Dissent from Darwinism

[CarmelHP]

This is a great point. We cannot observe evolution; we can only observe fossils. Macro evolution has never been observed by man; so to believe in it requires faith.

Requires evidence, not faith. Just because you have not directly observed something does not mean it is impossible to know anything about it. Evidence is left behind by which inferences can made. For example, a crime scene investigator gathers evidence about a crime and deduces facts about the circumstances. It's not based on faith but on logical reasoning from available evidence. Evidence, such as the decay of radioisotopes is very good evidence. It doesn't serve the religious position well to deny that anything can be known about the distant past because not everything is known, or to deny the role of deductive reasoning, or physical laws. The epistemology of faith and science are completely different. The Bible does not have to be a science or history book to be religiously true.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBOgH5f36cQ&feature=related[/ame]

 

[ViperJock]

If one takes the Bible as written, they are irreconcilable. Even if (and I'm not) one takes the Biblical account of creation, and THEN evolution, then God is a liar. He created creatures to reproduce "after their own kind." It's pretty explicit and there isn't any wiggle room there. That's actually a much more logical classification system than we currently employ with Genus, Species, races, etc.

I disagree. "their own kind" leaves a lot of wiggle room. Does this mean "dog" or does it mean "toy poodle" for instance. Bible and science are not irreconcilable, just different ways of looking at or explaining the same phenomena.

The problem is multifold but two of the major issues are these;
1. The idea that man evolved from ape does not appear to be possible if a literal interpretation of the Bible is made and the idea that man might be evolved from Apes is offensive to the self esteem of a lot of people. This makes it difficult for some to swallow and lead to widespread intolerance of the entire concept of evolution by the christian leadership which has since been perpetuated. Some even go so far to ignore things that are proven to be fact. A significant portion of the Bible is written in symbols and concepts that are as unfamiliar to us as God trying to explain science would have been to the people who wrote it, yet some people think they know which verses are literal and which are not? Most sects of Christianity can't even agree on what the Bible means.

2. The idea that God may have been involved is offensive to those who chose not to believe in God for whatever reason. There is no evidence that a supreme being was not involved; and as far as I'm aware, science has never proven that there is no God. So the "you have no proof of the nature of God and his involvement" argument really applies to both sides. I have seen several arguments that make science out to be infallible. Every year or so there is a series of journal articles that get pulled or scandal surrounding a popular science based concept such as Al Gore is fond of where some "brilliant scientist" has invented or manipulated their data. That doesn't include all the issues that are built in to research such as selection bias, true randomization and blinding etc. How many times has science proclaimed something to be true only to have it refuted, changed, or added upon later? -oops, we were wrong!

It is an interesting thing to me to see this argument reworded over 34 pages lol. Religion starts with knowledge it can't prove and science starts with "proof" in an attempt to gain knowledge it doesn't have. In the end, the only thing that can be said for certain is this; for whatever reason and by whatever means we DO exist and "haters gonna hate."

Consider this; if the religious are wrong about scientific fact, down the line some scholars will have bragging rights, but after a few more decades we'll be dead so who cares? If the athiests are wrong, well, its gonna be a long hard eternity and science ain't gonna show up to help 'em.

 

[bingley]

2. The idea that God may have been involved is offensive to those who chose not to believe in God for whatever reason. There is no evidence that a supreme being was not involved; and as far as I'm aware, science has never proven that there is no God. So the "you have no proof of the nature of God and his involvement" argument really applies to both sides. I have seen several arguments that make science out to be infallible. Every year or so there is a series of journal articles that get pulled or scandal surrounding a popular science based concept such as Al Gore is fond of where some "brilliant scientist" has invented or manipulated their data. That doesn't include all the issues that are built in to research such as selection bias, true randomization and blinding etc. How many times has science proclaimed something to be true only to have it refuted, changed, or added upon later? -oops, we were wrong!

It is an interesting thing to me to see this argument reworded over 34 pages lol. Religion starts with knowledge it can't prove and science starts with "proof" in an attempt to gain knowledge it doesn't have. In the end, the only thing that can be said for certain is this; for whatever reason and by whatever means we DO exist and "haters gonna hate."

