Do you believe evolution requires any faith? (By Jason Young)

[Marcel]

A certain Jason Young, oddly enough, started this as a journal thread; even titeling it "Do you believe evolution requires any faith?" questionmark and all. This is a place where people could actually answer the question, so I hope he doesn't mind me copying and pasting it. Unless he found it important to have the topic consist of him being in agreement with himself and nothing else, in which case he would be in no way forced to read this thread.

As Christians we hold fast to our belief in our God through faith, and it is that very faith in which we are saved through Jesus Christ. This faith is dependant upon the fact that we believe in that which we cannot see. On the other side of things we have some who believe in evolution. My question is weather this fact and science supported belief requires any faith on the part of the evolutionist?

Statements such as "the universe began from one particle of infinite density which occupied no space", requires me to rely too much on my own imagination and stretches the realities of common sense too far for me to beleive that even evolution does not require a dose of faith here and there.

 

[Arikay]

"Statements such as "the universe began from one particle of infinite density which occupied no space"

Of course, this has nothing to do with evolution.

But no, it doesnt really take "faith" to accept evolution.

In a way it does take some faith to accept science, the faith that what we can see and study is real and not being put here by some omnipotent being just to mess with us and will then be taken away and changed around as it sees fit.

However that is always there, above and beyond faith in religion as well.

However it doesnt take faith in the sense that religion uses it in.

If any of that makes sense.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I don't have the references on me today,but i have MANY[!] quotes from MANY[!] Evolutionist that admit they're a religion!
They also admit that they are not self-correcting.
Science has to be self-correcting and non-bias-sifting through all evidence that could shed truth to the concept of human orgins.
Evolutionist only test and use the evolution model when searching for answers.This is not science,its a dogmatic religion.
Hitler used Natural Selection to created the master race.
Karl Marx and Paul Kurtz used it has mind poisoning philosophy in there attemps to prove that Christians and Jews were the "weak Link" of human development.
Anton LaVey Supported that notion in his book called,"The Satan Bible".

This is all about the morality of evolution.

 

[EvolvEarth]

I don't have the references on me today,but i have MANY[!] quotes from MANY[!] Evolutionist that admit they're a religion!
They also admit that they are not self-correcting.
Science has to be self-correcting and non-bias-sifting through all evidence that could shed truth to the concept of human orgins.
Evolutionist only test and use the evolution model when searching for answers.This is not science,its a dogmatic religion.
Hitler used Natural Selection to created the master race.
Karl Marx and Paul Kurtz used it has mind poisoning philosophy in there attemps to prove that Christians and Jews were the "weak Link" of human development.
Anton LaVey Supported that notion in his book called,"The Satan Bible".

This is all about the morality of evolution.

I really hope this is a joke. I'm sure the quotes are all out of context, and evolution has nothing to do with the morality of the individual. Hitler also was a firm believer in Christianity while the Catholic church and the nazis had collaboration together.

I wouldn't use the Bible as some kind of source for morality, but I think the Bible teaches very horrible, unacceptable things.

 

[Arikay]

So who are your sources, AIG or DrDino? (they both seem to like to talk about the morality of evolution which is very funny. )

However, since you have made claims here, would you care to start another thread (as to not clutter our friends here) to back them up?

I don't have the references on me today,but i have MANY[!] quotes from MANY[!] Evolutionist that admit they're a religion!
They also admit that they are not self-correcting.
Science has to be self-correcting and non-bias-sifting through all evidence that could shed truth to the concept of human orgins.
Evolutionist only test and use the evolution model when searching for answers.This is not science,its a dogmatic religion.
Hitler used Natural Selection to created the master race.
Karl Marx and Paul Kurtz used it has mind poisoning philosophy in there attemps to prove that Christians and Jews were the "weak Link" of human development.
Anton LaVey Supported that notion in his book called,"The Satan Bible".

This is all about the morality of evolution.

 

[7891b]

EvolvEarth,

Where does morality come from then? Who created
it? Why do we think like that? Is it just something
we thought of, or is it just something to describe the action of what someone does?

Questions, questions.

The Bible is horrible, and has unacceptable things? Please be specific in what you are referring to in the Bible. Please show me some verses which are "unacceptable".

 

[Isaac112086]

I'm pretty sure most theory says the universe started as pure energy, with no matter... energy can become matter, and matter become energy (theoreticly) but only matter has weight and volume.

