but its not easily done.
Darwin's influence is still strong in the Democrat party.
But beside that (I repeat myself), Darwin set out to come up with a story about the origins of man that removed any form of religion.
That's not science.
And neither is any research now that does not allow a Creator, even if the evidence points strongly in that direction (which it does).
-
There is a lot of data indicating evolution, among species. The bones making up limbs, fins and wings, show similarities.
There are a great many such similar patterns.
And each year, scientists find more patterns and data. Some of those open minded scientists go to church on Sunday, and go back to work on Monday to learn more, about the handiwork of their God.
A belief in a Creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Oh yes........... and to your first point.
The same Creator more than adequately explains the similarities among species. That's not proof of evolution.
-
Well, I'm not going to do it here, but I will say that, from this statement, you are completely ignorant about what the Bible says, and who man is in relation to Him. There can't be an intelligent debate about a subject that you clearly know nothing about.
In addition, you obviously are ignorant about modern philosophy and its humanism, so until you get at least a basic grasp of history, I don't think anything productive can be accomplished here.
Are we special to God when compared to other forms of life? Did God create the universe for us? Does Christianity not suggest that humans are particularly significant?
And neither is any research now that does not allow a Creator, even if the evidence points strongly in that direction (which it does).
What evidence are you referring to?
-
Don't know much about the theory of evolution, etc..
But I can say this....I don't believe that all the oil/petroleum in the ground is a result of decayed dinosaurs.
Same as believing the moon is made of cheese. :whistle:
-
What evidence are you referring to?
If the discovery of a coded, fault-tolerant, error-correcting information database more complex than anything man has created (aka evidence) didn't falsify evolution, absolutely nothing will.
-
Are we special to God when compared to other forms of life? Did God create the universe for us? Does Christianity not suggest that humans are particularly significant?
Though this is not a religion thread, since the subject matter is relevant to the discussion, I will give you a brief response (even though your very question is a distortion, and not a quest for knowledge, nor a legitimate response).
Yes, with relation to plants and animals, humans are 'special.' But that is not what your original accusation stated. You stated....
I would argue that it is religion that makes man the center of the universe, not science.
That statement is completely false, because in Christianity, GOD, in Christ, along with the Holy Spirit (the Trinity; the Creator) is the "center" of the universe. We, as human beings are merely creations, HE is the Creator; our Center, our Purpose, our Righteousness, our Lord and Master.
In Christianity, it is the polar opposite of your 'argument.' Our righteousness is "as filthy rags." We are sinners in need of redemption, and God, in Christ, provided that redemption.
I am accustomed to the twists and evasions of your debating style, Dexter, but in this case, you turned reality on its head to come up with the accusation you have made.
What evidence are you referring to?
Just look at the perfection of the human body; heart, digestion, reproduction, breathing, musculature, vascular system, brain function..... all working perfectly together to produce thought, motion, life.
The evidence points to a Designer, Dex. To continue to believe that such a fearfully and wonderfully made body could have happened by chance just because there was enough 'time,' is to believe in magic.
And takes enormous faith.
-
Yes, with relation to plants and animals, humans are 'special.'
I apologize for anything I have distorted. I simply wanted to point out that science sees humanity as no better than any other life form while religion sees humanity as the most significant life form in the universe. I think that contradicts what you said about science thinking we are the center of the universe.
Just look at the perfection of the human body; heart, digestion, reproduction, breathing, musculature, vascular system, brain function..... all working perfectly together to produce thought, motion, life.
The evidence points to a Designer, Dex. To continue to believe that such a fearfully and wonderfully made body could have happened by chance just because there was enough 'time,' is to believe in magic.
And takes enormous faith.
Your belief that humans are too magnificent to have been a product of evolution is not evidence of a creator.
-
I think it's safe to say we have reached an impasse. I respectfully disagree with those of you that do not believe evolution is real. :beer:
-
Your belief that humans are too magnificent to have been a product of evolution is not evidence of a creator.
If the discovery of a coded, fault-tolerant, error-correcting information database more complex than anything man has created (aka evidence) didn't falsify evolution, absolutely nothing will.
-
I apologize for anything I have distorted. I simply wanted to point out that science sees humanity as no better than any other life form while religion sees humanity as the most significant life form in the universe. I think that contradicts what you said about science thinking we are the center of the universe.
Ah..... but it doesn't even come close to doing that, and I have given the reason why. Religion....... specifically Judeo/Christianity...... very strongly places GOD at the Center. For you to continue to argue that you think Christianity puts man at the center, just because plants aren't our equal, is a mere spitting into the wind.
And for your own personal enlightenment, I would urge you to do a bit more research on the philosophy of the 18th and 19th centuries that took God not only out of philosophy, but also education and science (and was incidentally called "humanism" because it clearly placed man at the center of the universe, and above God).
Your belief that humans are too magnificent to have been a product of evolution is not evidence of a creator.
So you are saying that the human body is magnificent is only a 'belief' that I have, and not reality?
Yikes.
I'll use an obvious parallel. Show me a functioning watch that wasn't made by anyone, and then compare its complexity with that of the human body, and you might begin to understand the obvious.
We didn't just 'happen.' The evidence points clearly to a Designer.
Unless you shut your eyes, cover your ears and hum to avoid reality......... which I have a sense is exactly what you are doing.
-
Don't know much about the theory of evolution, etc..
But I can say this....I don't believe that all the oil/petroleum in the ground is a result of decayed dinosaurs.
The graduate degreed petroleum engineers and geologists that I worked with did and most continue to believe it so.
Not just dinosaurs, but also the other things in the seas. Krill, plankton, etc.
-
The graduate degreed petroleum engineers and geologists that I worked with did and most continue to believe it so.
Not just dinosaurs, but also the other things in the seas. Krill, plankton, etc.
Yeah, I wanna believe what these guys believe 'cause they're so much smarter than I am... /s