Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

There is no Theory of Gravity. It is more an observation of how objects interact.

By George, I think he’s got it! Facts are observations. Theories are built on those observations/facts. Newton observed facts, that apocryphal apple, and built a theory on those facts. Einstein observed facts and built a better theory on those more accurately measured facts.

That is how science works; facts are observed and theories constructed round the facts.

Darwin observed that modern animals were not all identical clones, but have small variations within each species. Malthus observed that populations tend to expand until limited by the availability of some resource. From those two true observations Darwin developed his theory.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

Darwin observed that modern animals were not all identical clones, but have small variations within each species. Malthus observed that populations tend to expand until limited by the availability of some resource. From those two true observations Darwin developed his theory.

And starting with the facts, influenced by the philosophical trends of his time, he went wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The idea of a theory of gravity in biological terms would be equivalent to that of a theory of reproduction.

From that perspective the theory of evolution is a branch of the theory of reproduction because it deals with the mechanisms that determine how offspring differ from their parents. Repeating that mechanism millions of times you have a new species.

 

[Aloysium]

The point was that there is no theory of reproduction.

To clarify a point, “kinds” of animals, are not necessarily or usually what we think of as species. Reality consists of the existence of different beings, different “souls” which incorporate the material, giving it order to express, in time and space, within the universe in which they participate, what they are as “kinds” of relational living organisms. A kind of thing as it exists in itself would include atoms and molecules, but as we get into higher forms of being, the complexity of the order includes those lower within the hierarchy of existence. Seeing things as they are, evolution is an illusion. It’s all about creation here and now and wt the beginning of each kind of thing.

 

[Gabika50]

Hence the reason it is called a theory and not scientific fact. Until something better and not religious comes along, museums and schools will throw us together with the apes…

 

[Aloysium]

Hence the reason it is called a theory and not scientific fact. Until something better and not religious comes along, museums and schools will throw us together with the apes…

Why teach it at all, seeing that it misrepresents what happened.
That we came from apes is an assumption that not only is ethically empirially untestable, but actually fails the test of reality.
But, I’m sure there’s someone somewhere inserting human genes into simian eggs, thinking themselves a god. That is one of the natural outcomes of such a belief system as is euthanasia.

 

[IWantGod]

That we came from apes is an assumption that not only is ethically

Why did you say ethically?

 

[Aloysium]

There are a number of avenues we could follow in designing an experiment that would attempt to bring into existence a person using animal tissue. They would all fail, but I’m addressing the process. Most would be disrespectful to life itself, which would corrupt the knowledge gleaned. Most would involve the addition of human genes taken from embryonic stem cells. It is unethical to experiment on human beings from the point of conception onwards. Beyond treating a person as if only a material blob, the act itself is a human sacrifice to mankind’s hubris. It’s been definitely been done before and will continue to be. Ethical, moral, loving, the will of God, it is not.

 

[IWantGod]

It is unethical to experiment on human beings

But what has that got to do with the theory of evolution. Nobody said that physics was unethical when we built the atomic bomb.

 

[Gabika50]

Wyy teach it at all? The science world needs an explanation of its own lest it predicate God as a reality; or fall into the “God of the Gaps” syndrome where God is inserted like crazy glue when humans are confused by yet another mystery they cannot explain by themselves.

 

[Aloysium]

The quote you used to begin this discussion was:

That we came from apes is an assumption that not only is ethically empirially untestable, but actually fails the test of reality.

Your follow-up question had to do with ethical component.

How would you propose we might try to empirically discover if human beings can arise from animals? Even if we leave our experimentaion to lower animals, they too have a dignity we must respect and we have a duty towards them as their caretakers. There must be very good reasons for causing them pain and death.

But what has that got to do with the theory of evolution. Nobody said that physics was unethical when we built the atomic bomb.

What it has to do with is the proving of evolutionary theory by empirical means, what I see clearly would be a fruitless exercise.

I’m sure you would agree that there is a difference in bombarding a hydrogen atom and doing the same to your genitals to see the outcome on your offspring, how much brighter than the rest of humanity they would be.

 

[William_Scott]

Here’s a memorable drive by quote. I might follow up in the Advent Season if this thread is still around…

Henry Morris, The Long War Against God:

The idea that a loving, wise, and powerful God used evolution—with its “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”—as his method of creation is grotesque! Evolution is the cruelest, most wasteful and most irrational method of “creation” that could ever be
imagined…

The postulated suffering and death of multiplied billions of animals in the course of evolutionary “progress” from amoeba to man is a libel against the character of the Creator—who must certainly have been capable of creating each organism complete, with its own
perfectly designed structure for its own unique function, right from the start. Evolution may make some sense in the context of atheism, but it certainly does not fit Christian theism!