For some reason people seem to have a hard time realizing that science and religion answer two very difference questions. Science attempts to answer the question "how does the universe work?" and religion answer the question "why are we here?" Whether or not God exists is NOT a scientific question, just as how biological organisms have transformed through the ages is NOT a religious question. The problem comes when people make science into their religion ("science doesn't say anything about the existence of God one way or another, therefore God must not exist!"), or when people make religion into their science, calculating the age of the universe through biblical allegories.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have trouble embracing science. Only in America do we try to pervert spirituality into scientific knowledge. Well, I guess us and some witch doctors.

Da Bing

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Conflict generally stems from the fact that evolution is a small subset of science that we teach in schools. Some people that believe in creationism and disbelieve in evolution feel that creationism should be taught as the "counter balance" to evolution... They feel that teaching evolution negatively impacts their religion, and makes young minds question their faith.

The problem with this is that in science class we only teach science... our rules regulate that religion is not taught in schools.

I am all for exploring every facet of a theory, and in many cases it comes down not to the scientific explanations that exist at a given time, but how good a teacher is. A good teacher can already bring up points that criticize theories when discussing them... a good teacher can explore all current possibilities....

We can teach critiques and evidence that is not in support of Darwinism, even evolution in a more general sense... and some of that evidence we can already teach could suggest events in the bible did happen.. but at the heart of the issue creationism can never be taught as a science, because creationism goes the extra step and delves into the supernatural, which cannot be measured by human means.

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not a science in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area SchoolDistrict
Intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"
Teaching intelligent design violates the Establishment Claus of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[bigg cheese]

I disagree. "their own kind" leaves a lot of wiggle room. Does this mean "dog" or does it mean "toy poodle" for instance. Bible and science are not irreconcilable, just different ways of looking at or explaining the same phenomena.

Here's the problem. The media and "establishment" always couches the argument "science versus religion" when it could not be further from the truth. Operational science is something that both sides agree on. The laws of thermodynamics. gravity, etc. are not in dispute. Historical so-called "Science," is always based on assumptions of the unknowable.

Fossils only record one unassailable thing -- death. Anything else is is based on assumptions and faith. The fact is that the argument is "religion vs. religion."

 

[Kingpin]

After reading some of this post I say who cares. We have our guns we have INGO why worry about something like this worry about when do we get to go shooting again. Just my thought.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Here's the problem. The media and "establishment" always couches the argument "science versus religion" when it could not be further from the truth. Operational science is something that both sides agree on. The laws of thermodynamics. gravity, etc. are not in dispute. Historical so-called "Science," is always based on assumptions of the unknowable.

Fossils only record one unassailable thing -- death. Anything else is is based on assumptions and faith. The fact is that the argument is "religion vs. religion."

Well, I see what you are saying, but a major distinction exists that fundamentally separates the two...

The foundation of religion can never be tested... spiritual faith always has to lead to belief. You can run scientific tests on evidence that can then be used to suggest, for instance - occurrences in the bible.... but the main concept of any religion - supernatural creation - is unobservable by scientific means. You can never prove or disprove the existence of God with science... so the idea of God can never be considered a scientific law.

Even if at a certain point in time a scientific theory has not been tested to the degree that we consider it a law, it can still be tested. The law of gravity at one time was only a theory... It was not until continual experiments over time always equated it to be a truth... When after a long period of time, and extensive testing, no conflicting evidence was found - and experiments performed by vast amounts of scientists confirmed time and time again that the assumption is correct - we began to consider it "law". Experiments can be conducted by scientists to examine the theories pertaining to fossils... and over time, the theories can either be validated, or conflicts can arise that lead to other theories that subsequently can be tested. When after a long period of time scientists settle on a theory, and testing can no longer find conflict - those theories can become law.

So, while I agree that how people frame "religion vs science" is not always accurate, due to the nature of the two not being mutually exclusive - the fundamental differences still set them apart. Theology is theology, and science is science... Science can never be religion, and the religion can never be science.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Ha, only a FOOL thinks we know everything. Since we don't I guess we might as well believe in the magic bearded man in the sky.

Then why do you scoff at Creation? You must know everything.

BTW, referring to Christ as "the magic bearded man" only serves to prove your ignorance. It doesn't affect me or the other Christians reading this.

I understand you had some kind of negative experience in your life regarding Christianity, and I will not judge you. But I will pray for you.

