Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Another question comes to mind. How many theologians do you know who believe in evolution? Please name them.

 

[notto]

It's funny. This thread is under theology and yet there isn't much talk of theology, just science.

Perhaps you might want to notice the topic of the thread which deals with evolution as a valid scientific theory. There are plenty of threads here dealing with theology. This one asks about science.

One question comes to mind: If Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, would any of this discussion take place?

Sure, there was at least one other scientist putting a similar theory together to explain the evidence that was apparent in nature. It eventually would have been tackled by some other naturalist.

Before you get all redfaced about evolution being and 'idea', it is just that. As far as I understand Darwin had zero evidence to start his "theory" with.

Well, then I would have to say that your understanding of science, Darwin, and evolution are all fairly poor. All you have to do is read some of Darwin's work to see the evidence that is presented.

You haven't read any of it, have you.

It was an idea straight from Satan. Yes that means a lie. Satan has done well with this lie.

Yet you haven't read any of it (of if you have, you are showing a poor comprehension of it), and you are claiming that he had no evidence when that is not the case. I have to question who is doing the lying here.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Perhaps you might want to notice the topic of the thread which deals with evolution as a valid scientific theory. There are plenty of threads here dealing with theology. This one asks about science.

Is not this board "Origins Theology"?

Sure, there was at least one other scientist putting a similar theory together to explain the evidence that was apparent in nature. It eventually would have been tackled by some other naturalist.

Name him.

Well, then I would have to say that your understanding of science, Darwin, and evolution are all fairly poor. All you have to do is read some of Darwin's work to see the evidence that is presented.

You haven't read any of it, have you.

You know what they say about assuming? Don't you?

Yet you haven't read any of it (of if you have, you are showing a poor comprehension of it), and you are claiming that he had no evidence when that is not the case. I have to question who is doing the lying here.

Hmmm, you sure like to attack a person when they believe in truth.

Again, isn't this a "THEOLOGY" board? Where is your scriptural bases for evolution?

 

[notto]

Is not this board "Origins Theology"?



Name him.

Wallace - you should know this if you really understood evolution, Darwin, and the evidence used at the time that eventually lead to evolution becoming the accepted scientific understanding of the natural world.

You know what they say about assuming? Don't you?

Well, considering that Darwin mentions both the evidence for evolution and Wallace and others who had similar theories in the work, I think I'll stick with my assumption.

You didn't answer the question.

You haven't read any Darwin, have you?

Hmmm, you sure like to attack a person when they believe in truth.

No, I correct people who make comments about things the don't understand. Attacking someone would be saying that their ideas are from satan or that they are not really Christian even when they accept Christ simply because they don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible. Have I done that? Have you?

Again, isn't this a "THEOLOGY" board? Where is your scriptural bases for evolution?

Genesis.

 

[gluadys]

Frankly, there is no truth but God's truth

Amen. This, of course, includes all the truth science has discovered about nature. Every scientific truth is God's truth, just as much as the truths of inspired scripture.

How could they not be when they tell us about the very handiwork of God?

and it can be found in His Word, the Holy Bible.

Not all truth. The writers of scripture tell us that they have only written a fraction of the truth they know. They tell us that fraction of truth which is necessary to our salvation. There is a lot of truth in addition to the truth in the bible, and all of that is God's truth too.

If you do not believe in the Bible then you truly do not believe in God, because the Bible is special revelation; words God inspired the Biblical writers so that we could have relationship with Him. So that we would know Jesus Christ as Messiah. So that we can know that Jesus has died for all of our sins so that we can have the free choice to accept the Truth and Salvation. If you so choose to believe God to be who he revealed Himself to be through scripture and accept Jesus' free gift of forgiveness for your sins, including the sin of disbelief, He will forgive you and you then will be GOd's child, free from eternal death and damnation.

All of us here do believe the bible. We believe all you have mentioned above. None of this is relevant to scientific truth, which is also God's truth. None of this implies that we must reject the truths we have discovered about evolution--including our own evolution.

One question comes to mind: If Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, would any of this discussion take place?

Actually the first presentation of natural selection to the Royal Society was a joint presentation by Darwin and Wallace, since Wallace had come to the same conclusion independently of Darwin.

And after Origin of Species was published, a charge of plagiarism was laid against him by another person who claimed to have published the same idea earlier than Darwin did.

It is very likely, given the evidence that was accumulating, that if Darwin had not come up with the idea, someone else would have.

Before you get all redfaced about evolution being and 'idea', it is just that. As far as I understand Darwin had zero evidence to start his "theory" with.

You haven't read Origin of Species have you.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Well, considering that Darwin mentions both the evidence for evolution and Wallace and others who had similar theories in the work, I think I'll stick with my assumption.

