As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Mark Quayle]

Let's not get personal.

I was hoping to get you to see the point. I often use the same during Christian debate --when a Christian tells me he no longer sins, I tell him I doubt his wife would say the same. You are not, sir, nor is your thinking, quite beyond bias. That is impossible.

To repeat, when a good scientist does his study, he bears in mind that he is not beyond bias.

 

[Tinker Grey]

(Not accepting your premise here, but for the sake of argument): When science disagrees with mere beliefs, it may well be that the science is incorrect. It cannot be proven either way, with only that information.

When science disagrees, it is because the belief implies a prediction that is NOT substantiated by the data. If so, the belief should be modified, clarified, or disgarded.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is absolutely no problem with questioning science. In fact, science wouldn't make any progress if it wasn't being questioned all the time. But you question science, with more and better science. You don't question science with mere a priori faith based beliefs.

I hope you aren't assuming that the remarkable numbers of Christians, Theists and Deists among published, notable, scientists are all stupid. Mere a priori faith based beliefs, whatever that means to you, may well notice an apparent contradiction that will raise the eyebrow and prompt further investigation, instead as is the case with pseudo-scientists who without critical eye accept statements that seem to them to be true, merely because the statements support their worldview. "As long as it promotes Evolution" is good enough reason for them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When science disagrees, it is because the belief implies a prediction that is NOT substantiated by the data. If so, the belief should be modified, clarified, or disgarded.

Agreed, IF, as you said. However, if the 'science' is bad, i.e. the data is misinterpreted, or the construction is based on bad prior conclusions, the fact the belief (whether it is reasoned by the person in question here, or be merely accepted without having done the homework behind the belief) disagrees with the science can be useful in forcing a closer look.

Many who accept pop science on its face, needing no logical sequence to arrive at their beliefs, automatically reject theistic based claims. There are also many who do pretty much the same, because they are proud of their logical pursuit of data --not because of the lack of data or logic of the claim to the contrary.

 

[xianghua]

Which is it?

actually there are many evidence against evolution. see here for instance:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[46AND2]

I hope you aren't assuming that the remarkable numbers of Christians, Theists and Deists among published, notable, scientists are all stupid. Mere a priori faith based beliefs, whatever that means to you, may well notice an apparent contradiction that will raise the eyebrow and prompt further investigation, instead as is the case with pseudo-scientists who without critical eye accept statements that seem to them to be true, merely because the statements support their worldview. "As long as it promotes Evolution" is good enough reason for them.

The difference is that when further investigation is prompted, scientists change their worldview based on the evidence. Creationists do whatever they can to avoid the evidence so that their worldview remains intact.

 

[sfs]

I don't believe I'm the one confused here. You provided a pretty general response, so I'll reply in kind. Determing relationships is not the same for the distant past when the conditions and subjects are unobservable. As far as lab work, similar DNA, similar this or that doesn't count. Close only counts in horseshoes and explosives; in everything else 'seeing is believing' seems to be the heralded foundation of the scientific method, so when you can't see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions... you're assuming and speculating only. There is no convincing evidence of macro evolution.

You didn't answer my question before -- what kind of science is it that you do?

 

[pitabread]

actually there are many evidence against evolution. see here for instance:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

That argument is based of the False Equivalence fallacy. If that is the best you've got, it really speaks to how weak the creationist position is.

 

[klutedavid]

That argument is based of the False Equivalence fallacy. If that is the best you've got, it really speaks to how weak the creationist position is.

The idea that God created all we see is a valid belief, it has always been a valid belief. Though the method that God chose to create and the timing of those creative events, is another matter altogether.

The book of Genesis is a simplification of the creative events and the timing, Genesis was never intended to be a scientific manuscript.

The controversy regarding the age of the universe and the origin of life, is a pointless pursuit.

Why does mankind through history become so preoccupied with meaningless pursuits?

 

[inquiring mind]

You didn't answer my question before -- what kind of science is it that you do?

You're not trying to usurp strong faith and good common sense as scientific reasoning are you?

 

[sfs]

You're not trying to usurp strong faith and good common sense as scientific reasoning are you?

On the contrary, I think strong faith and common sense get you pretty much nowhere in science. What I'm suggesting is that knowing nothing at all about a subject -- which seems to be your case when it comes to science -- is a poor basis on which to lecture experts on their own field.

