Do you believe in evolution?

[Dan123]

I believe in the 13 billion year age, and I believe in evolution. However, I do think we may have the mechanism of evolution wrong. There was a study done recently that seems to suggest that life evolves relatively quickly to fill niches after an extinction event.

That isn’t’ really the mechanism so much as what drives periods of “rapid” change vs relative stability.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Fair enough, I would agree that “driving force” is a better word choice than “mechanism.” I’ll correct my post.

 

[Noose001]

It’s what we call the phenomenon we observe where the location and state of matter and energy change. You know what time is, say what you want to say.

Changes happen because of time but does time happen because of changes? That would mean no existence.

 

[FiveLinden]

Look how often the finding of some bone fragments of a hitherto unknown hominid have led to a total rethink of human evolution

Yes, indeed. DNA testing reveals the links between the ‘new’ hominid and other humans, demonstrating evolution as a fact. The discovery adds to our knowledge of HOW evolution happens, not THAT it happens. Also, of course, such discoveries do not lead to a ‘total’ rethink of human evolution. They simply add information.

 

[BlueKumul]

It’s always a matter of belief. You say a scientist calculated the age of the Universe as 13 billion years, but I ask: why should I trust him?

I know that too many scientists are atheists, so I doubt they are acting as neutral experts.

But I might accept God-guided evolution.

 

[Dan123]

Also, of course, such discoveries do not lead to a ‘total’ rethink of human evolution.

Actual science: “The first modern humans might have emerged 50,000 years earlier than previously thought”
Popscience style magazines: “Scientists say to forget everything you thought you knew about human evolution!”

 

[Dan123]

I know that too many scientists are atheists, so I doubt they are acting as neutral experts.

The scientists who are Christian largely accept, and in many cases developed these conclusions. Do you trust them?

You say a scientist calculated the age of the Universe as 13 billion years, but I ask: why should I trust him?

They publish detailed papers about their work and how they arrived at these conclusions. That means other scientists and anyone including you can read them and at least understand how they came to those numbers, even if you disagree.

They’re acting in a trustworthy manner if nothing else.

 

[whatistrue]

It’s always a matter of belief.

No. You don’t “believe in” science the same way you “believe in” God. Science is based entirely on evidence and experimentation; belief in God is just that - belief based on faith.

I know that too many scientists are atheists, so I doubt they are acting as neutral experts.

How does theism or atheism track with neutrality? Science and Faith are different things; science (and specifically evolutionary theory) cannot speak about God (whether for or against) because God cannot be measured. If it cannot speak either way then it seems to me to be the ultimate neutrality.

Some individuals who claim to be scientists may state that some scientific fact proves or disproves the existence or nature of God - they are all wrong, and an individual who claims to be a scientist stating such does not make it true.

 

[BlueKumul]

Yet there are more atheists among scientists than among any other professional group.

So I prefer to trust God’s infallible word. I made a decision to follow Him.

 

[whatistrue]

So I prefer to trust God’s infallible word. I made a decision to follow Him.

As did I. And yet I never agreed to turn over my rational mind at the door, nor did the Church ask me to. Science and God are NOT opposed. There is a character in a book I read some time ago (during my agnostic days) and enjoyed who said something like “Science is the art of discovering the ways in which God made the world” when talking to a monk from medieval Poland. It was a time travel story with a protagonist who was a Catholic engineer in 1986 Poland who was transported to 1231 Poland by accident.

 

[Dan123]

“Science is the art of discovering the ways in which God made the world”

This is a pretty common sentiment among scientists who also have faith and I think your quote expresses it beautifully. There are some excellent interviews with Mary Schweitzer, she’s the one who discovered ‘soft tissue’ in a dinosaur skeleton which was then used by some YEC to try and prove a young Earth. Her responses to their mishandling of her findings and her position as a pretty devout Christian, her description of what assumptions were made about her work and by whom, are really interesting. Here’s a link to such an interview if interested: https://biologos.org/articles/not-so-dry-bones-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer .

But if not it’s perhaps best summed up with “I don’t feel that I’m discrediting God with the work I’m doing, I think I am honoring him with the abilities he’s given me.”

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Do you believe in evolution?

No. I don’t accept the claims of evolution. I do not see how it can be reconciled with what we know about God through revelation and the Church. Evolutionary theory also fails logically and in scientific terms, as I see it.
From my study of evolution, I conclude it is a scientific fraud.
Other scientists and scholars see it that way also.

 

[neophyte]

Can evolutionists ever debunk this?

I’m a Mechanical Engineer with nearly thirty years of experience, and can absolutely assure you that the conservapedia take on the Second Law (item #3 at the link you provided) is a work of mind-boggling ignorance. Whoever wrote it hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Whoever wrote it hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

You’re exaggerating - for some reason, unknown to me.
To claim that they have not even the slightest clue, you’d have to show that nothing they said was correct.

That item #3 included a link to a 6,000 word article on the Second Law and links of “responses to critcs”

You disagree with their view. That’s one thing. To say that they do not have the slightest clue about the matter is another – and it’s not right.

 

[meltzerboy2]

LOL The headline makes it seem that Pope Francis is declaring evolution real and Gd not real.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Gd never takes the easy route: the history of religion reveals that much. Why should the act of Creation be otherwise?

 

[sealabeag]

No. You don’t “believe in” science the same way you “believe in” God. Science is based entirely on evidence and experimentation; belief in God is just that - belief based on faith

This should be true. However, for some, Darwinism or Scientism or whatever other term you might use, has become religious, in the sense that it shapes their worldview, morality, etc., and that they are religious in their defense of it against any critique or criticism.
The inability of many atheistic scientists to tolerate any discussion about evolution makes me all the more sceptical of the theory and all the more clear that they are no longer objective scientists.

 

[rossum]

Your “believe” is the wrong word. Evolution is science, and belief plays a very small role in science. Science is driven by the evidence. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for evolution, which has grown over the years since 1859 when Darwin published. As new evidence has emerged that new evidence has been added to the theory, modifying it in the process.

In the early 20th century Mendel’s genetics was incorporated. In the 1950s Kimura’s Neutral Theory was added, together with a large and growing amount of evidence from DNA sequencing of many organisms. In the early 21st century a part of Professor Behe’s work on Irreducible Complexity was incorporated, making a small improvement in the theory.

We have observed new species evolving, see de Vries (1905) for an early example. So far we have no observation of any deity directly creating a new species. If you want to make an impact on science then you need evidence, not belief.

 

[whatistrue]

If they have gotten to the point of ignoring or denying evidence that has been extensively reviewed and verified to do so, then they would no longer be objective scientists. Such people are vanishingly rare and stop being considered reliable by their peers.

Much like those who persistently ignore or deny evidence that has been extensively reviewed and verified that supports evolution are not objective scientists. And none of that evidence, so far as I have been able to determine, denies God. Remains silent, yes, but never denies.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

A court weighs evidence. It deliberates and renders a verdict.
For evolution, we do not even have direct evidence for what happened through natural history. It requires a lot of belief. If the evidence is not good, we are justified in withholding assent.
Evolutionary theory continues to encounter falsifications as new evidence emerges. In response to false predictions, scientists modify the theory - but this does not mean that the theory is now more accurate than it was before. The modifications themselves are subject to falsification.