"Evolution is Just a Theory!" Um, no

[4_marks]

J.W.B.:

Because God created into apes with His creation process of evolution. We did not evolve from apes that are around today, very different. There are some experts on evolution in this forum that I’m sure will see this and respond to commet.

There is no reason to be concerned with evolution. It’s Gods awesome unseen creating in progress. There are many verses within the Bible that give the impresion of an ancient earth as well. It’s mysterious I admit, but so is the idea of the Apostle Paule preaching his letters to the Romans of his own free mind (not being roboticly controled by God) and yet was the Holy Sprit speaking as well.

God give you peace

But the concept of evolution does not require that there actually is a God. Blind random chance may be just as sufficient an explanation for evolution.

 

[4_marks]

Brad:

The Pope believes that all current humans came from 2 humans created by God. I’ve read much and listened to much and read part of Theology of the Body - it does not show the Pope believe in evolution nor that he believes Genesis is fiction.

The Pope hailed from Poland and grew up in a land under profound Communist influence. He has many ideas which are the product of his own opinion and upbringing. His own advice is that we “follow Christ.” The Pope is only a man.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:
Thank you for your reasonable responses. Although I disagree with your assertion that I’m promoting theocracy and a few other things, we can have a meaninful discussion as soon as I have some time. In the meantime, based on what you said, I would like to know what you think is wrong about the sticker that was put in textbooks and just struck down by a judge. It made no mention of God and it simply said that our origins being explained by evolution is not fact - this judges actions are what I am essentially arguing against. It is the philosphy espoused by the leading thinkers on evolution that deny the existence of God and/or a God that has any meaning in the universe. They don’t want to teach it as a theory - they want to teach it as fact - this philosophy is also the root of string theory pursuit. They began with an end(or a beginning - four fundamental forces coming together simultaneously) they wanted to see, rather than allowing the science lead them to truth.

cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html

 

[wanerious]

4 marks:

We cannot be dogmatic about evolution. Evolution of some sort may appear to be a plausable explanation, but we are not really certain how we got here. It may be just as reasonable to believe that we “evolved” due to extraterrestrial intervention, or even that one man, Adam, was directly formed out of the clay of the earth.

Now here’s the meat. You rightly use the word “reasonable”, and that is what science is all about. Any number of people may offer any number of possible explanations, but science provides a tool for measuring how “reasonable” each assertion is. One theory being somewhat less than iron-clad certain does not automatically promote the likelihood of other explanations.

Now the materialist “scientists” among us may balk at this. How dare anyone question our “expertise” some might say.

Nonsense. We must be questioned all the time. The problem is that these questions have been asked and answered many thousands of times. You and other “anti-evolutionists” are not the first to think of these objections — other scientists were. Give these people credit for being pretty smart.

As long as there was no human around to directly record what had happened, no explanation of our origins is to be considered final.

Agreed. Science is not done yet.

The problem is that smug judges, liberals, the ACLU and other modern Saducees are wont to impose their world views on the rest of us (the very same charge which they assert against people of faith).

Interesting. I realize this is an emotional statement, but is it not the very job description of a judge to impose their understanding of legal matters on the rest of us?

LIberals? Aren’t these the very people opposed (well, at least philosophically) to a hegemony of ideas? Conservatives are not guilty of this also? Please.

I suppose such self-righteous intolerance is to be anticipated in this so-called post-modernist, pluralistic society.

It is to be anticipated in any society.

 

[Brad]

4 marks:

The Pope hailed from Poland and grew up in a land under profound Communist influence. He has many ideas which are the product of his own opinion and upbringing. His own advice is that we “follow Christ.” The Pope is only a man.

I understand that. I was trying to clarify his position on the subject. He has one just like the rest of us.

My argument against evolution, especially as it pertains to our origins, is based on the un-persuasiveness of the science moreso than religion. Where I have religious problems is when people try to use evolution to undermine the fact that there is a God that is very involved in human affairs and always has been, and when people try to use evolution to make the case that humans came about without a purpose and/or that they are not above other animals.

 

[wanerious]

4 marks:

But the concept of evolution does not require that there actually is a God.

Of course not. Scientific theories must necessarily reject supernatural phenomena. Science proceeds from the assumption that the natural universe is understandable via natural processes.

