Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

Please explain to me then, regarding Dr. Collins strong opinion in regards to evolution and the 99% of Phd biologists who agree with him, who are most qualified, to have knowledge on the subject.

Are they all somehow incompetent?

Yes they are incompetent in some ways. There is much evidence that would contradict their findings, yet they ignore it and move forward with their stiff necked notions.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes they are incompetent in some ways. There is much evidence that would contradict their findings, yet they ignore it and move forward with their stiff necked notions.

These hundreds of thousands of scientists are all incompetent and are ignoring evidence?????

And, you have the knowledge of what they do, to determine if they are incompetent??????

Ok, then, I will let your position stand on it's own merits and logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, simple observation. They have been wrong many times before and so there is no rational reason that I should blindly accept their notions as evidence.

Then look at the evidence yourself.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

What is stopping you?

 

[Poster0]

These hundreds of thousands of scientists are all incompetent and are ignoring evidence?????

And, you have the knowledge of what they do, to determine if they are incompetent??????

Ok, then, I will let your position stand on it's own merits and logic.

Creation scientists have raised many questions, and presented evidence which contradicts many assertions made by evolutionists, yet it gets ignored rather than refuted. I'm not afraid to stand in the minority, because I have seen how the majority are often mislead by a big lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes they are incompetent in some ways. There is much evidence that would contradict their findings, yet they ignore it and move forward with their stiff necked notions.

Examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is accepted because of the dogmatic manner in which it's presented.

It is accepted because of the evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Poster0]

Then look at the evidence yourself.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

What is stopping you?

I looked at your article and I don't see the relevance

 

[Preacherbob]

It took some time to go over the thread and all of the replies and somehow I believe the time was pretty much misspent. Directly after the thread was proposed, the arguement over the individual merits of creationism and evolutionism began, which has been a topical hazard since Adam blamed God for giving him a lousy choice for a woman.

Yes. Some evolutionists use the theory to defeat the belief in God.
Yes. Some Theists use creationism to defeat the belief in no god.
Yes. Some scientific evolutionists do believe in God or at least in a designing authority.
Yes. Some Theists believe that the creation story is an integral part of the evolution of God's
creation, but separate because the creation story is the beginning of Biblical history.

Now, to the topic of the thread. Ethics and Morals as it pertains to evolution
Ethics and morals are not a discussionary factor in either creationism nor evolution for at best the topics involving moralistic values are philosophical not scientific.
If one were to ponder the scientific attributes of God and negate that same science then many researching mathematicians need not bother going to work ergo, God is not a philosophical anomaly.
Evolution is a science which, among other things, involves the progression of biologicals throughout it's own history and has nothing to do with morals nor ethics of any kind.

Entertaining the moral values set by evolutionism or creationism is like asking if there is any intristic moral dilemma about waking up in the morning. It's biological, not philosophical.

Now, does the story of Adam and Eve have a set of moral and ethical values attached to it? Certainly, you need not ask. Creation by itself has no restrictions, but until God laid down what was and what was not sin man knew no sin.

 

[Loudmouth]

I looked at your article and I don't see the relevance

You don't see the relevance of scientific evidence that supports evolution to the topic at hand?

 

[Poster0]

Examples?

Another poster gave one example, go back and start there.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Actually, we are related to everything on earth, but that doesn't prove that we evolved from anything, but only proves we were created from the same earth. Its really just speculation to suggest that man was once as dumb as a chimp and that he looked and lived similar to chimps as well. ITs the most absurd and unproven notion that man has ever invented.

If we are not apes then, what kind of animal is a human? Are we fish? Are we birds? Reptiles?

Or are we just not animals at all? If that's the case, how do you define an animal?

 

[Poster0]

You don't see the relevance of scientific evidence that supports evolution to the topic at hand?

No, I saw an article that presented the rantings of its author, a few broken links, and a lot of irrelevant links.

 

[Poster0]

If we are not apes then, what kind of animal is a human? Are we fish? Are we birds? Reptiles?

Or are we just not animals at all? If that's the case, how do you define an animal?