 

[inquiring mind]

On the contrary, I think strong faith and common sense get you pretty much nowhere in science. What I'm suggesting is that knowing nothing at all about a subject -- which seems to be your case when it comes to science -- is a poor basis on which to lecture experts on their own field.

For a self-proclaimed scientist your assumptions are sure off target. First, why do you assume I'm trying to get somewhere in science? Second, why would you assume my comments are attempts to lecture anyone?

 

[Speedwell]

Saying what you don't want to hear... doesn't mean it's not civil.

Baseless accusations of "hoax" are not civil. Insinuations that those who reject a literal Genesis are rejecting an essential point of Christian doctrine are not civil. I will allow that you have been more civil than many creationists.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs (take careful note of the phrase, "evolution occurs" it means if it has happened or will happen, regardless of whether or not humans evolved from other primates). Please take the time to answer, thanks for any responses.


(For full disclosure I am atheist)

** Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **

No, evolution is not simply changes in a lifeform over time.

that is ADAPTATION, completely separate from evolution.

Evolution is the change of a lifeform into a different lifeform. i.e. fish into amphibians, amphibians into mammals and reptiles, ape creature into ape and man.

Don't confuse the two, they are completely separate and no evidence supports the latter view...

Bacteria remain bacteria no matter how many times they mutate them.....

Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how many times they mutate them.....

This is why they must insert missing common ancestors for every single claimed split on every single tree for every single creature....... Evolution does not occur and never has, which is why every single common ancestor is missing.....

Take the proclaimed horse evolution. Assuming they are correct and they are horse ancestors, all you end up with is horses that look different from their predecessors. No more astonishing than that a poodle looks different from its predecessor, the wolf. And the first horse would be a horse, just as the last horse. Just as a wolf is of the same species as the poodle.

it is all mistakes in classification. Error after uncorrected error. A theory fit for nothing but the trash bin of history.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Baseless accusations of "hoax" are not civil. Insinuations that those who reject a literal Genesis are rejecting an essential point of Christian doctrine are not civil. I will allow that you have been more civil than many creationists.

As civil as Jesus calling the Scribes and Pharisees (the religious leaders of his day) vipers and hypocrites????? When the truth is threatened, civility went out the window for Jesus.....

What Macro or micro evolution?

Bacteria remain bacteria no matter how many times they mutate them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how many time..... see post above.....

There is no evidence for evolution.... it's all conveniently missing and mislabeled.....

 

[Speedwell]

As civil as Jesus calling the Scribes and Pharisees (the religious leaders of his day) vipers and hypocrites????? When the truth is threatened, civility went out the window for Jesus.....

What "truth" is being threatened here? All I see being threatened are the biblical interpretations of a minority Protestant sect. No beliefs essential to our salvation are being threatened.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When science disagrees, it is because the belief implies a prediction that is NOT substantiated by the data. If so, the belief should be modified, clarified, or disgarded.

Yet seldom is without great controversy and struggle over years......
As a great scientist once said:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

So sadly we must wait till the evolution generation dies...... people hate to give up the beliefs they have invested years of time and money into....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What "truth" is being threatened here? All I see being threatened are the biblical interpretations of a minority Protestant sect. No beliefs essential to our salvation are being threatened.

As Jesus said.... male and female created He them..... If you doubt him, why believe anything else he had to say????

 

[inquiring mind]

Baseless accusations of "hoax" are not civil.

Considering this is a debate forum and the comment was using a broad brush... I don't think that should be considered an uncivil comment.

Insinuations that those who reject a literal Genesis are rejecting an essential point of Christian doctrine are not civil.

I don't remember making such a comment. If it was such an insinuation, can you provide the post # so I can look at it.

I will allow that you have been more civil than many creationists.

Well, thank you... I guess I can take that as somewhat of a compliment. On the whole I try to answer with similar toned responses... up to a point of course.

 

[Speedwell]

As Jesus said.... male and female created He them..... If you doubt him, why believe anything else he had to say????

I don't doubt him. But that "Jesus quoted Genesis..." argument is lame. Jesus used Genesis in his preaching (as did Paul) just as any preacher does, even a liberal preacher who thinks its just a man-made story. What Jesus (or Paul) thought about fundamentalist Protestant Bible doctrine is not made clear.