Blind random chance may be just as sufficient an explanation for evolution.

Nope. For example, let’s consider a string of 10 one-digit numbers. For some fitness function, the most “fit” string is one that is “1234567899”. Now, if we were to just randomly assign digits to the string, the above only pops up, on the average, once every 10^10 (10 billion) combinations. Fortunately, nature does not work like that. Rather, suppose that we keep those characters that partially compose the final string. Then we’d “evolve” to the above, on the average, after only 100 (10*10) random “mutations”. Much more likely. This is why asserting that evolution operates by random chance alone is wrong. Natural selection constantly keeps those mutations that provide some benefit, however small — they are not all simply wiped out by future mutations.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

Where I have religious problems is when people try to use evolution to undermine the fact that there is a God that is very involved in human affairs and always has been, and when people try to use evolution to make the case that humans came about without a purpose and/or that they are not above other animals.

None of the above follow from evolutionary theory. I believe, as you do, in all the above (well, perhaps not to the degree you do in being involved in human affairs at present) as well as being a fervent supporter of science.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

I would like to know what you think is wrong about the sticker that was put in textbooks and just struck down by a judge. It made no mention of God and it simply said that our origins being explained by evolution is not fact - this judges actions are what I am essentially arguing against.

The language of the sticker is unassailable, and right, though it is right in the sense of a tautology — it is manifestly obvious, and its inclusion in only biology texts leads us to suspect an ulterior motive on behalf of those wanting its inclusion. The judge, in my opinion, ruled correctly, and his statement is marvelous. Of course it is a theory, and not a “fact”. By putting this sticker on only biology texts and not all other science texts leads us to believe that the sticker is using a very weak form of the word “theory”, such as it is used in everyday language, which would be misleading and wrong. Bravo.

this philosophy is also the root of string theory pursuit. They began with an end(or a beginning - four fundamental forces coming together simultaneously) they wanted to see, rather than allowing the science lead them to truth.

I’m not following this. The hypothesis is that, by considering a fundamental essence governed by wave mechanics, one may explain all 4 forces in terms of these new strings. There is considerable mathematical support for this, so it is probably rightly called a “theory”. Is this not the way science works? Scientists don’t let science lead them to the truth, whatever that means. They make guesses and try to support them or contradict them.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Brad:

Where I have religious problems is when people try to use evolution to undermine the fact that there is a God that is very involved in human affairs and always has been, and when people try to use evolution to make the case that humans came about without a purpose and/or that they are not above other animals.

God is Spirit and God is Love, right? God does take an active role in our human affairs to direct our hearts to Him. I don’t know that that requires any monkeying with biology though.

God made the natural laws in our heart and the universe. I don’t see a conflict. (yet )

 

[JW10631]

Evolution is nothing but a theory that has been accepted as fact by far too many people. I do not believe that God created the universe in six Earth days about 7,000 years ago with dinosaur bones in it, as some born-agains do. I just believe God created all and I really don’t worry about it. It’s far more important to follow Jesus.

 

[Apolonio]

The Pope believes that all current humans came from 2 humans created by God. I’ve read much and listened to much and read part of Theology of the Body - it does not show the Pope believe in evolution nor that he believes Genesis is fiction.

Response:
I agree. I didn’t say JPII believes Genesis (ch. 1 and 2) is fiction. I said it was mythical in structure.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

None of the above follow from evolutionary theory. I believe, as you do, in all the above (well, perhaps not to the degree you do in being involved in human affairs at present) as well as being a fervent supporter of science.

That may be what well-intentioning people such as yourselves believe but the items I laid out are part of the core belief system of many of scientific leaders in the field and most especially, liberal education providers/directors. It’s a real problem. The case in Georgia I referenced above illustrates this. The Judge implied that anyone who thinks evolution (which part, I don’t know - it’s a pretty expansive term) is not a fact is a fundamentalist Christian - that’s a pretty far-reaching and narrow-minded assumption and displays a bias against Bible believers in general.

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

That may be what well-intentioning people such as yourselves believe but the items I laid out are part of the core belief system of many of scientific leaders in the field and most especially, liberal education providers/directors. It’s a real problem.

