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

[SinoBen]

They are the same thing just on different timescales, please just say I think evolution exists on a short timescale.

OK then it's a no from me.

 

[SkyWriting]

What? Quantum physics can be predicted accurately with statistics, P(up)=sin(theta)^2 is the formula for predicting the chance of the direction of the spin on a quantum particle being up. Everything is predictable. Even cognitive behaviour is likely predictable because studies show that decisions are likely made in our brain before we know it and then we are given the illusion of deciding to do it.

I'm a big fan of the idea. Additionally the Heisenberg principal informs us that the more we know about the speed of a particle, the less we know about it's position. So when something is traveling at the speed of light, we know nothing about it's position.

There are some other aspects as well. The less likely an event, the shorter it's duration. But even a most improbable event has some duration. For this reason a pure void has short duration particles that exist, then don't.

 

[SkyWriting]

So we don't have free will? I do believe that the bible explicitly states that God gave humans free will...

With man this is impossible, but with God, it is.

 

[_____a_____]

I don't think your premise is necessarily true. Take Darwin's finches for example, do you think your premise would have been true in this case?


No they are not separate theories but they are different even though the same mechanisms apply.

Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants.
What is macroevolution?

That is correct... Darwin's finches are an example of... short term evolution. Saying micro/macro evolution implies that the theory applies differently for them, but really, they are the same mechanism's.

 

[Hank77]

In addition to that, your assertion that creation is certain to exist, and as such evolution can not, is complete garbage. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as I made crystal clear in a previous post. Even if the Earth is 5000 years old and created by a god, than evolution will still occur regardless. I made the question crystal clear, and it appears that you believe that it doesn't occur despite the insurmountable evidence against you. Please reconsider your response and then reply to me.

LOL You are on a Christian site. Christians take the time to give an honest answer to your questions and you call it garbage and then ask them to reconsider their beliefs to accommodate you. If you don't appreciate their responses then I would think you would just go somewhere else where people will just agree with you. OR you could stay and try to politely explain your position.

 

[disciple Clint]

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. **

Micro yes...Macro no

 

[Paidiske]

No problem with evolutionary theory as a scientific paradigm.

Didn't really get it till I studied genetics at university, though.

 

[Zoii]

I thoroughly support evolution

 

[pitabread]

I made the question crystal clear, and it appears that you believe that it doesn't occur despite the insurmountable evidence against you. Please reconsider your response and then reply to me.

If you're just looking to start an argument with creationists here, there's little point. Most creationists don't care to know about the science in question.

 

[Residential Bob]

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. **

Evolution occurs. Allele frequencies change. We are not clones of our parents.

 

[xianghua]

I'm still not convinced humans came from apes, but animals and other matter clearly have evolved over time, usually to adapt to change so they can survive.

can you give an example? as far as i aware we only see variations but not something like a new family (say a cat evolving into a dog).

 

[xianghua]

No problem with evolutionary theory as a scientific paradigm.

Didn't really get it till I studied genetics at university, though.

im not sure if evolution is indeed a scientific theory. see the argument that i have made here about this:

Why evolution isn't scientific

 

[xianghua]

OK then it's a no from me.

i dont think that macro evolution and micro evolution are the same thing just on different timescales. for instance: a cat varitaion is still a cat varition. so we dont see a cat becoming something else like say a dog or a cow. so even if we add millions of years we will end up with a cat variation. think about this analogy: say that we had a self replicating car (like a living thing). can such a car evolve into something like an airplane?

 

[pitabread]

im not sure if evolution is indeed a scientific theory.

Of course it is.

However, a lot of creationists tend to pretend it isn't because it's easier to dismiss that way. Most creationists will not acknowledge the reality of what they are up against with respect to modern science.

 

[JCFantasy23]

can you give an example? as far as i aware we only see variations but not something like a new family (say a cat evolving into a dog).