…Monod was an outstanding biologist, winner of a Nobel Prize, and thoroughly convinced of evolutionism, but he could see no way it could be compatible with theism:
“[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species. . . The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. . . . I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this
is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Bertrand Russell, another atheistic scientist/philosopher, put it this way: “Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution. . . .We are told that. . . evolution is the
unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages . . . when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal
by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us.”

 

[Techno2000]

The postulated suffering and death of multiplied billions of animals in the course of evolutionary “progress” from amoeba to man is a libel against the character of the Creator

Yeah…and your going to need millions of perfectly Tailor-made environmental changes to make all this happen.

 

[Zealot]

Great quote. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Edgar]

Its relevance is that evolution is a new religion and religious intolerance is part of the human condition. A reason to think that the natural-evolution of the species is true is because that is what we are taught to believe, and pretty much must believe if one has an interest in pursuing a career in the biological sciences. Think that it is true or face ridicule and rejection.

I feel sorry for any evo-doubter who choses a career in the bilogical sciences. It must deter some from perserving in that field - which only strengthens the intolerant, pro-evo faction.

 

[IWantGod]

Here’s a memorable drive by quote. I might follow up in the Advent Season if this thread is still around…

Henry Morris, The Long War Against God:

The idea that a loving, wise, and powerful God used evolution—with its “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”—as his method of creation is grotesque! Evolution is the cruelest, most wasteful and most irrational method of “creation” that could ever be
imagined…

The postulated suffering and death of multiplied billions of animals in the course of evolutionary “progress” from amoeba to man is a libel against the character of the Creator—who must certainly have been capable of creating each organism complete, with its own
perfectly designed structure for its own unique function, right from the start. Evolution may make some sense in the context of atheism, but it certainly does not fit Christian theism!

…Monod was an outstanding biologist, winner of a Nobel Prize, and thoroughly convinced of evolutionism, but he could see no way it could be compatible with theism:
“[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species. . . The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. . . . I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this
is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Bertrand Russell, another atheistic scientist/philosopher, put it this way: “Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution. . . .We are told that. . . evolution is the
unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages . . . when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal
by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us.”

Nobody wants pain and suffering, but regardless of whether evolution is true or not, the existence of pain and suffering is a philosophical problem called the problem of natural evil. Like the problem of personal evil, it basically argues that there is great difficulty in making sense of God’s good nature when his creation is full of suffering.

I’m not going to challenge this argument on this thread, sufficive to say that i don’t think natural evolution makes any difference to the problem. Creatures live and die and suffer regardless. God gave us the capacity for pain and emotions and they are an intrinsic part of our nature regardless of Darwin. If God can see some greater good that we would be without if it were not for the potential of suffering and pain, then what does it matter that suffering exists - by any process at all - if it is logically necessary for our salvation or God’s plan to save us? The goal is the good of our existence. If the potential for suffering is necessary in order for us to have what God wants for us, then so be it.

 

[Edgar]

Yep…Creationist = flat ear

The funny thing is, creationists and flat-earthers could still make perfectly competent biologists.

 

[Edgar]

None of which is relevant to the title question of the thread

Actually, I find the title of the thread not only absurd, but offensive. It suggests the history of life on earth is the result of purely natural forces, which is quite an extraordinary position for any Christian to hold. Man is the result of a Dobzhansky’s blind evolution? What a pathetic joke!

 

[IWantGod]

Actually, I find the title of the thread not only absurd, but offensive. It suggests the history of life on earth is the result of purely natural forces, which is quiite an extraordinary position for any Christian to hold. Man is the result of a Dobzhansky’s blind evolution? What a pathetic joke!

Ironically, like many atheists, you seem to have great difficulty in seeing the epistemological difference between a metaphysical statement and a scientific statement.

I think the fact that you find the thread title offensive is absurd.

 

[Edgar]

Again, a religious person trying to put down evolution by calling it a religion. Are you trying to tell us that science is superior to religion?

I prefer to think of Darwinism as a scientismic cult, some of the psychological aspects of which are quasi-religious in nature and power. This cult is the culmination of the secularism that emerged from the Enlightenment; it is in effect a replacement for religion. Darwinist psuedo-science is to this cult what theology is to Christianity.