Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[klutedavid]

A group of women visited the tomb, not all are named by all the Gospels. Matthew names only two of the group. You are assuming that "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" were the only women there.

If you are interested in debating this subject I suggest you start a new thread.

Hello Ken.

In what section should I start the thread? Scripture, theology, e.t.c.?

 

[Armoured]

Hello Armoured.

Science makes errors and profound errors at times.

Science is an ideology, if the premises and assumptions that science is
founded on, are sound. Then science may proceed to gather evidence
and knowledge. The only problem that occurs eventually, is science reaches
limitations in what can be known and understood.

By the application of the empirical methodology, there always exists the
possibility that forces exist beyond the comprehension of science. For
example, astrophysics needed to invent dark energy to explain a universe
that is expanding at an accelerating rate. The standard model that astro
physics uses is incomplete.

Currently quantum physics, is reaching areas of study that appear beyond
our understanding. We may be reaching these points of limitation, upper
and lower bounds of intellectual endeavor.

All true. But we can only work with the evidence we have. And if all the evidence we have at the moment says "evolution is a thing", it's kinda silly to discard it because of the unfounded possibility that i's wrong.

I mean, it's possible that the entire universe as we know it is an illusion, and we all just exist in a computer simulation and that even the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them are wrong. It's possible. But unless someone comes up with some compelling evidence to think so, it would be silly to try to argue against reality as we know it based on that possibility.

 

[JacksBratt]

Mouse to fish would take too much time. But the very thing you ask for here has been demonstrated by the great variety of dog breeds, for example.

I don't think that's what they mean. A dog to a dog to a dog.... still a dog..... that's not going to help explain amoeba to a fish over time, then fish to lizard to bird.....

Do you see what they are asking? Maybe dog to some other never before seen being that can still continue and reproduce and ,"multiply and fill the earth", as it were.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Yeah yeah. Said over the internet.

Sure, science makes errors, then corrects them. That doesn't change the fact that evolution is a science, supported by scientific evidence.

And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

This should prove useful:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

It's amazing that decades later this article is till relevant today. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it.

Here are some Scriptures imploring us to put the Scripture at such a high level...though you really don't need more than what was already cited you:
Deuteronomy 6:6-8:
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Proverbs 6:20-22:
20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Your were already given that man is not to live on bread alone, but on every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God. (Matthew)

The big point is you are tossing major segments of Scripture and grabbing hold of a flawed theory...it robs God of some of His great Glory and Majesty.

 

[Armoured]

And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?

I'm not commenting on the scriptures at all. I'm commenting on people claiming evolution "is not science".

 

[Armoured]

Here are some Scriptures imploring us to put the Scripture at such a high level...though you really don't need more than what was already cited you:
Deuteronomy 6:6-8:
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
Proverbs 6:20-22:
20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Your were already given that man is not to live on bread alone, but on every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God. (Matthew)

The big point is you are tossing major segments of Scripture and grabbing hold of a flawed theory...it robs God of some of His great Glory and Majesty.

How about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not commenting on the scriptures at all. I'm commenting on people claiming evolution "is not science".

Evolution is science.

Science can take a hike.

Evolution can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?

1. Requires deep time.
2. Has gaps.
3. Assumes like means connected.
4. Constantly being modified.
5. Popular with atheism and other forms of unbelief.
6. Requires science to understand.
7. Doesn't allow for: BUT THE BIBLE SEZ!

 

[Indent]

Hello Indent.

Fact is something that is proven. A natural science relies on observational data,
hence, the conclusions found in the natural sciences. Cannot ever be proven,
can never be considered as fact. A fact is not something that is highly probable.
Stephen J Gould needs to read the dictionary definitions.

The further you travel back in time, the more difficult the task becomes for
evolutionary theory.

If science cannot really come to any conclusion about the origin of the dog.
Which was a recent event, 10 000 to 30 000 years, how can we trust science
to go beyond 30 000 years for any other species.

You must be kidding yourself, the evidence is observable, science cannot even
understand the ancestry of dogs.

You realize that Gould was an established and respected scientist?

He spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University, and unlike the questionable names mentioned in this thread associated with the Discover Institute, Gould had an impressive academic career. To suggest that “Gould needs to read dictionary definitions” is not just ignorant and pretentious, but it’s an affirmation that the Christian enterprise has suffered a tremendous blow.