 

[Arikay]

Very large questions indeed, ones that could fill a couple of threads.

My answer, without doing further research would be,
I dont know.

However two things to mention,

1) God is not needed for morals.
2) Morals came about before christianity and also without its influence.

I only mention those two things because they seem to be missconceptions about morals.



However, if our friend decides to take my suggesting and make another thread to back up his claims, I wouldnt mind discussing the "morals" of evolution and the "morals" of some of those organizations that claim evolution promotes bad morals.

EvolvEarth,

Where does morality come from then? Who created
it? Why do we think like that? Is it just something
we thought of, or is it just something to describe the action of what someone does?

Questions, questions.

The Bible is horrible, and has unacceptable things? Please be specific in what you are referring to in the Bible. Please show me some verses which are "unacceptable".

 

[samiam]

A certain Jason Young, oddly enough, started this as a journal thread; even titeling it "Do you believe evolution requires any faith?" questionmark and all.

What I find somewhat unusual is that this Journal entry is Jason Young's one and only posting here at Christian Forums.

I think there are a number of reasons that people do not discuss creation/evolution here. The problem is that the evolutionists here are the most loud-mouthed people here; they react to someone who belives in creationism with hostility and anger. They sit around here, wasting bandwith with redundant postings that pat themselves on the back about how stupid creationists are.

This causes a situtation where the only people who stay are the evolutionists. The people arguing evolution here know more about science than they do about human nature. I assure you that making a peeing contest out of the whole creation/evolution debate is the worse way to teach a creationist about the error of their ways.

There is a reason Erwin set up a Christians-only place to debate creation/evolution.

You want a real debate here? Treat creationists with respect. Until then, the creationists will not hang around here, and will not be given a chance to truly understand science and evolution.

Yes, I understand that many creationists are very frustrating to deal with, and that there is a lot of frustration about the fact that fundamentalist churches across the US continually delude their congreation with the same long-since-refuted creationist chestnuts. I just think there are better ways to express this frustration than being hostile towards creationists here.

There is a reason I haven't posted here since the crash.

- Sam

 

[Arikay]

I know ive argued this before with you, but personally I dont know how you can complain about respect when you feel the way you do about atheists.

I could go off on this, but I wont side track the thread. Needless to say, Those that come here with questions and who are willing to listen, get treated with respect by me and many others, many though seem to take offense to being shown that they are wrong, but that is their problem.

 

[lucaspa]

Statements such as "the universe began from one particle of infinite density which occupied no space", requires me to rely too much on my own imagination and stretches the realities of common sense too far for me to beleive that even evolution does not require a dose of faith here and there.

That statement is not one of faith because such a universe left objective, intersubjective evidence we can study today. And that evidence shows the statement to be (provisionally) true. Without faith.

Notice that the statement itself has NOTHING about God in it. It is merely a statement of the condition of energy/matter/spacetime at the beginning of the universe. It says nothing about the origin.

The argument Jason used against it is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity. He can't imagine it, therefore it didn't happen.

However, notice that theists say that God can't be imagined or completely understood, either. So, if Jason were consistent, he would reject the existence of God by the same argument.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't have the references on me today,but i have MANY[!] quotes from MANY[!] Evolutionist that admit they're a religion!

The best ones are by Ruse where he says that some evolutionISTS have incorporated evolution into their faith of atheism.

There is a faith called 'scientism' that does indeed try to make a faith OUT OF science.

However, you have to critically examine those statements and see whether the people making them are correct.

Science has to be self-correcting and non-bias-sifting through all evidence that could shed truth to the concept of human orgins.
Evolutionist only test and use the evolution model when searching for answers.This is not science,its a dogmatic religion.

Science already has falsified creationism. IOW, they have already shown that a special creation of human beings is wrong. Basically, evolution is the only theory out there that hasn't already been shown to be wrong.

Now, in order to do science you MUST have a hypothesis/theory to test. To test in an effort to show it to be WRONG.

Fezzilla, we need to discuss what science is and how it works. You've obviously picked up some pretty erroneous ideas about that.

 

[lucaspa]

EvolvEarth,

Where does morality come from then? Who created
it? Why do we think like that? Is it just something
we thought of, or is it just something to describe the action of what someone does?

