What makes Evolution a theory?

d taylor said:

-
​

It is man observing a sin corrupted earth, that is why this world will be destroyed one day. Before Jesus returns to rule a restored earth.

If you want to believe the lies form this earth go ahead.

Click to expand...

are you saying the natural world is giving a false account of itself? We rely on scientific discoveries for most of our modern living. it's not a question of whether driving a car, using a bank machine or getting an x-ray is denying God. All those things make no sort of assertion of God, and neither does the theory of evolution make any claims like that. Science is not anti-god, it's pro-knowledge (it's what the word means) and God is omniscience, so he is certainly not anti-science. This focus can move us away from God as can anything or it can move us closer to God. science itself is not motivated either way, it's our motivation that drives us one way or another.

tonychanyt said:

Any scientists claim God as a part of the mechanism?

Click to expand...

that could only be asserted in theoretical sciences, guys like Michio Kaku, but I don't think he goes to the degree of including it in the mechanism of evolutionary change. in a purely mechanical way of looking at life it is fully deterministic. One cause begets another cause and no cause is uncaused (except counterintuitively the first). In this space choice is an illusion (so is morality, love, compassion, good/evil, etc...). Given the same setup the same thing would always happen over and over again, predetermined by its environmental causes. That is a bleak purposeless outlook of life but without any influence from the outside, it is the only outlook.

Adding God introduces a different way of approaching it. to start the first cause is purpose-driven, as God has a purpose thus the first cause inherits that purpose and all subsequent causes after that. That alone is a deistic view but as causes continue God can influence them altering their deterministic path into one that is contained within the purpose and intent of the influencer shaped and moulded at his will and is cared for. That is a faith outlook of how we approach purpose and what drives us to be better, but it is not something that science can boldly assert. Purpose as a whole can only be an illusion unless given by one with complete command over the things that inherit the purpose. We cannot have purpose unless someone greater than us gives us purpose and that eventually would go all the way up until God must be the purpose giver, failing this purpose may have a good feel to it but ultimately would be meaningless (as would the "feel good" feeling be meaningless)

DamianWarS said:

are you saying the natural world is giving a false account of itself? We rely on scientific discoveries for most of our modern living. it's not a question of whether driving a car, using a bank machine or getting an x-ray is denying God. All those things make no sort of assertion of God, and neither does the theory of evolution make any claims like that. Science is not anti-god, it's pro-knowledge (it's what the word means) and God is omniscience, so he is certainly not anti-science. This focus can move us away from God as can or it can move us closer to God. science itself is not motivated either way, it's our motivation that drives us one way or another.

Click to expand...

Sure evolution does as The Bible states God created male (from the earth) and female (from the man), evolution does not say this.
No Bible account, then science would be free to claim any account of how life came to be.

People inventing working machines has nothing to do with men of science crafting an evolution account. Because of them being a sinful being, observing a sin cursed earth, that satan can use to draw sinful man away from God.

d taylor said:

-
​

Sure evolution does as The Bible states God created male (from the earth) and female (from the man), evolution does not say this.
No Bible account, then science would be free to claim any account of how life came to be.

People inventing working machines has nothing to do with men of science crafting an evolution account. Because of them being a sinful being, observing a sin cursed earth, that satan can use to draw sinful man away from God.

Click to expand...

Science is not there to say God didn't do it. It's there to form conclusions on things that are obvervable and can be measured, tested and repeated so we can know more about them. Science cannot measure God so it cannot use God to form conclusions. You shouldn't take this as an insult but rather a compliment as these are also characteristics of God that scripture affirms

Psalm 145:3
"Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom".

Psalm 90:2
"From everlasting to everlasting, you are God,"

Revelation 22:13
"the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end"

Isaiah 40:28
"The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable"

Exodus 15:11
"Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?"

John 4:24
"God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

Science doesn't work well with the immeasurable. Something that cannot be measured cannot be observed in science. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 9:22 "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul doesn't tell us to call the weak a result of a sin cursed world. That may be so, but our job is not fixing them, it is entering in their understanding and showing them Christ as an insider, through their weakness not inspite of it. No I'm not talking about entering into immortality, we are still under Christ's law (read v21) but we show Christ at their level rather than expect them to come to our level.