The attitudes of many evangelical Christians (many, but not all) today is a disgrace to Christianity, and continues to disenfranchise us from the world by smearing its reputation and credibility. It impoverishes our churches, and taints our youth with callousness, pride and conceit.

This post demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the scientific enterprise, the foundations of which lends itself to credibility, and its failure to understand the post. Yes—evolution is a scientific fact, and most scientists are more than comfortable calling it just that. The vast majority of scientists with an intimate understanding of evolution call it that.

Who is kidding themselves?

The scientific consensus does not change because some chump on a Christian forum disagrees. That's not how it works. You have no control on consensus or definitions. Get over yourself.

I keep hearing Christians babble on about how easily “dispute” evolution is, and it’s not “science” (back by scientific-sounding words, and evangelical rhetoric), so we’re told, but I don’t see these people or these Christian institutions attempting to persuade the consensus. There are, however, unethical and scandalous people appealing to politicians and school boards (being thrown out of the courts, rightly so).

If evolution is so vulnerable, how has it remained so dominant?

It continues to thrive in the academic arena, which is far more unforgiving and ruthless than Bible thumping Christians. It stands up in the peer-review process, where the best minds from around the world engage in a competition of ideas... criticism and scrutiny are the hallmark of academia.

There's not a single argument in this thread that proves injurious, let alone a deathblow, to the fact of evolution itself. There's no question that science does not have all the answers, and it's entirely possible that some of the processes will be subject to revisions. But the fact that we did evolve, that's inescapable.

Should we use the same wildly unrealistic criteria for fundamentalist Christians and their beliefs?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Personally, I like Jamie Lee's respnse, and for which I nthink is more ot less:

Empirical evidence can't be wrong
the bible can't be wrong

So perhaps our interpretation of the scripture is wrong.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Personally, I like Jamie Lee's respnse, and for which I nthink is more ot less:

Empirical evidence can't be wrong
the bible can't be wrong

So perhaps our interpretation of the scripture is wrong.

There is so much that we DON'T know. Science and religion, both, know only a minute fraction of what is. I often wonder what knowledge there might be that our minds are oblivious to or are even physically incapable of understanding.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Personally, I like Jamie Lee's respnse, and for which I nthink is more ot less:

Empirical evidence can't be wrong
the bible can't be wrong

So perhaps our interpretation of the scripture is wrong.

Very good post! Anti reality biblical interpretation can take a hike!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

1. Requires deep time.

God provided deep time. We have the evidence for it.

2. Has gaps.

The life of Jesus in the Gospels has gaps. Shall we dismiss His life as unproven, or accept the evidence God left us even with those gaps?

3. Assumes like means connected.

Those fingerprint patterns on the gun are merely like the fingerprints of my client, you honor, lets not leap to the conclusion my client is guilty based on mere "like" . .

4. Constantly being modified.

Like Windows, but you keep using your computer anyway.

5. Popular with atheism and other forms of unbelief.

Atheists agree the sky is blue, so that means it isn't blue?

6. Requires science to understand.

Oh, the reason you don't like it is because its to hard for you? And that makes it false?

7. Doesn't allow for: BUT THE BIBLE SEZ!

And for some strange reason, we split into so many denominations believing alternate theologies all with the same bible, and you think this is a logical rebuff?

 

[smithed64]

You realize that Gould was an established and respected scientist?

He spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University, and unlike the questionable names mentioned in this thread associated with the Discover Institute, Gould had an impressive academic career. To suggest that “Gould needs to read dictionary definitions” is not just ignorant and pretentious, but it’s an affirmation that the Christian enterprise has suffered a tremendous blow.

The attitudes of many evangelical Christians (many, but not all) today is a disgrace to Christianity, and continues to disenfranchise us from the world by smearing its reputation and credibility. It impoverishes our churches, and taints our youth with callousness, pride and conceit.

What attitudes are you speaking about?

This post demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the scientific enterprise, the foundations of which lends itself to credibility, and its failure to understand the post. Yes—evolution is a scientific fact, and most scientists are more than comfortable calling it just that. The vast majority of scientists with an intimate understanding of evolution call it that.

The only thing factual about evolution is micro-evolution. This we can agree. Macro-evolution on the other hand, please identify the evidence that shows it to be factual.

Who is kidding themselves?

The scientific consensus does not change because some chump on a Christian forum disagrees. That's not how it works. You have no control on consensus or definitions. Get over yourself.

