Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[bullietdodger]

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.

Tell me what is the board theme for which this thread is on?

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Let's remember the specific claim.

all living species all at the same time

Good luck!

Just a small correction...I think. It looks as though pastorkevin is defending the Genesis account. The claim would have to be specific to the order of Genesis 1.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

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

Okay, then help me understand. From what I understand a scientist will have a hypothesis (sp?) to which he/she looks for evidence to support it. When he/she as some evidence it becomes a theory. When the theory is proven without a shadow of doubt then it becomes understood as a law of science. Is this correct? If not please define what hypothesis, theory and laws in the scientific world.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

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.

I believe that science that has been proven without any doubts is not junk science. However, science is not perfect.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Genesis.

So where in Genesis is you scriptural basis for evolution?

 

[bullietdodger]

Hmm, still no responce on the Luke 3 Geneology?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Okay, then help me understand. From what I understand a scientist will have a hypothesis (sp?) to which he/she looks for evidence to support it. When he/she as some evidence it becomes a theory. When the theory is proven without a shadow of doubt then it becomes understood as a law of science. Is this correct? If not please define what hypothesis, theory and laws in the scientific world.

You had it pretty well until you reached "law." Theories never become laws. I'll let Wikipedia (my new best friend!) explain it:

"A theory is also different from a physical law in that the latter is a model of reality, whereas the former is an explanatory statement of what has been observed, explaining the why and how of the observed physical law."

Applied to evolution, it's been said that evolution is both a fact and a theory...Living creatures evolve...this is an observed fact that nobody's about to debate. That the process of evolution is driven by pressure from the environment (natural selection) and that this process is responsible for the diversity of life today (common ancestry) are parts of the theory of evolution.

But theories never become laws.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

You had it pretty well until you reached "law." Theories never become laws. I'll let Wikipedia (my new best friend!) explain it:

"A theory is also different from a physical law in that the latter is a model of reality, whereas the former is an explanatory statement of what has been observed, explaining the why and how of the observed physical law."

Applied to evolution, it's been said that evolution is both a fact and a theory...Living creatures evolve...this is an observed fact that nobody's about to debate. That the process of evolution is driven by pressure from the environment (natural selection) and that this process is responsible for the diversity of life today (common ancestry) are parts of the theory of evolution.

But theories never become laws.

Thanks for clarifying. Just to clarify and understand more. A theory then may or may not be fact?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Thanks for clarifying. Just to clarify and understand more. A theory then may or may not be fact?

Not the same thing, but something can be a fact and a theory, as is the case for evolution.

A fact is something observed and confirmed to be true...a theory is the explanation based on those facts.

Like many words, "evolution" has more than one meaning. Talking about living things changing over time, evolution is a fact. When discussing how life diversified, the theory of evolution by natural selection is what people are talking about... whether they know it or not.

That's what people mean when they say that evolution is a fact and a theory. Things evolve... that's a fact. That the process through which they evolve has, over time, resulted in the diversity of life on this planet... that's the theory.

It helps to think of it as a jigsaw puzzle... the facts are the individual pieces, and the theory is the picture in the middle. Now, you can recognize the picture when you have enough pieces...even without all of them.

Which is fortunate... considering that every scientific puzzle has literally an infinite number of pieces.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, then help me understand. From what I understand a scientist will have a hypothesis (sp?) to which he/she looks for evidence to support it. When he/she as some evidence it becomes a theory. When the theory is proven without a shadow of doubt then it becomes understood as a law of science. Is this correct? If not please define what hypothesis, theory and laws in the scientific world.

No. A scientist does not begin with a hypothesis. A scientist begins with an observation or a set of observations which raise a question. E.G. when it was observed that all distant galaxies were red-shifting, it was natural to wonder why. Why are all distant galaxies moving away from us and not a single one toward us?

A hypothesis is proposed to answer that question. In the example above, the hypthesis is that the universe is expanding. Next the scientists work out the logical consequences of the hypothesis, paying particular attention to those that can be tested.

One of the logical consequences of an expanding universe is that it used to be smaller. And that the expansion had to have a beginning. This would mean that the universe must have had a beginnning.

This was a new thought for scientists, as for millennia, scientists and philosophers had found that apart from the revelation of creation, all evidence pointed to the universe being eternal. In short, only Judaeo-Christian belief told us that the universe had a beginning in creation. There was no evidence in nature that the universe had not always simply been there. So they looked for something in the hypothesis that could be tested.

Now here is an important principle of modern science. The purpose of testing is not to find evidence which supports the hypothesis, but evidence which shows that the hypothesis is false. If a test can show that a hypothesis is false, then it can be trashed. If it does not show that a hypothesis is false, then science will keep working with it.

So we have
1) observation which raises a question
2) a hypothetical answer to the question
3) new observations which must be true if the hypothesis is correct. These observations may not have been made yet; at this stage they only need to be necessary logical consequences of the hypothesis.
4) a way to test for the predicted observations

Then, when possible, the test is run. If the observations are not as predicted, one of two things will happen. If it is possible to revise the hypothesis and try again, that is the preferred response. If it is not possible to revise the hypothesis, it never makes it to becoming a theory.

