Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, that is an assumption. It shows only that we share in the same physical structure as animals. And, this has been known since mankind ate the first animal and when Genesis was written.
 
Metis1 said:
your position is much more in tune with fundamentalist Protestants,
Click to expand...
Start speaking about creation, even if you think it happened by some evolutionary process, and you will sound less like an atheist.

Random chemical reactions causing mutations in the genome, as well as producing the plethora of cellular processes involved in life and reproduction is not creation. Killing plants and animals that do not fit in their environment is anything but creative.
 
Last edited:
If we don’t follow certain basic logical principles, then people will start spouting off on all kinds of nonsense, much like “we shouldn’t be limited by logic in trying to understand the world.” Yeah, we SHOULD be limited in this way, or every person with some pet theory they baked up on a whim is going to demand equal attention. “You haven’t PROVED there aren’t unicorns inside the moon, so we should teach that in science class!!!”

The cool thing about science is not its position on philosophical issues like cosmogeny or even biogenesis. It’s that through a truly massive interconnection of well-vetted ideas, supported by careful observations and constantly challenged by professional peers, we can now do useful stuff-- like make a computer system that even people who can’t understand the basic principles of science can nevertheless use to annoy those who can! 😃

Creationism, so far as I can tell, serves only the purpose of supporting a literal interpretation of particular Biblical passages-- though even the Pope has said that it is not necessary to the faith to take them literally. But hey. . . if these guys know better than the Pope, the Holy representative of the Lord’s Church on Earth, then I guess I should listen to them.
 
Last edited:
It’s ignorant for another reason: Darwin himself clearly mediates his position in his own book, citing specifically the difficulty in collecting fossils and in making observations. I believe he would be pleasantly amazed at how much great science has followed up on his original ideas.

Literal Creationists in support of ID make it out like he swooshed in an arrogantly proclaimed that he had replaced all Biblical understanding, thus rendering religion obsolete. But I guarantee not one of the Creationists in this thread has ever read the whole book On the Origin of Species.

My challenge, which I’m 100% sure will continue to be ignored due to an insistence on willfully ignorance, still stands: I will read through the entire book, page by page, with anyone interested, and we can debate every line and every word until the end of time.

I’m pretty confident that my weekends will remain free and clear, however, because those who are against good science are so because they get their “knowledge” distilled three times over by blogs and amateur websites, rather than actually taking the time to learn things by reading and understanding.

The only correct theological view, in my opinion, is this: confident that God has created all, we should observe all of creation honestly in an attempt to understand His purpose, and to allow us to better serve His purpose for us. Sticking our heads in the sand and making up fairy tales because of an unnecessary stance we choose to take on ancient Biblical literature is, in my opinion, showing a LACK of faith in a real God and His creation.

You want to say God designed it all? Fine. And He has clearly designed it through the mechanism of Evolution.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Metis1:
Because that’s where the evidence takes us.
Click to expand...
The evidence is leaving TOE (macro-evolution) behind.
Click to expand...
So you say. Without support. Again
 
Really? Wow. I’m surprised - where did you grow up? Here in the Northeast US, growing up in the 1970-1980’s, our priests never touched evolution since it’s not in opposition to the Roman Catholic faith. Interesting that a Catholic priest would teach that.
 
Then that would be everybody.

Baylor University, the USA’s largest Southern Baptist university, has their statement of belief - that evolution is fact and is taught as such. That’s in addition to every Catholic, secular, and mainline Protestant educational institution in the US, every public secondary school, and every public primary school.

Believe what you want to believe- that’s what great about fact. If you feel differently, then please carry that burden of proof and disprove every evolutionary biologist in the history of mankind.
 
You are conflating “system,” which is the organization found in organs, with “design” as a specific, pre-planned design by God.

You’re doing it wrong. You’re starting with the idea of God as creator, and looking for physical evidence from which you can, if you like, infer the big-D “Design” that supports your particular theological view that every specific organism was hand-designed by God right from the start.

That a gazillion fossil samples, plenty of genetic research, and interrelational studies among species currently observable means nothing to you, precisely because you already know what conclusion you want your “data” to arrive at.

This is not science. It’s the opposite of science.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
We share about 98% of our d.n.a. with chimps, although they may feel offended if we say they’ere related to us.
Click to expand...
But, they don’t share the same kind of supernatural spirit that we do.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Creationism, so far as I can tell, serves only the purpose of supporting a literal interpretation of particular Biblical passages-- though even the Pope has said that it is not necessary to the faith to take them literally. But hey. . . if these guys know better than the Pope, the Holy representative of the Lord’s Church on Earth, then I guess I should listen to them.
Click to expand...
What if more Pope’s support Creationism?
 
Creationism and evolution are not at odds.

One is a theological position about why things exist, and one is a description of the mechanism of change in species over time.

It’s very easily reconciled: “God created everything that exists, at every moment in time, according to his plan-- and through our clever science, we’ve learned a lot about the mechanism by which he carries out his plan to let species adapt to a changing environment.”

When you deliberately try to ignore facts, you are ignoring part of the Lord’s plan. You shouldn’t do that in my opinion.

The essence of the debate is this: did God directly create all species ex nihilo, or did he create a Universe with the mechanism in place to carry out His vision over time. I prefer the latter, you prefer the former.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
You’re doing it wrong. You’re starting with the idea of God as creator, and looking for physical evidence from which you can, if you like, infer the big-D “Design” that supports your particular theological view that every specific organism was hand-designed by God right from the start
Click to expand...
There are a fair number of atheists who have done the research and have converted because of the evidence. John Sanford comes to mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top