Your correct. The so called consensus...which doesn't exist across the board with scientist. Paleontologist can't agree if Dinosaurs died out from mass destruction or evolved into birds. They can't agree if "X" came from a body of water or a primordial ooze. They are also not completely sure what happened to the transitional fossils that should be there, which aren't, but they aren't sure, but will find them one day. Yeah, there is a consensus of confusion, uncertainty, and contradiction. They still can't show concrete observable evidence of evolution...which is part of the definition of science in the first place

I keep hearing Christians babble on about how easily “dispute” evolution is, and it’s not “science” (back by scientific-sounding words, and evangelical rhetoric), so we’re told, but I don’t see these people or these Christian institutions attempting to persuade the consensus. There are, however, unethical and scandalous people appealing to politicians and school boards (being thrown out of the courts, rightly so).

read above.

If evolution is so vulnerable, how has it remained so dominant?

It may be dominant in school, but not in our homes. Our children may be indoctrinated and plied with this hoax at our educational facilities. But it's up to the parents ultimately to teach their children the truth. So it's not as dominant as you think.

It continues to thrive in the academic arena, which is far more unforgiving and ruthless than Bible thumping Christians. It stands up in the peer-review process, where the best minds from around the world engage in a competition of ideas... criticism and scrutiny are the hallmark of academia.

I go back to the they aren't sure part here. As typed above.

There's not a single argument in this thread that proves injurious, let alone a deathblow, to the fact of evolution itself. There's no question that science does not have all the answers, and it's entirely possible that some of the processes will be subject to revisions. But the fact that we did evolve, that's inescapable.

Okay, how do you know we evolved? Do you have some observable evidence the mankind has evolved? Were you there to see what the first man looked like, acted like, lived like? Please enlighten me?

Should we use the same wildly unrealistic criteria for fundamentalist Christians and their beliefs?

Go ahead, people do it all the time. They have been doing that since Christ time. And He's still around. All those who have tried to destroy, end, obliterate, remove, and end Christianity aren't here anymore. But He is.

You see. We were told thousand of years ago. That people would hate us, because we want to be more like Christ. Because people hated Him.
The problem isn't what you believe. The problem is what you believe to be true?

You believe in evolution, you have faith in scientist and science itself to show you that it is true...(which really hasn't done yet)...you have faith in your pastor's of evolution, Darwin, Gould, and many other professors and scientist around the world. You believe in something, of which you have not ever observed personally.

You see I believe in God and His Word. I have faith in Christ and Know that His word is true...(which has been repeatedly shown to be)...I have faith in God and those He puts before me to teach, exhort, reproof and guide me..pastors, teachers and evangelist. I believe in Someone in whom I've never seen, but have a personal relationship with. And you call me a Religious Fanatic, Fundamentalist, Fundy, and Bible thumper.

Hey, did you notice the comparison?

The belief in Evolution has at the least the same type of belief system as mine...except for God of course. And unsubstantiated information......Sounds like a religion...yep...it's a religion.

God is the uncaused causer, the unmoved mover he created it by His word alone and he made it all very good and perfect. He don't need any help. We do.[/QUOTE]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very good post! Anti reality biblical interpretation can take a hike!

[Note: this response is kind of going out to everyone, not just Paul]

Right. I agree. And maybe we should be asking in this particular thread as to what makes for correct hermeneutical/exegetical procedure. In what ways do the writers of the Bible give us an absolute, infallible, and comprehensive way to interpret all of the things they write?

[And I'll just beat everyone to the punch: the writers of the Bible don't give us very many interpretive principles that enable us to be absolutely certain, clear, infallible, and/or comprehensively systematic in our reading and understanding of the Bible. Thus, some room can be made for Christians who also believe that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically evident and true, along with their acceptance of the general historical testimony of the Bible.]

2PhiloVoid

 

[throughfiierytrial]

How about rather than using "but the Bible SEZ!" appeal to authority arguments, you point out some of the flaws in evolutionary theory, if you feel they be so compelling?

Already have

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And that's the type of reasoning you're going to use to supersede the Scriptures?

You missed the part about evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Empirical evidence can't be wrong

If empirical evidence can't be wrong, how did we get our moon?

And why did Thalidomide do nothing to newborn mice, but disfigured humans?

Didn't Haeckel show empirical evidence that we start out in the womb with gills?

 

[AV1611VET]

God provided deep time.

What's His name?