 

[DustinG]

Even if at a certain point in time a scientific theory has not been tested to the degree that we consider it a law, it can still be tested. The law of gravity at one time was only a theory... It was not until continual experiments over time always equated it to be a truth... When after a long period of time, and extensive testing, no conflicting evidence was found - and experiments performed by vast amounts of scientists confirmed time and time again that the assumption is correct - we began to consider it "law". Experiments can be conducted by scientists to examine the theories pertaining to fossils... and over time, the theories can either be validated, or conflicts can arise that lead to other theories that subsequently can be tested. When after a long period of time scientists settle on a theory, and testing can no longer find conflict - those theories can become law.

The law of gravity is not historical science; it is completely 100% testable and observable today. There is no faith involved with the law of gravity because you can observe it for yourself. With evolution, you can only follow the fossil record; which doesn't necessarily support it. You can make beliefs/assumptions on the fossil record, but you cannot test it because you were not present at that time. When historical science is involved, it is more like religion vs. religion.

 

[bingley]

The law of gravity is not historical science; it is completely 100% testable and observable today. There is no faith involved with the law of gravity because you can observe it for yourself. With evolution, you can only follow the fossil record; which doesn't necessarily support it. You can make beliefs/assumptions on the fossil record, but you cannot test it because you were not present at that time. When historical science is involved, it is more like religion vs. religion.

Much of particle physics is based on indirect, non-observable evidence. Heck, most of the stuff you can't see, and what you can see, cannot be seen without changing. You have to shine a light on something in order to see it, and photons hitting tiny particles means a change in their state. The models we have are just ways of explaining the indirect evidence. This is all "less solid" than evolution. Yet your computer works based, courtesy of electrons and such. Heck, even gravity is thought to work because of all these invisible particles called gravitons. Why don't you observe gravitons for yourself? Once you do, we can put the laws of gravity under your category of "operational science." Until then, it is "historical science," like the rest of science, because everything is made up of particles and thus all scientific theories rest on particle physics. In fact, stop using your "historical scientific" object of worship called the computer, if it's "religion vs. religion."

Da Bing

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The law of gravity is not historical science; it is completely 100% testable and observable today. There is no faith involved with the law of gravity because you can observe it for yourself. With evolution, you can only follow the fossil record; which doesn't necessarily support it. You can make beliefs/assumptions on the fossil record, but you cannot test it because you were not present at that time. When historical science is involved, it is more like religion vs. religion.

The "law" of gravity is continuously morphing/changing. We still really don't quite get it and are discovering things everyday that effect it in some pretty odd and life changing ways....dark matter as a single example relating directly to gravity and why it is so weak....

 

[bigg cheese]

Things can affect gravity, but not defy it. It isn't changing.

In addition, the law of gravity was "discovered" by a self-described Christian, so to a previous poster, being a "theologian" does not preclude one from making credible contributions to the scientific world.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The law of gravity is not historical science; it is completely 100% testable and observable today. There is no faith involved with the law of gravity because you can observe it for yourself. With evolution, you can only follow the fossil record; which doesn't necessarily support it. You can make beliefs/assumptions on the fossil record, but you cannot test it because you were not present at that time. When historical science is involved, it is more like religion vs. religion.

Being something that exists in our natural world, you can test it.

To build supporting evidence for a theory, you need measurable things to experiment upon. Things like fossil records are definitely challenging topics, since the supporting evidence comes down to complex fields of study like physics. If we experiment on radioactive particles to the point that everything we theorize about them can be confirmed over and over without any anomalies - we could then consider all our physics theories laws, and that could validate our theories about fossil records. Since observable, measurable evidence exists in our natural world that can confirm or conflict to the validity of the theory, it is considered science - and can be tested. Since we do not know everything, someone could make a breakthrough tomorrow that criticizes or evolves our understanding about fossil records and their dating.

When things are outside the scope of existence in our natural world ... like theological deities... nothing exists to conduct experiments on. Nothing - no advancements in understanding through the scientific method can confirm or deny the existence of religious deities. The moment someone can yield an experiment that will apply the scientific method, or label variables that can be experimented on to confirm or deny the existence of God, then you can label that "natural". As long as no measurable, observable link exists between our natural world and theological deities, they will be considered supernatural - and remain outside the scope of science.

Science is not about something being a law, or being observable in the present.. it is not even about something being correct... The distinction is the ability to apply scientific means, and a specific application of reason to confirm or criticize a theory and advance our ability to understand natural law.

Things can affect gravity, but not defy it. It isn't changing.