You can make all the assumptions you want, it doesn't make it true. How does that saying go again. Assuming makes an *** out of ...

No, I correct people who make comments about things the don't understand. Attacking someone would be saying that their ideas are from satan or that they are not really Christian even when they accept Christ simply because they don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible. Have I done that? Have you?

Hmmm, 2 Time 3:16-17 comes to mind.

Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

Scripture is the source for correction. You have not once, from what I have read, used scripture. You mention you have scriptural bases in Genesis. Where in Genesis?

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Amen. This, of course, includes all the truth science has discovered about nature. Every scientific truth is God's truth, just as much as the truths of inspired scripture.

Nature does declare the beauty of the Lord, but you are speaking as if evolution is a scientific law. It has not been proven to be a scientific law, it is still just a theory.

 

[gluadys]

Nature does declare the beauty of the Lord, but you are speaking as if evolution is a scientific law. It has not been proven to be a scientific law, it is still just a theory.

And this statement is evidence that you do not understand the relationship between law and theory in science.

The purpose of a theory is, among other things, to explain why a scientific law operates as it does. Hence a theory never becomes a law, but is independent of a law. It is a commentary on a law, and on the observations which are summed up in the law. A theory describes what causes a scientific law to be what it is.

Are you backing away from your statement that all truth is God's truth? Why would scientific truth not also be God's truth? As for nature declaring the beauty of the LORD, is that not because it declares truth?

Beauty is truth, truth beauty;
That is all you know on earth,
And all you need to know.

John Keats~~Ode to a Grecian Urn

 

[mark kennedy]

Nature does declare the beauty of the Lord, but you are speaking as if evolution is a scientific law. It has not been proven to be a scientific law, it is still just a theory.

Evolution has been merged with actual scientific laws and often conflicts with them. Mendelian genetics is a prime example, evolution is defined scientifically as the change of allele frequencies in populations over time. This a formal way of saying that evolution is how genes change their expression to benefit the offspring of populations. My favorite example is the Polar Bear, he was most likely the descendant of some other kind of a bear. When they began to move further into the frigid north their coat turned white over time. There is not way this is not evolution, the alleles did change over time.

The real problem is how much things can change over time (see my signiture). If you don't like the Theory of Evolution because it's just a theory then counter the arguments of evolutionists with simply biology and genetics. Mendel's Laws of inheritance are a great place to start. For instance, Darwinians will tell you that natural selection + mutations = evolution. This flies in the face of real world science on an epic scale. Things evolve because gene recombine and the more combinations the more improved fitteness becomes. Darwinism is a belief that the struggle for life improves fittness because the less fit are eliminated but most of the diversity on this planet is in Rain Forests, where there is an abundance of resources.

Evolution is clearly defined in science as are the laws of inheritance. These things are clearly discernable from the Darwinian assumption of a single common ancestor. If you want to know what real science has to say then forget about Darwinian logic, look at Medelian genetics, that's where the real science is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[notto]

You can make all the assumptions you want, it doesn't make it true. How does that saying go again. Assuming makes an *** out of ...

Yet you still haven't answered the question. Noted. ***.

 

[gluadys]

If you don't like the Theory of Evolution because it's just a theory then counter the arguments of evolutionists with simply biology and genetics.

snip

Evolution is clearly defined in science as are the laws of inheritance. These things are clearly discernable from the Darwinian assumption of a single common ancestor. If you want to know what real science has to say then forget about Darwinian logic, look at Medelian genetics, that's where the real science is.

Genetics has been extremely helpful in developing an understanding of how evolution occurs. We could not have as good a theory of evolution as we do without the support of genetics.

 

[LoG]

Wallace - you should know this if you really understood evolution, Darwin, and the evidence used at the time that eventually lead to evolution becoming the accepted scientific understanding of the natural world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, considering that Darwin mentions both the evidence for evolution and Wallace and others who had similar theories in the work, I think I'll stick with my assumption.

There are pretty strong indications that both Darwin and Wallace used the same source for their theory. It would appear that Darwin waited the time he did to publish his book because of a fear of being found out and charged with plagiarism. It was only when he was finally convinced that his source wasn't a potential threat to him being exposed as a fraud that he relented to the pressure that Charles Lyell was putting on both him and Wallace to publish their books.
Edward Blyth wote articles in the 1830's outlining the "theory" but from a creationist model. Darwin took it and substituted Nature for God and claimed the research as his own. Wallace through Lyell seems to have obtained much of the material for his book from Darwin up to and including some of the chapters in his book.
That is why their research coincided. Not because the theory was self-evident. Sounds good, but it is an assumption you made with a lot of evidence that it is a wrong one.

 

[Numenor]

but most of the diversity on this planet is in Rain Forests, where there is an abundance of resources.