Yes we are animals, but we were never as dumb as chimps, nor did we ever live in trees. We are also special among animals and are separate from them, because God made it that way. WE are more than just animals.

 

[aiki]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1445020441508-1'); });

I don't think they have bent the rules necessarily, but are simply seeing what their philosophical presuppositions and commitments require them to see. We all do this. It's in the nature of being human, I think. This interpretation according to one's presuppositions isn't always a bad thing - especially when there is a clear correspondence between one's presuppositions and reality. But I don't think this correspondence to reality is always true of the ToE. On several important points, it collapses. And many scientists are so invested in the defense of the theory that they have become highly myopic about its shortcomings.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.

Much of the ToE depends upon "just-so" stories, this is true. Those who propose the various stories of what occurred over the billions of years during which the ToE is supposed to have been working are just like the homicide detective who constructs possible scenarios to account for the various facts that are in evidence concerning a murder. But unlike the homicide detective, evolutionists have a dogmatism about their scenarios that is not warranted by the facts. Such dogmatism would have a blinding effect upon a homicide detective and actually potentially obscure the truth from him. So, too, with evolutionists who frame a just-so story and then declare it, not just a hypothesis that has yet to be proved, but the fact of the matter.

You're right: no one has ever observed the macro-evolution that the ToE proposes. Evolutionists hold up evidence that they say suggests they are correct about macro-evolution, but this is often, as I said, as much or more the consequence of philosophical presuppositions as of the "incontrovertible" revelations of science.

The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.

The thing is, even if the ToE was true, it would not disprove the existence of God, nor invalidate the core tenets of the faith.

It is my policy to completely ignore the proclamations of the Pope.

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

I don't see how, given that God is the Creator of Everything, that anything within His universe is "out of His ballpark."

Homosexuality is, as continuing research is revealing, not merely a matter of genetics, but much more of psycho-social influences. Culture, family, friends and personality have much more to do with homosexuality than some as yet undetermined genetic mandate. Twin studies, brain studies, hormonal studies - none of these have yielded concrete proof of the congenital origins of homosexuality. And the more genes are studied, the more it appears that they do not have the sort of unilateral control over a person's behaviour that the general public believes they do. In fact, this has been known by geneticists for nearly three decades now.

Selah.

 

[durangodawood]

You don't see the relevance of scientific evidence that supports evolution to the topic at hand?

Give it up man! Nothing will interfere with his prime directive.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes we are animals, but we were never as dumb as chimps, nor did we ever live in trees. We are also special among animals and are separate from them, because God made it that way. WE are more than just animals.

Fair enough. This is better than the answer this question usually gets. I also agree we are special among animals as we have much higher reasoning than any animal on earth but that doesn't make us more than animals. We really are just animals... We're just really smart ones. You say we were never as "dumb as chimps" but I disagree. Chimps are very intelligent and I believe all animals are probably smarter and more aware than we actually give them credit for but humans weren't always so smart. Even today, without a proper education, you get some very barbaric human beings that I wouldn't consider much of an improvement over those beasts we think are so inferior to us.

 

[Poster0]

Give it up man! Nothing will interfere with his prime directive.

The same is true of my opposition.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another poster gave one example, go back and start there.

Which post?

 

[Poster0]

Fair enough. This is better than the answer this question usually gets. I also agree we are special among animals as we have much higher reasoning than any animal on earth but that doesn't make us more than animals. We really are just animals... We're just really smart ones. You say we were never as "dumb as chimps" but I disagree. Chimps are very intelligent and I believe all animals are probably smarter and more aware than we actually give them credit for but humans weren't always so smart. Even today, without a proper education, you get some very barbaric human beings that I wouldn't consider much of an improvement over those beasts we think are so inferior to us.

GOd gave us the ability to be be more than animals, and we are, and will be even more so after we leave this world. Chimps will never be more than they are now.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I saw an article that presented the rantings of its author, a few broken links, and a lot of irrelevant links.

Please explain how the ERV evidence is irrelevant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses