We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[BCP1928]

Atheists need a belief system, which effectively serves as a replacement for religion. Their belief system is the theory of evolution.

Then why do a majority of theists (including a majority of Christians) accept the theory of evolution?

 

[public hermit]

Abiogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive.

How would they be mutually exclusive? I mean, evolutionary theory is well established; whereas, abiogenesis is not, but that does not entail that one somehow excludes the other, right? Do you mean something other than mutually exclusive?

Science can't so much as prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, the theory of evolution and evidence for it amount to nothing more than a bedtime story.

I don't think it's helpful to think of science as proving things similar to how there are proofs in mathematics. Are you familiar with the distinction between induction and deduction? Familiarizing yourself with that distinction might help because very often scientific theories are a matter of induction, which can leave room for improvement but not much room for proofs. Proofs are a matter of deduction, and outside of logic and maths, they are rare.

Here's a thought. If atheists have turned evolution into a religion (with which I disagree), could the same be said of some theists? Have some theists turned their anti-evolution sentiments into a religion, perhaps as an extension of their theism?

 

[Buzzard3]

That's weird since the vast majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists.

The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.

Atheists worship ToE for that very reason - it says life on earth is the result of a natural (Godless) process.

 

[River Jordan]

The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.

All scientific theories are based on natural processes. In fact all of science is based on natural processes. Given that, why focus on evolutionary theory instead of the atomic theory of matter for example?

Atheists worship ToE for that very reason - it says life on earth is the result of a natural (Godless) process.

Chemistry says molecules are the result of natural processes. Do you oppose chemistry too?

 

[Buzzard3]

Then why do a majority of theists (including a majority of Christians) accept the theory of evolution?

A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?

Really?

 

[Buzzard3]

By the same mechanisms that drive speciation events we see today.

How did you prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process of speciation?

Why would the past be any different?

That is your proof?

 

[Larniavc]

Then science can take a hike, can't it?

Yet you keep following it and chasing it down.

 

[River Jordan]

How did you prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process of speciation?

That is your proof?

Does a geologist prove that the U-valley they're studying was formed by the natural process of glacial erosion?

Does a chemist prove that the molecule they're studying was formed by the natural process of covalent bonding?

Does a hydrogeomorphologist prove that the sand bar they're studying was formed by the natural processes of erosion and deposition?

If you can't give any reason why species came about differently in the past than they do today, all you're really doing here is complaining with no purpose.

 

[Buzzard3]

Sure we can, in the same way a geologist can come across a certain type of formation and know what mechanisms produced it.

Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.

If you're going to argue that everything was different in the past then you're going to have to provide some evidence for that.

I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.

 

[Larniavc]

Atheists need a belief system, which effectively serves as a replacement for religion.

No we don't. We manage without religion easily. It's like not having a cricket team one supports. One manages fine without it. There is no cricket shaped hole that needs to be filled another sport.

 

[River Jordan]

Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.

I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.

You're most definitely arguing that species were produced differently in the past than they are today. Can you give any reason why scientists should consider your argument?

Maybe to you the past is a mystery, but a lot of scientists have a completely different view. Can you give any reason why we should go with your unsupported statement over the actual work of scientists?

 

[Larniavc]

Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.

I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.

I was born in 1973. Not a big mystery about that past event.

 

[Buzzard3]

But scientists across the world, from all sorts of backgrounds, completely disagree and have disagreed for well over 100 years.

So why should anyone go with your unsupported claim instead of the conclusions of the world's scientists?

Sorry, I'm not that gullible. No scientist can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, so no scientist can prove that that process can be described by the theory of evolution.

I agree that ToE is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.

In a way that is a false dichotomy. You are assuming that explaining a process in terms of natural causes rules out divine Providence.

Atheists worship ToE for that very reason - it says life on earth is the result of a natural (Godless) process.

There you go again: "natural" is not the same thing as "Godless."

 

[River Jordan]

Sorry, I'm not that gullible. No scientist can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, so no scientist can prove that that process can be described by the theory of evolution.

I agree that ToE is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

You can't give a reason why anyone should go with your unsupported claims instead of the work of actual scientists. Okay.

If the ToE is the best scientific explanation, then you can't complain when scientists utilize it in their work. So I'm not sure what your point is now. Do you want scientists to do their work differently? If so, how?

 

[Buzzard3]

your unsupported claim

My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".

He will also tell you that science doesn't prove things - it offers theories, not proofs.

 

[River Jordan]

My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".

He will also tell you that science doesn't prove things - it offers theories, not proofs.

You ask a question that you know is nonsense and when someone notes that the question is nonsense, that's your support for your claim?

 

[Buzzard3]

How would they be mutually exclusive?

Abiogensis relates to the origin of life whereas evolution relates to what happened after abiogenesis. They're separate fields of study, so in that sense they're mutually exclusive.

 

[public hermit]

Abiogensis relates to the origin of life whereas evolution relates to what happened after abiogenesis. They're separate fields of study, so in that sense they're mutually exclusive.

Okay, I see what you mean. Yes, they are separate fields of study.

What is your primary issue with evolution? You have already admitted it is the best scientific explanation. Reading your comments, it seems you just don't like it because you have a problem with atheists? Is that what you are trying to say, you don't like atheists and since they accept it, you don't?

 

[BCP1928]

A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?

Really?

Yes, really. Traditional Christians generally have no problem with it, as they have the theological basis to understand how that works--which was one of the babies thrown out with the bath water of the Reformation. Some of the Fathers wrote on the subject and Aquinas set it out definitelvely. See, we are all aware that striving to defend God's authorship of our being from "atheists" is a red herring. What you are really doing is promoting a literal and inerrant reading of Genesis. The truth is that nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover in future can disprove the existence of a creator God.