..and an abundance of niches to be filled.

 

[notto]

There are pretty strong indications that both Darwin and Wallace used the same source for their theory. It would appear that Darwin waited the time he did to publish his book because of a fear of being found out and charged with plagiarism. It was only when he was finally convinced that his source wasn't a potential threat to him being exposed as a fraud that he relented to the pressure that Charles Lyell was putting on both him and Wallace to publish their books.
Edward Blyth wote articles in the 1830's outlining the "theory" but from a creationist model. Darwin took it and substituted Nature for God and claimed the research as his own. Wallace through Lyell seems to have obtained much of the material for his book from Darwin up to and including some of the chapters in his book.
That is why their research coincided. Not because the theory was self-evident. Sounds good, but it is an assumption you made with a lot of evidence that it is a wrong one.

This is a nice story except both Wallace and Darwin did extensive research, published data and evidence, and outlined in great detail the reasoning behind their theories based on their evidence, data and observations. To suggest that they wrote what they did based completely on Blyth is quite simply not true as is evidence from the actual writings. Trying to describe the cause of variation in populations certainly was discussed by Blyth and others at the time. It was a key part of what naturalists were looking at. It is also interesting to notice that Blyth's ideas were wrong and that Darwins model of diversity actually explains what we see in nature with observable mechanisms and results. They both made the same observations of variation and diversity (which certainly were self-evidenct). Only Darwins model made sense.

Suggesting that Darwin substituted nature for God is absurd and distorts the work.

Have you read it? Can you point out where this substitution takes place? Please be specific.

Regardless, the answer to the question remains. Someone other than Darwin would have come up with the solution to explain the relationships we see in the natural world and that conclusion would have been evolution. The theory is based on a great deal of observation.

 

[bullietdodger]

Interesting. The creationists are willing to talk theology, but TE are not. Oh, why am I not surprised. I noticed in pastorkevin's post that he lists Luke 3, which contains the geneology of Christ. If you figure out how long it is from us to Christ, from Christ to Adam and take into consideration how long Genesis says God took to create the universe (6 days) the universe is only between 40,000 to 45,000 years old. How can evolution take place? It can't, because there are many parts of this universe that had to be in existance in order for life to sustain itself. Reading the science part of pastorkevin's post it seems he is getting his information for the Case for the Creator. You TE would do well to read it. You cannot speak against it without reading it. After all, isn't that what you ask of someother people writing on this thread? And read it with an "open" mind.

To me, evolution doesn't make sence.

 

[notto]

Interesting. The creationists are willing to talk theology, but TE are not.

Perhaps not in this thread because the title specifically deals with evolution as a scientific theory. There are plenty of threads where TE's talk a great deal about theology.

Perhaps you should look around a bit more before making claims that are not based on the reality of the discussions here.

 

[notto]

To me, evolution doesn't make sence.

What books by evolutionary biologists have you read on the subject? Perhaps it doesn't make sense because you haven't read enough about it and you are getting your scientific information on the theory from a poor source.

What is your primary source of information on the theory of evolution? Why is it your primary source? What about evolution doesn't make sense? Why do you think that your conclusion that it doesn't make sense differs from the large majority of scientists world wide who think it makes a great deal of sense regarless of their background, nationality, religious affilliate, age, or sex?

 

[disciple777]

Ya. I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. I think it's full of holes, but science is full of holes.

No true Science has no holes. But, Junk Science has.

 

[notto]

No true Science has no holes. But, Junk Science has.

So, the theory of gravity = junk science? Any other creationists feel this way? If science had no holes to continue to investigate, there would be nothing left for science to study.

 

[invisible trousers]

So, the theory of gravity = junk science? Any other creationists feel this way?

I think the correct statement is that creationists think any sort of science is junk science if it does not fit into a literal interpretation of genesis.

However, the direct result of a literal reading of genesis means that God is a liar and deceiver who wants to fool all of His followers into thinking that the universe is young while planting tons and tons of evidence which supports evolution, old earth, big bang, etc. This, combined with the repeated accusations that those who do not believe in a literal genesis are being fooled by satan and/or are not actual christians, along with the deliberate lies and deceptions about evolution (this thread is full of them, like purposely misunderstanding some of the most simple scientific principles), leads me to believe that the creationist movement isn't interested in any sort of intellectual, theological, or scientific honesty, but will instead use any way possible (while completely ignoring potential negative implications) to try to force others to follow their views, or at least try to shame them out of views which disagree with creationism.

I have to say it is kind of a hoot being called unchristian and deceived by satan by the same people who commit idolatry by butchering one of the most simple and important concepts of christianity, that God is the Word, while the bible is the word. Making the bible equal to God is idolatry and I would bet that He isn't too keen on it.