That may well be, but it still shouldn’t influence whether or not we teach the science. I would agree that we need to be more careful about how we teach the science, so that these silly stickers would be seen as the redundant minutia they really are.

The case in Georgia I referenced above illustrates this. The Judge implied that anyone who thinks evolution (which part, I don’t know - it’s a pretty expansive term) is not a fact is a fundamentalist Christian - that’s a pretty far-reaching and narrow-minded assumption and displays a bias against Bible believers in general.

Some biases are justified and rational. It is simply the case that, overwhelmingly, fundamentalist Christians are suspicious of evolutionary theory. Also, a large chunk of those suspicious of evolutionary theory are fundamentalist Christians. When a group lobbies for the inclusion of these “disclaimers” for biology textbooks only, and not also for chemistry, astronomy, physics, and geology, we can reasonably assume an ulterior religious agenda.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

The language of the sticker is unassailable, and right, though it is right in the sense of a tautology — it is manifestly obvious, and its inclusion in only biology texts leads us to suspect an ulterior motive on behalf of those wanting its inclusion. The judge, in my opinion, ruled correctly, and his statement is marvelous. Of course it is a theory, and not a “fact”. By putting this sticker on only biology texts and not all other science texts leads us to believe that the sticker is using a very weak form of the word “theory”, such as it is used in everyday language, which would be misleading and wrong. Bravo.

This is where you are putting your love of science above all else. I don’t fault you for loving science. We all should to a degree - Science is a marvelous discipline that affects our life continually. However, God is the intelligence behind all of it. The judge’s bias is clearly evident here, as can be seen by the following statement:

“Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life”

What is wrong with Cobb County citizens who prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life? The judge is clearly ruling against this class of people specifically because of these beliefs - not beliefs about natural selection or variation between or withing species - but beliefs regarding THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Evolutionary theory is anything but factual regarding the origin of life - it is complete speculation. If the judge didn’t like the wording, he could have ruled to have the sticker re-worded. Instead, he chose the path of rejecting the implications of the Bible - he didn’t reject literal translation - he rejected the concept that God created the first life.

Now - put all of this in context. “weak” form of theory or not - children, in general, do not know the difference between theory and fact, let alone strong theories or weak theories. To teach evolution as it is being taught - that it is plainly true regarding life’s origins is a conflict with what these parents think is most important for their children to know - that God created human beings in particular to unite with Him and that the body and soul have a union that is inseperable.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

I’m not following this. The hypothesis is that, by considering a fundamental essence governed by wave mechanics, one may explain all 4 forces in terms of these new strings. There is considerable mathematical support for this, so it is probably rightly called a “theory”. Is this not the way science works? Scientists don’t let science lead them to the truth, whatever that means. They make guesses and try to support them or contradict them.

This concept (the theory of everything) was a pursuit by Hawkins and others to solve the problem of evolution not being possible from a singularity. This was not a guess as much as it was a solution to support underlying problems in a theory. Rather than assume that God got the process going through creation, they felt there had to be some other way for this to have happened - that’s how string theory got going - to prove that all 4 forces came into being simultaneously - to know “the mind of God”. Well, if we can know the mind of God, there is no need for a God, is there?

I would say the problem is they don’t spend enought time contradicting as you say - instead they try to “fix” the contradictions with more speculation.

 

[buffalo]

Dog-Sized Mammal Dined on Dinosaurs

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

This is where you are putting your love of science above all else. I don’t fault you for loving science. We all should to a degree - Science is a marvelous discipline that affects our life continually. However, God is the intelligence behind all of it.

Yes.

The judge’s bias is clearly evident here, as can be seen by the following statement:

“Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life”

What is wrong with Cobb County citizens who prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life? The judge is clearly ruling against this class of people specifically because of these beliefs - not beliefs about natural selection or variation between or withing species - but beliefs regarding THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Evolutionary theory is anything but factual regarding the origin of life - it is complete speculation.

While biologists would probably admit that abiogenesis, the theory of the emergence of life, is more speculative than evolutionary biology, I think you’re way off the other way in characterizing it as “complete speculation”. There are many promising avenues currently being investigated in a rigorous way.