To the scientific community show Christ using their own processes, rather than the rantings of what they would see as a religious fanatic. That doesn't move people closer to God, it pushes them away. They need to first accept Christ as their redeemer before they can accept Christ as their creator.

tonychanyt said:

Unlike Newton's three laws of motion, the Theory of Evolution is not a hard physical theory. Still, it is not as soft as the one in everyday language, where "theory" often means a guess, hypothesis, or something uncertain. Evolution is a scientific theory rigorously supported by mathematics, probabilities, and statistics.
The Theory of Evolution is a comprehensive framework explaining:

1. the diversity of life on Earth
2. the similarities and differences among species
3. the mechanisms behind adaptation and speciation, like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow
4. the origin of complex structures through gradual processes.

In the subarea of population genetics, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium provides a baseline—a null model. An equation shows that allele and genotype frequencies remain constant in a population unless acted upon by evolutionary forces. For two alleles, their frequencies p+q=1. The genotype frequencies in the next generation are:
p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1. This equation is testable and falsifiable.
The Theory of Evolution is scientific because an immense body of empirical evidence supports it. It explains fossil records, makes predictions, and is falsifiable. Like any scientific theory, it is subject to revision when new data conflicts with the existing explanations.

What is science?

A science must be supported by mathematics, probability, or statistics. Any science must involve measurement by numbers. It makes predictions by calculations using these observable numbers. Social science and political science are fine. Christian Science and Creationism are not science by this definition.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a theory because it can't be proven.

timf said:

Each man has a theory of what an elephant looks like. Each makes his speculation on the evidence he finds.



View attachment 363149

Click to expand...

Kinda reminds me of the blind leading the blind.

d taylor said:

-
​

Sure evolution does as The Bible states God created male (from the earth) and female (from the man), evolution does not say this.
No Bible account, then science would be free to claim any account of how life came to be.

People inventing working machines has nothing to do with men of science crafting an evolution account. Because of them being a sinful being, observing a sin cursed earth, that satan can use to draw sinful man away from God.

Click to expand...

The Bible says that all people are made (from the earth).

Genesis 18:27 ESV
[27] Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

Psalm 103:14 ESV
[14] For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

Job 10:9 NASB1995
[9] Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again?

Ecclesiastes 3:20 NASB1995
[20] All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.

The Bible also says that Adam entered a prophetic visionary sleep when Eve was created. This is the same thing that happens to Abraham a few chapters later.

Genesis 2:21-22 ESV
[21] So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. [22] And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Genesis 15:1, 12-13, 17-18 ESV
[1] After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”
[12] As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. [13] Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.
[17] When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. [18] On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

This is how God communicates via prophetic visions. It's not about biology. We also see this in Daniel.

Daniel 7:1-2 ESV
[1] In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. [2] Daniel declared, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea.

Sleep and visions.

None of this has anything to do with biology and in no way relates to the theory of evolution.

tonychanyt said:

Define theory

Click to expand...

Something that cannot be or is not proven.

Jermayn said:

Evolution is a theory because it can't be proven.

Click to expand...

Actually, scientists use a different denotation for the word, "theory," so when they refer to the Theory of Evolution, they are referring to the scientific denotation which is different than the colloquial denotation. Thus, this is where some of the confusion comes in.

Within science, the term 'theory' means an explanation that brings together diverse sets of data from various fields, reflecting what is deemed to be a strong assertion about a state of observed facts.

In the pedestrian world of everyday life, we use the term 'theory' to mean something quite different: a personal, subjective guess or estimate about what we think the nature of some idea or event might be. This is quite different from the scientific denotation.

tonychanyt said:

That's not the definition used by scientists when they say "The Theory of Evolution".

Click to expand...

If it was proven, would they still call it a theory?

Jermayn said:

If it was proven, would they still call it a theory?

Click to expand...

Yes. Much like germ theory, or the theory of gravity. Which are also things proven to exist.