The aim is to get a well-tested hypothesis, which successfully predicts additional observations and is not falsified by existing evidence. A hypothesis which has been repeatedly tested many times in many ways is considered a well-established theory.

A theory often includes laws. In the example above, there was one principal observation--the red-shifting of distant galaxies. But there was an important secondary observation: the more distant the galaxy, the deeper the red shift. This indicates that not only are distant galaxies moving away from us, but the farther away they are, the faster they are moving. This is a relationship which can be expressed as a mathematical formula. When we have a set of observations that can be summarized in such a (usually mathematical) formula, that is called a scientific law. The existence of regularities in nature which can be summarized in laws is itself an observation which raises the question of what causes this regularity. So a law can become the subject of a hypothesis and predictions and tests and eventually a theory, just as single observations can be.

Developing theories which explain accurately how the world of nature works is the chief business of science. In science, a good theory is the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for clarifying. Just to clarify and understand more. A theory then may or may not be fact?

Strictly speaking, a theory is never a fact, but an explanation of why the facts are what they are. But when a theory is very well-established, such that the level of confidence scientists have in the theory approaches certainty, it is often treated as fact.

There is an extremely remote possibility that apples will start falling up rather than down, but it is so remote that for all practical purposes it is not worth taking into consideration.

The mechanisms of evolution and the standard phylogenic tree also approach that level of certainty.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, I do accept evolution as a valid scientific theory.

 

[notto]

Tell me what is the board theme for which this thread is on?

It is a theology board where Christians discuss Origins. Usually, based on the topic of a thread, the thread discuss a particular part of it. For instance, this particular thread asks a question about evolution being a valid scientific theory.

There are other threads that discuss the theology of the issuein more detail than this one. There you will find Christians who are young earth creationists, old earth creationists, intelligent design proponents, and theistic evolutionists sharing their ideas around the theology and science of the issue.

It would be a poor conclusion to make a claim based on a single thread that an issue is not being addressed, especially if it is one that is off topic for the thread itself.

Perhaps you would like to start a thread on the subject you want to discuss. I'm certain you will have no lack of participants.

 

[notto]

So where in Genesis is you scriptural basis for evolution?

Well, Genesis tells us that God created all that is. A detailed and careful study of all of that creation shows us that life in the past was much different than life today and that those changes took place over a long time and many generations. Since I know that God created based on genesis and I know that the careful study of the creation gives us clues as to how that happened and those clues lead us to the conclusion of evoluton and common descent, all the scriptural basis I need to accept evolution is in Genesis and this scriptural basis along with the integrity of creation and God's direct work lead to me being a Christian who accepts both scripture as being theologically true and evolution as being scientifically accurate.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

Strictly speaking, a theory is never a fact, but an explanation of why the facts are what they are. But when a theory is very well-established, such that the level of confidence scientists have in the theory approaches certainty, it is often treated as fact.

Thank you for helping me understand. I think I understand.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

First, I need to apologize to you Notto. I have reread some of my posts. I realize that the tone of some of my posts probably sound harsh and do not exemplify Col 4:6

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

Secondly, my use of the assuming quote was out of line. As a Christian I am to hold my tongue from such words and speak as the above verse speaks of. So I am sorry for all the above.

With that said, I hope that my tone will not sound as it has in previous posts.

Well, Genesis tells us that God created all that is. A detailed and careful study of all of that creation shows us that life in the past was much different than life today and that those changes took place over a long time and many generations. Since I know that God created based on genesis and I know that the careful study of the creation gives us clues as to how that happened and those clues lead us to the conclusion of evoluton and common descent, all the scriptural basis I need to accept evolution is in Genesis and this scriptural basis along with the integrity of creation and God's direct work lead to me being a Christian who accepts both scripture as being theologically true and evolution as being scientifically accurate.

Please give a direct reference from Genesis to support this.

 

[bullietdodger]

It is a theology board where Christians discuss Origins. Usually, based on the topic of a thread, the thread discuss a particular part of it. For instance, this particular thread asks a question about evolution being a valid scientific theory.

Thank you. It's fine that you want to discuss the science of the matter, but since this is a theology board Scripture should be used as Scripture is the bases for Theology.

There are other threads that discuss the theology of the issuein more detail than this one. There you will find Christians who are young earth creationists, old earth creationists, intelligent design proponents, and theistic evolutionists sharing their ideas around the theology and science of the issue.

It would be a poor conclusion to make a claim based on a single thread that an issue is not being addressed, especially if it is one that is off topic for the thread itself.

I have not concluded that this is the only thread that actually talks theology. All I'm getting at is that you would have to expect that theology will eventually come on this thread since it under the theology board.

 

[notto]

Please give a direct reference from Genesis to support this.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[notto]

I believe that science that has been proven without any doubts is not junk science. However, science is not perfect.

The theory of gravity has not been proven without any doubts. Is it junk science?

 

[Numenor]

10 is my favourite number