If the judge didn’t like the wording, he could have ruled to have the sticker re-worded. Instead, he chose the path of rejecting the implications of the Bible - he didn’t reject literal translation - he rejected the concept that God created the first life.

Of course he had to reject God as the creator of first life. That is a religious statement which may or may not be ultimately true in a direct sense. The judge, as an agent of the government, must instruct the agents of the state to not sponsor religious assertions in schools.

Now - put all of this in context. “weak” form of theory or not - children, in general, do not know the difference between theory and fact, let alone strong theories or weak theories. To teach evolution as it is being taught - that it is plainly true regarding life’s origins is a conflict with what these parents think is most important for their children to know - that God created human beings in particular to unite with Him and that the body and soul have a union that is inseperable.

Then the parents (I am one) must take it upon themselves to see that they supplement a strong secular and scientific view of the world with their own flavor of spirituality. All we must demand in the state schools is that the most modern, current, and widespread science be taught correctly. If you are convinced of the falsehood of evolutionary theory, it is ultimately best for your children to be well-acquainted with the mainstream science in order for them to effectively argue against it.

 

[Brad]

MichaelTDoyle:

God is Spirit and God is Love, right? God does take an active role in our human affairs to direct our hearts to Him. I don’t know that that requires any monkeying with biology though.

God made the natural laws in our heart and the universe. I don’t see a conflict. (yet )

If we evolved - say, our brains - from a purposeless process of natural selection of evolving matter - then we have no business saying that humans beings are above any other animal because they evolved the same way. Neither of us were granted any special favor by our creator because there was no creator. God did not create anything physically. Thus, who is to say that He doesn’t live inside plants? Why was it necessary for God to take on human form versus any other form? Why are sacraments physical interactions with our senses? What make marital intercourse holy? What makes abortion wrong - if we were not created in the image and likeness of God - BODY and SOUL - what does it matter if we kill the physical body of our babies, allowing natural selection to take it’s course - when their souls will be fine. What’s wrong with genocide if survival of the fittest is the name of the game? If you can outthink someone or outperform someone then you are simply using your natural advantage over them - we are not equal. In fact, Jesus Himself evolved - and certainly he could not have performed miracles because nobody else does and God didn’t just insert Himself here because no life comes from Him. Are disabled people victims of bad genetics? Are they worth anything? Do they have any utilitarian purpose perhaps? etc, etc.

Hitler used evolutionary theory as an excuse for his behavior. We use it today to justify all sorts of ills.

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

If we evolved - say, our brains - from a purposeless process of natural selection of evolving matter - then we have no business saying that humans beings are above any other animal because they evolved the same way. Neither of us were granted any special favor by our creator because there was no creator. God did not create anything physically. Thus, who is to say that He doesn’t live inside plants? Why was it necessary for God to take on human form versus any other form? Why are sacraments physical interactions with our senses? What make marital intercourse holy? What makes abortion wrong - if we were not created in the image and likeness of God - BODY and SOUL - what does it matter if we kill the physical body of our babies, allowing natural selection to take it’s course - when their souls will be fine. What’s wrong with genocide if survival of the fittest is the name of the game? If you can outthink someone or outperform someone then you are simply using your natural advantage over them - we are not equal. In fact, Jesus Himself evolved - and certainly he could not have performed miracles because nobody else does and God didn’t just insert Himself here because no life comes from Him. Are disabled people victims of bad genetics? Are they worth anything? Do they have any utilitarian purpose perhaps? etc, etc.

Hitler used evolutionary theory as an excuse for his behavior. We use it today to justify all sorts of ills.

Bingo! :bowdown2:

What is the purpose of man? - to know God, to Love and serve Him, so that we can be together in Heaven.

Now this certainly sounds like something “special”. A special relationship with God with a purpose.

A chance connection is contrary to Revelation, Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

Then the parents (I am one) must take it upon themselves to see that they supplement a strong secular and scientific view of the world with their own flavor of spirituality. All we must demand in the state schools is that the most modern, current, and widespread science be taught correctly. If you are convinced of the falsehood of evolutionary theory, it is ultimately best for your children to be well-acquainted with the mainstream science in order for them to effectively argue against it.

They will be.

So out of nothing came everything? Rigorous science is going to factually prove this?

Which parts of the Bible do we exclude?