I meant variations - evolving to adapt to have new genes or features for survival. There's a bigger chance for this if the change is slow and the species has a chance. Like there's a house mouse now that has evolved to be resistant to the most common poison used in mouse poison since interacting with humans. Mainly with evolving species I find interesting, I look at animals like the crocodile. They used to be huge, one of the biggest species on earth, and were preceded by a similar species that died out - just as large, but totally plant eaters, and as they kept evolving some of their features started changing. Scientists think they abandoned plants as the species kept evolving because of all the competition with so many plant based dinosaurs of the period around. They were among the only creatures able to fight the extinction that wiped out so many of the dinosaurs and have evolved to smaller sizes. Interesting animals that show a change of species that stayed around. If you look at different sections of alligators and crocodiles worldwide, each section developed their own different social structures and changes as well - such as in the South of the United States the females get larger, but in most of the places in the world the males get larger. Some species prefer to travel in packs and some insist on being loners. They've developed these traits depending on where they're living in the world, which I find interesting.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Look the crux is what you mean by 'believe'. Do I believe in Evolution in the same manner I believe in Christianity? No.

Do I 'believe in' Evolution as the theory of Biology that has so far held the ground as most likely model to account for our current data? That has so far survived attempts to falsify it, or not succumbed to a Kuhnian crisis in the paradigm? Sure. The epistemologic stance I need for this is vastly different than what I require for other things. Whether your form of Christianity requires rejecting Evolution is almost incidental, to my mind. The nature of the frameworks of thought we are dealing with, are quite different. Evolution affirmed on Post-Positivist, or Kuhnian, or Popperian, or whatever philosophic grounding of the Sciences you prefer, is really not on par to religion claiming its founder as the Way, the Truth and the Life. I'd say Evolution is probably Scientifically sound by current measures, but I wouldn't even hazard a guess to its veridicality.

 

[PloverWing]

I will start with @PloverWing, yes.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I am comfortable with the mainstream scientific view of how species develop over time through the process of evolution. As a Christian, I see evolution as one of the mechanisms that God has put into place in the creation, so that populations of animals and plants can adapt to Earth's changes and thus survive.

I am not a biologist, but I do occasionally use genetic algorithms (algorithms inspired by biological evolution) in my work as a computer scientist.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Finally @DreamerOfTheHeart,

What? Quantum physics can be predicted accurately with statistics, P(up)=sin(theta)^2 is the formula for predicting the chance of the direction of the spin on a quantum particle being up. Everything is predictable. Even cognitive behaviour is likely predictable because studies show that decisions are likely made in our brain before we know it and then we are given the illusion of deciding to do it.

In addition to that, your assertion that creation is certain to exist, and as such evolution can not, is complete garbage. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as I made crystal clear in a previous post. Even if the Earth is 5000 years old and created by a god, than evolution will still occur regardless. I made the question crystal clear, and it appears that you believe that it doesn't occur despite the insurmountable evidence against you. Please reconsider your response and then reply to me.

Subjectivity, however you wish to put it, can influence end results in many areas.

I did not state I can not see evolution and creation as mutually exclusive.

Reality its' self, I did state, is not as people, today, on earth, think it is.

Heavenly beings - or to someone who is secular - can manipulate reality as if it is the substance of a dream.

Areas where expectations influence results: such as in the necessity of faith for miracles, or expectations with 'hypnosis', can be accurately predicted. But, subjectivity is required to be engaged as a part of that formula. This is not the default.

Likewise, subjectivity must be put into all observations, including observations on physical reality.

How, for instance, an angel views physical reality, and how an oridinary human views reality, are two very different things.

How a developer of a virtual world views that virtual world, and how a gamer views that virtual world, are two different things.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

I know of nobody who believes this.

That is what people often say, and how they think they believe. But, in practice, they often - not always - take a different viewpoint.

Modern science has many conclusions which people well read in one field or another believe today, which fifty years from now, will be viewed as absurd.

A thousand years from now, a billion years from now, and so on, what we believe we know today... is meaningless, and entirely wrong.

But, the general modern viewpoint of those who trust too much in science is that we know everything.

Often they state otherwise, and even seem to believe this, their own selves. But, they are rarely open to radically new ideas, as they think they are. Just as their ancestors were.

 

[pitabread]

But, the general modern viewpoint of those who trust too much in science is that we know everything.

Again, I know of nobody who thinks this.

If anything it's the opposite: the more people understand about modern science, the more we realize we don't know.

But, they are rarely open to radically new ideas, as they think they are. Just as their ancestors were.

The purpose of science is to progress towards a more accurate understanding of our reality. Sometimes that does involve radical new ideas which overturn previously held ideas. The history of scientific advancement will attest to that.

That doesn't mean we think we've already figured out everything, so I have no idea where you are getting that idea from.