Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[MysticalMiracle]

What’s wrong with accepting facts?

To claim evolution on that scale is fact is simply incorrect.

Do you we have to repeat this again?

 

[Larry1700]

That’s not at all what I’m claiming: what I’m claiming is that a person can’t present themselves as a credentialed authority unless he is a credentialed authority. If Brown were making claims about mechanical engineering, and backing them up with his degree in mechanical engineering from MIT, then that’d be one thing. He isn’t, though: he’s making claims in other fields, and holding up his engineering degree and saying “see! I’m an MIT grad! I know what I’m talking about!”

No, he is simply including his formal credentials, as does everyone else who writes a book. Many people throughout history have invented something or posited something that lies outside their formal field of study.

Heck, sometimes formal education can place blinders on your thinking, and it takes “thinking outside of the box” for new ideas to emerge. Let the ideas and data Brown presents be judged on their own merit.

By your standards, anyone who is not a formally-credentialed meteorologist should not speak about climate change (or get laughed out of the room if they do). I subscribe to The Great Courses Plus. They have many topics to learn about. For each topic, there is a Ph.D. in that field who does at least 24 thirty-minute lectures on that topic. I have watched the topics on palentology, archaeology, physics, quantum physics, geology, chemistry, organic chemistry (I stopped after the 8th lecture–whew!), DNA, among others. Virtually every one has made some statement(s) regarding climate change.

Oh, and then there’s “Bill Nye the Science Guy” who considers himself such an expert on non-weather-related issues that he has stated that children should be clearly taught that there is no God.

 

[ZMystiCat]

All I have noticed is people who don’t believe in the Catholic Church and atheists on the side of evolution and this is why it’s a lie spread by the Demons

This is an ad hominem. Go after the argument, not who is making it. I could just as easily say that there is no god because some who don’t believe in the Catholic Church (e.g. Protestants, Muslims, Hindus) believe that there is a god…Except the Catholic Church also says that there is a god (i.e. God Himself). Do you see the problem?

people just use scientific jargon to try back up the claims that it’s real

I mean, you can stick you head in the sand, but that doesn’t make anything go away.

hence the word theory

As I noted earlier, this is based on a misunderstanding of what theory means.

When they are stretching to the multiverse they have the “blind faith”.

It’s hardly accepted, at least not to the degree of evolution, and the conjecture around it is hardly blind. The specifics of the math and physics is a bit beyond me, but there is at least some math and physics that hints at a multiverse. As far as I know, scientists are just wondering about what exactly that multiverse is and are still trying to figure out how exactly to test it. There are ideas about how to do it, but there’s still no established experiments.

They have faith in the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).

Evolution is hardly all blind chance. That becomes very apparent when you consider ecology.

I’m currently engaged, on another thread, with a guy who’s at various times promoted anti-vax views, anti-evolution views and climate change denialist views. This poster even linked me to their blog which promotes a whole range of conspiracy theories.

Have you been to that Flat Earth thread in Casual Discussion (don’t worry, no one is literally advocating for it)? I was concerned I would open a can of worms there by saying things like creationism, climate-change denial, and anti-vaccines came from the same problems that lead to the Flat Earth Society. Thankfully, that thread hasn’t gone too far out of control.

 

[PhiriTalk]

Do you have a any evidence to support this claim?

 

[PhiriTalk]

What about evolution do you not understand? I’d be happy to help you understand.

 

[MysticalMiracle]

Help me understand how you believe something is true without any observable evidence

 

[Techno2000]

Over many generations, yes, yes it’s possible. They’d have to genetic mutations which possess the characteristics which you state.

Evolution is also going have to come up with new genetic mutations/DNA code for the entire ecosystem that the Piranha is connected to, and get its support.

 

[edwest211]

And that is the invisible complication. Organisms exist with other organisms. They need things to eat now. Not thousands of years from now. Symbiotic relationships have no explanation other than - it happened. So? How did it happen?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Science - as currently constituted - cannot include anything supernatural.

If it did, it wouldn’t be science. It would be theology. You seem to be confusing “why” and “how.” If I turn on the light switch and the electric light goes on, I can give a very detailed scientific explanation explaining electrons, heat, etc. etc. That’s how. If you ask me “why” it works this way, I have two possible answers: “It follows physical laws of science” or “God created the universe this way.” Belief in the scientific explanation how a light works doesn’t exclude belief in God as the ultimate creator the universe (and it’s physical laws). You seem to take an “either/or” position. It’s simply not that way.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is no proof in science.

See my earlier comment. In the new “Trump world” the words “prove” and “proof” have taken on new meanings. In this new world, there is no such thing as “proof” and no such thing as “facts.” This is not a helpful way to look at the world.

 

[edwest211]

The how and why argument is bogus. It means nothing. God actually acted in Creation.

 

[edwest211]

Please leave politics out of this discussion. I have zero political affiliation or loyalty. I am not part of any camp. The current football team in charge is making a mess of things.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

God actually acted in Creation.

Sure. And I can believe that AND the theory of evolution. There is no conflict.

 

[edwest211]

Then why this thread? Why does the Church tell us that certain theories of evolution (plural) are incompatible with the faith? You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Church.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Then why this thread? Why does the Church tell us that certain theories of evolution (plural) are incompatible with the faith? You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the Church.

Why this thread? Because the original poster (like you) does not seem to understand the theory of evolution. “Certain theories…are incompatible with the faith.” Sure. Like if you removed God from the equation. Or if you believe in polygenesis (which is not necessary to believe in evolution of man). Or if you believe that there is no ultimate purpose. But all these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual science.

It’s like saying “Some atheists believe in evolution. Therefore if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist.” That’s simply not true. Some people believe that the theory of evolution is enough in itself to explain life and man. Others (me) believe the same scientific theories, but believe (without proof!) that God is behind the science. And of course I’m not arguing with the Church. There is nothing in Church doctrine that denies the theory of evolution (as others have pointed out in various threads, statements from various popes, etc.).

COULD you create a straw man that creates a conflict with Church doctrine? Sure. If you believed that evolution had no purpose, that man descended from a group rather than a single ancestor, etc. And yes, some people believe THAT version of the theory of evolution. But that’s just one variation. It’s not the theory itself.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There a short Youtube video on the vestigial remains of primitive parts of the body (tail, etc.) that humans have inherited.

Of course this won’t “prove” evolution in the new Trumpian universe. But it does in the normal universe.
[And how can you leave politics out of it when some people keep talking about “alternative facts” or “You can’t prove that Kavanaugh tried to rape that woman.”]

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is also a great article in the New Yorker (I know, I know, a really atheistic Commie rag) “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” It summarizes various experiments by those atheistic Commie psychologists at Stanford. Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker

It’s worth reading.

 

[PhiriTalk]

What I believe or don’t believe isn’t irrelevant. Evolution happens regardless.

There is literally a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution. How can you reject something that is so rigorously backed up by facts?

 

[PhiriTalk]

And? Evolution isn’t a consciousness organism either, it’s a process.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

How can you reject something that is so rigorously backed up by facts?

Ah, but “facts” are not what they once were in the good ol’ days. Facts cannot be “proven.” Facts always come in at least pairs (“alternative facts”). In this brave new world there are no facts, and nothing can be proven. To paraphrase the the Treasure of Sierra Madre, “Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”