Hypotheses are more speculative.

Jermayn said:

If it was proven, would they still call it a theory?

Click to expand...

From where are you getting your definition of "proven"? I ask because, especially in light of the fact that scientists usually assume from the outset that their assertions are always provisional, provisional truth is the best that science can "do."

Religion, like our theological understanding of the Bible, works toward absolute truth, if possible; modern science on the other hand works toward practical results gathered from empirical and rational data, which are always partial and incomplete, and thus 'provisional.'

So, Theory in science isn't about 'proving' some idea in absolute terms. Rather, it's about providing strong evidences for hypotheses when testing our former ideas in relation to the data we think we see. In science, we offer explanations. When we think we have strong data that allow us interpretations of that data which rationally cohere and are tested, and then also offer us predictive ability to make provisionally accurate hypotheses in the future, scientists call that current state of analysis, "Theory."

This is the dynamic involved when we refer to the "Theory of Evolution." It means there's a strong set of observational conclusions that when drawn together from various fields, presents us with the data by which to give a robust explanation about biological and geological relationships (among others) we observe in our world.

In regular life, when we refer to theory on a colloquial level, we mean instead that we're making a guess.

2PhiloVoid said:

From where are you getting your definition of "proven"? I ask because, especially in light of the fact that scientists usually assume from the outset that their assertions are always provisional, provisional truth is the best that science can "do."

Religion, like our theological understanding of the Bible, works toward absolute truth, if possible; modern science on the other hand works toward practical results gathered from empirical and rational data, which are always partial and incomplete, and thus 'provisional.'

So, Theory in science isn't about 'proving' some idea in absolute terms. Rather, it's about providing strong evidences for hypotheses when testing our former ideas in relation to the data we think we see. In science, we offer explanations. When we think we have strong data that allow us interpretations of that data which rationally cohere and are tested, and then also offer us predictive ability to make provisionally accurate hypotheses in the future, scientists call that current state of analysis, "Theory."

This is the dynamic involved when we refer to the "Theory of Evolution." It means there's a strong set of observational conclusions that when drawn together from various fields, presents us with the data by which to give a robust explanation about biological and geological relationships (among others) we observe in our world.

In regular life, when we refer to theory on a colloquial level, we mean instead that we're making a guess.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your responses, and I’m asking this sincerely, not to be combative, but because I think it’s important: What should we do when scientific interpretations or models appear to contradict the clear, foundational truths we find in Scripture? In those cases, how do we determine which authority takes precedence?

Jermayn said:

I appreciate your responses, and I’m asking this sincerely, not to be combative, but because I think it’s important: What should we do when scientific interpretations or models appear to contradict the clear, foundational truths we find in Scripture? In those cases, how do we determine which authority takes precedence?

Click to expand...

I would first question the philosophy or hermeneutical assertion that the Bible, being ancient, historically fragmented, foreign and translated, is somehow "clear" in meaning or that its historical ontology is easily identifiable and is what modern evangelicals and fundamentalists say it is.

On the other hand, I would also critically question the historiographical and methodological approaches of biblical skeptics wherever they present themselves.

The outcome is that each person will go with whatever their current understanding leads them to follow, with the proviso that we all realize that none of us today has the final word about the Bible. The crucial issue isn't whether there is an "authority" to go by in reading, understanding and applying the Bible. No, the crucial question, in line with Basil Mitchell's illustration of "the Layman's Predicament," is in asking who we trust most to help us understand what we think Christianity is and who Jesus of Nazareth actually was (and IS).

Jermayn said:

I appreciate your responses, and I’m asking this sincerely, not to be combative, but because I think it’s important: What should we do when scientific interpretations or models appear to contradict the clear, foundational truths we find in Scripture? In those cases, how do we determine which authority takes precedence?

Click to expand...

The solution is found in an understanding of the Biblical context of the ancient near east.

This channel here has a lot of good content on the context of Genesis and the broader old testament. Here is a video specifically associated with the topic of science for example that gives a good overview of why the conflict exists and how we can respond to it: