Icons of Evolution

[Buzzard3]

Nobody thinks the theory of evolution is absolute truth

For starters, milllions of atheists think the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For starters, milllions of atheists think the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

Atheists are not Siths

 

[AV1611VET]

For starters, milllions of atheists think the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

If it's in a science textbook, it must be true ... right?

 

[BCP1928]

For starters, milllions of atheists think the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

Not if they are atheists who knows anything about science because they will know that science doesn't pretend to do absolute truth.

 

[BCP1928]

If it's in a science textbook, it must be true ... right?

If it's a public school science textbook probably not.

 

[Buzzard3]

Not if they are atheists who knows anything about science because they will know that science doesn't pretend to do absolute truth.

All atheists scientists privately accept the theory of evolution as, more or less, absolute truth.

 

[Buzzard3]

If it's in a science textbook, it must be true ... right?

Well, that's the mentality of the general populace. They think all those very clever scientists can't possibly be wrong.

It's also seems to be the mentality of 99.99% of biologists, who by the time they've graduated from university, have been thoroughly indoctrinated by neo-Darwinism.

 

[BCP1928]

All atheists scientists privately accept the theory of evolution as absolute truth.

What a slanderous falsehood. No scientist, atheist or otherwise, accepts any scientific theory as absolute truth including the theory of evolution and you know it. Scientific theories are not absolute truth by definition.

 

[Shemjaza]

For starters, milllions of atheists think the theory of evolution is absolute truth.

You're language is unclear... but if we're using "absolute truth" as being "beyond all reasonable doubt" then sure... but more Christians accept it than atheists.

 

[Shemjaza]

All atheists scientists privately accept the theory of evolution as, more or less, absolute truth.

Yeah, they also accept that the Earth is round as, more or less, absolute truth.

It's profoundly supported by the evidence and so without a personal religious conviction to the contrary, there's no reason to reject it.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's profoundly supported by the evidence and so without a personal religious conviction to the contrary, there's no reason to reject it.

I accept ToE as the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but unlike your average atheist, I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on the contrary. I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

I accept ToE as the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but unlike your average atheist, I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on the contrary. I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

Because the average athiest doesn't believe in God, and neither the average atheist or the average Christian believes in the literal inerrancy of Genesis. So compared to the nothing you bring to the table, yeah I guess the theory of evolution is as close to absolute truth as they've got.

 

[Shemjaza]

I accept ToE as the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but unlike your average atheist, I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on the contrary. I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

I can't imagine rejecting what I describe as "best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth" in favour of something I could only suspect.

 

[Fervent]

I accept ToE as the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but unlike your average atheist, I certainly don't accept it as the truth ... on the contrary. I suspect it's not even close to the truth.

Most of academia has long given up pursuing truth, the goal now is utility. The theory of evolution is exceedingly useful, not only in predicting what sort of fossils we can expect to find but also in producing medications. Who cares if its true? It works. And that's really more important.

 

[Buzzard3]

Most of academia has long given up pursuing truth, the goal now is utility. The theory of evolution is exceedingly useful, not only in predicting what sort of fossils we can expect to find but also in producing medications. Who cares if its true? It works. And that's really more important.

A theory that attempts to describe the process that produced the history of life isn't "exceedingly useful" in producing medications ... it's exceedingly useless.

 

[Buzzard3]

I can't imagine rejecting what I describe as "best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth" in favour of something I could only suspect.

I also suspect the best available scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine is not even close to the truth.

Science is the god of atheism ... aka Scientism.

 

[Fervent]

A theory that attempts to describe the process that produced the history of life isn't "exceedingly useful" in producing medications ... it's exceedingly useless.

No, it has proven itself in medication production as we have engineered bacterium through applying evolutionary theory to mass produce medications.

 

[Jerry N.]

Well, that's the mentality of the general populace. They think all those very clever scientists can't possibly be wrong.

It's also seems to be the mentality of 99.99% of biologists, who by the time they've graduated from university, have been thoroughly indoctrinated by neo-Darwinism.

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Buzzard3]

No, it has proven itself in medication production as we have engineered bacterium through applying evolutionary theory to mass produce medications.

The principles of evolution (eg, mutation, natural selection) have certainly proven useful in the production of medicines.

You used the term, "the theory of evolution", which I understand to be an explanation of the biological process that allegedly produced the history of life on earth.
Alleged prehistoric evolutionary events are irrelevant to medication production.

 

[Ophiolite]

The principles of evolution (eg, mutation, natural selection) have certainly proven useful in the production of medicines.

You used the term, "the theory of evolution", which I understand to be an explanation of the biological process that allegedly produced the history of life on earth.
Alleged prehistoric evolutionary events are irrelevant to medication production.

The "theory of evolution" is, as you suggest, an explanation of the biological process that . . . . produced the history of life on earth. (I have removed the "allegedly" to better represent my understanding.) However, an integral part of that explanation is an increasingly detailed description of the mechanisms by which this is achieved. It is the application of those mechansims that facilitates production of medicines.