Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Armoured]

Come on. You have got to do better than this. You cannot make claims that the majority of christians accept evolution when you have no evidence at all that it is true. All you can say it is my opinion that the majority of christians accept evolution but I have no proof so it is no more than my opinion.

Catholic Church accepts evolution, Catholics are the majority Christian denomination. All of the big denoms I can think of accept it too, Anglos, Orthos, (iirc) the Uniting church does...

 

[As I was saying]

Once again, even if what you say is true, that doesn't effect the morality or otherwise of the theory of evolution.

A nice red herring to avoid the obvious.

 

[Armoured]

If, as they claim science doesn't deal in proof, they have to stop saying that the fossil record is proof of evolution.

Happily. However it is very strong evidence, and unless someone can present compelling evidence against it, it is, for all practical intents "proven" (as short hand)

 

[As I was saying]

"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring. "
http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

But that is only a theory as nothing is proven in science so we are told. That being the case atheists and anyone else who accepts the theory of evolution as fact is on sinking sand.

 

[Armoured]

A nice red herring to avoid the obvious.

Nope.

Rather than pointing to examples of immoral people, how about you actually cite the part(s) of the actual theory itself that are "immoral".

 

[Poster0]

Not trueNot trueI'm religious and see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

You see no conflict with agreeing to a worldly theory that lacks credible evidence? The theory causes division, contradicts biblical timeline, asserts that man evolved from a primitive ape beast, and lacks credible evidence.

 

[Armoured]

But that is only a theory as nothing is proven in science so we are told. That being the case atheists and anyone else who accepts the theory of evolution as fact is on sinking sand.

Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

As I say, come up with conflicting evidence.

 

[Armoured]

You see no conflict with agreeing to a worldly theory that lacks credible evidence? The theory causes division, contradicts biblical timeline, asserts that man evolved from a primitive ape beast, and lacks credible evidence.

It doesn't lack credible evidence. There's tonnes of credible evidence.

 

[As I was saying]

Catholic Church accepts evolution, Catholics are the majority Christian denomination. All of the big denoms I can think of accept it too, Anglos, Orthos, (iirc) the Uniting church does...

Thank you for pointing out you are wrong as this statement clearly shows.....

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.

That means your claims about most christians is on sinking sand.

 

[Poster0]

The shifting sands of evolution. I have noticed that whenever they are up the creek without a paddle they usually say. "yes but..." and then produce some weird theory to cover their tracks about the weird theory they have been called out on. In other words, you are right and I can't prove you wrong so I will have to produce a red herring.

David Berlinski is a well educated atheist, and he doesn't believe that the evolution theory is credible science. He has no agenda, no religion.

 

[Poster0]

It doesn't lack credible evidence. There's tonnes of credible evidence.

Tons of speculation you mean.

 

[Armoured]

David Berlinski is a well educated atheist, and he doesn't believe that the evolution theory is credible science. He has no agenda, no religion.

Good for him. What about all the well educated people with no agenda who disagree with him, including Christians?

 

[Armoured]

Tons of speculation you mean.

Nope, tonnes of evidence. In pretty much every single field of scientific inquiry.

 

[Strathos]

Not seeing how that is relevant. And yes, there are morally neutral actions. Such as if I choose to have a hamburger or a pizza for dinner, is one choice moral and the other immoral?

 

[Strathos]

That's what these atheists believe.

Not really. They just believe it's more random than TE's like me do.

 

[As I was saying]

Happily. However it is very strong evidence, and unless someone can present compelling evidence against it, it is, for all practical intents "proven" (as short hand)

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either it is proven or it is not and judging by the all the red herrings thrown up by those who have an absolute belief in evolution, it sounds to me that it is wishful thinking. It is either theory or it is fact.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Fact; something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

 

[Poster0]

No, it's a fundamental quality of the scientific method. Which you may like to research a little since it seems to exercise you so much.

I understand how theory works, but at some point it can be proven with evidence, or at least accepted as plausible.

 

[Strathos]

100% proven facts only exist in mathematics. Look up solipsism.

 

[Armoured]

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either it is proven or it is not and judging by the all the red herrings thrown up by those who have an absolute belief in evolution, it sounds to me that it is wishful thinking. It is either theory or it is fact.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Fact; something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Don't play debate by dictionary, especially with scientific usages.

Evolution is not proven, but all available evidence supports it, which makes it "fact", as far as "facts" exist.

Gravity is a theory, yet it is also considered a "fact", for all practical purposes.

Cell theory is also a theory, yet supported by all available evidence, thus a "fact" as such things go.

Would you like more examples of theories that are considered "facts" for all practical purposes? I can go on, atomic theory, molecular theory, germ theory...

Rather than arguing the dictionary, or trying to base a claim on associated human morality, ask yourself this one, simple question: "is there any evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, or contradicts any of its predictions"?

 

[Armoured]

I understand how theory works, but at some point it can be proven with evidence, or at least accepted as plausible.

No. Science never proves anything, ever. That doesn't mean something can't be considered plausible. Gravity is "just" a theory, yet it's plausible enough to stop people jumping off cliffs.