7891b, Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

If the first, then morality is nothing but the whim of a single entity. If the second, then morality is an independent entity that we can investigate with or without God.

Do you have the opportunity to take a philosophy of ethics course at a local college? That would help a lot.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is as much a religion as France. And, last I checked, nobody worships the French.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution is as much a religion as France. And, last I checked, nobody worships the French.

ROFL!! Good one.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Evolution is as much a religion as France. And, last I checked, nobody worships the French.

What you don't believe in France?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Marcel]

What I find somewhat unusual is that this Journal entry is Jason Young's one and only posting here at Christian Forums.

I think there are a number of reasons that people do not discuss creation/evolution here. The problem is that the evolutionists here are the most loud-mouthed people here; they react to someone who belives in creationism with hostility and anger. They sit around here, wasting bandwith with redundant postings that pat themselves on the back about how stupid creationists are.

This causes a situtation where the only people who stay are the evolutionists. The people arguing evolution here know more about science than they do about human nature. I assure you that making a peeing contest out of the whole creation/evolution debate is the worse way to teach a creationist about the error of their ways.

There is a reason Erwin set up a Christians-only place to debate creation/evolution.

You want a real debate here? Treat creationists with respect. Until then, the creationists will not hang around here, and will not be given a chance to truly understand science and evolution.

Yes, I understand that many creationists are very frustrating to deal with, and that there is a lot of frustration about the fact that fundamentalist churches across the US continually delude their congreation with the same long-since-refuted creationist chestnuts. I just think there are better ways to express this frustration than being hostile towards creationists here.

There is a reason I haven't posted here since the crash.

- Sam

I agree that there are people who can't seem to make a point without being unpleasant about it, which can be a put down in any discussion.

 

[lucaspa]

You want a real debate here? Treat creationists with respect. Until then, the creationists will not hang around here, and will not be given a chance to truly understand science and evolution.

Sam, this isn't a debate. It's supposed to be a discussion and search for truth. In terms of science, there hasn't been a "debate" between evolution and creationism since 1831 when creationism was falsified.

I just think there are better ways to express this frustration than being hostile towards creationists here.

I agree and I hope I am not personally hostile. However, I can't be honest and say that creationISM has any validity.

Jason's argument has some flaws. Now, do you suggest I ignore them in order to have a "debate" with Jason? Or do I point out the flaws as neutrally as possible? At the same time being careful not to say anything that can be construed as attacking Christianity?

I think the "Christians only" forum was started so that creationists could hide from the data that falsifies creationism.

 

[Arikay]

I agree with lucaspa.

Personally I felt disrespected when the christian only science forum was created, since science is (or at least should be) seperate from a religion, it shouldnt matter. To cut off the non christians here seemed like a way to hide from their evidence.

I especially felt disrespected since as an atheist I often argue for the belief that christianity and science can get along, (as do quite a few other atheists here) which is not any sort of attack on christianity.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, I understand that many creationists are very frustrating to deal with, and that there is a lot of frustration about the fact that fundamentalist churches across the US continually delude their congreation with the same long-since-refuted creationist chestnuts. I just think there are better ways to express this frustration than being hostile towards creationists here.

You must admit it gets a little annoying when we get things like the one on the coincidence thread about scientists being shot and killed because they came up with a "non Darwinian" explanation of something in the Grand Canyon. It is pretty hard not to be a bit hostile to something like that. If not hostile to the person at least hostile to the claim especially when the person implies that the references he was given are false. Then again maybe he is just a troll. It sometimes hard to tell.

One thing I have seen over and over is some YEC who has heard or read Hovind or Baugh coming to a board convinced that (s)he can easily show us how stupid evolution is and throwing out and all those long refuted young earth and global flood claims that you mention above, often saying things like how funny it is that anyone believes in evolution. When their arguments are easily refuted they just fall back on the Bible and say science is religion too. This is also likely to cause some hostility in people who have spent their lives studying science.

While we are suggesting behavior, I would also suggest that anyone who copies stuff verbatum from web pages should at least give links and not claim they wrote it themselves. I am sure this is a board rule. When someone tries to show that evolutionists lie by copying lies from creationist web sites and lying about copying them it is likely to lessen the respect that some of us may have for him and perhaps lead to hostile behavior.

The Frumious Bandersnatch