In addition, the law of gravity was "discovered" by a self-described Christian, so to a previous poster, being a "theologian" does not preclude one from making credible contributions to the scientific world.

Right, and that is why science and theological concepts of divine creation are not mutually exclusive. Science cannot even attempt to answer the question "Does X religious deity exist?"... but someone who has faith in that religious deity can still apply the scientific method to advance our understanding.

 

[bigg cheese]

Being something that exists in our natural world, you can test it.

You can test what you observe. We observe fossils. The only thing known empirically certain is that the fossil came from a living creature, and that creature is now dead. Unless you saw that creature alive, watched it's previous and future generations reproduce, sample their DNA, and so on, it has exited the realm of the observable. I have no problem with making educated guesses, based on unprovable assumptions, as long as they aren't called scientific.[/quote]

and that is why science and theological concepts of divine creation are not mutually exclusive. Science cannot even attempt to answer the question "Does X religious deity exist?"... but someone who has faith in that religious deity can still apply the scientific method to advance our understanding.

I did not say they were. I do believe that evolution is unscientific and therefore mutually exclusive to divine creation. Observational science, in my opinion does nothing but complement scripture.

 

[Denny347]

2. The idea that God may have been involved is offensive to those who chose not to believe in God for whatever reason. There is no evidence that a supreme being was not involved; and as far as I'm aware, science has never proven that there is no God. So the "you have no proof of the nature of God and his involvement" argument really applies to both sides. I have seen several arguments that make science out to be infallible. Every year or so there is a series of journal articles that get pulled or scandal surrounding a popular science based concept such as Al Gore is fond of where some "brilliant scientist" has invented or manipulated their data. That doesn't include all the issues that are built in to research such as selection bias, true randomization and blinding etc. How many times has science proclaimed something to be true only to have it refuted, changed, or added upon later? -oops, we were wrong!

The lack of evidence that something exists is NOT evidence that it exists. I could say that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth. You cannot see it and there is no evidence that it is there. Since no one can prove that it is NOT there, I say it exists. Since no one can prove the Loch Ness Monster exists of course no one can prove it doesn't...so it must.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Dead Duck]

The lack of evidence that something exists is NOT evidence that it exists. I could say that there is a teapot orbiting the Earth. You cannot see it and there is no evidence that it is there. Since no one can prove that it is NOT there, I say it exists. Since no one can prove the Loch Ness Monster exists of course no one can prove it doesn't...so it must.

Now that I proved that one, What else you got.

 

[DustinG]

Believing in atheism requires more faith than believing there is a God. If you were to believe that life occurred from completely natural means, then you would have to completely ignore the complexity of the universe and of life. DNA is more complex than a 747, a toaster oven, even a caomputer. How did a random event not even produce those items or similar items, but it produced the highly, I mean highly complex DNA? A computer laying out in the middle of the desert is a lot more likely event than DNA forming randomy.

 

[Amishman44]

The question raised was 'Why have animals quit evolving?'

The response was:

They haven't yet, but nice try.

In reality...and as a former high school biology teacher...humans are now considered to have stopped evolving...if we ever truely evolved in the first place! Ironically, as many 'answers' as evolutionists provide, they still can't pinpoint the 'missing link' to prove we evolved from monkeys!

The Truth is found in Genesis 1:1 - 2:25...and in chapter 1, verses 24 - 26..."And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures, according to their kinds: livestock creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." (...and verse 26) "Then God said, "Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Psalm 139:13-16...also provides look into God's hand in each person's unique birth.

I guess the choice is, do you wish to be viewed as someone who 'evolved' from a wild animal, method unknown or not explained, or would you like to be seen as a unique individual, one specifically created by God...who has the think and rule over the world and everything placed in it?

Hmmm, tough question...

 

[DustinG]

Believing in atheism requires more faith than believing there is a God. If you were to believe that life occurred from completely natural means, then you would have to completely ignore the complexity of the universe and of life. DNA is more complex than a 747, a toaster oven, even a caomputer. How did a random event not even produce those items or similar items, but it produced the highly, I mean highly complex DNA? A computer laying out in the middle of the desert is a lot more likely event than DNA forming randomy.

Heck it would require less faith to believe that life on earth was deisgned by an alien life form and then dropped onto planet earth than it would be to believe in atheism. But believing that does not solve the origins of life because then who created the aliens? It just kicks the can futher down the road.