Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[Willtor]

but it would be valid if it went like this...
1.Everything Willtor believes is true.
2. Willtor believes that God exists
3. Therefore, God exists

That's right. That is an example of something which is valid but not sound...

...

Actually, that takes a lot of weight off of my shoulders.

 

[woobadooba]

I'm busting your chops. Valid, if you take a course on logic, is used to distinguish a well-formed argument from a poorly-formed one. That is, an argument may have true premises and a true conclusion, but be totally bogus in form. Take the following, for example:

1 - Willtor could really use a snack.
2 - Willtor thinks wasabi peas are delicious.
--
3 - God exists.

I think we'd both agree that all 3 points are true, but the first two don't yield the third. The argument is invalid because its form is flawed.

Soundness measures a statement's validity, and says that the premises are true (as well as the conclusion, obviously).

I understand what you're saying; and that is why I had said that it is a good theory/hypothesis. But to say that it is a valid theory is to enter into another realm of thought, which implies that it is correct. And this just simply isn't true.

Moreover, even if I were to espouse your usage of the term 'valid' within the context of logic, it still wouldn't work here because the theory of evolution, in my opinion, is not logical, but nonsensical. But then we probably have a different way of defining the term 'logical' too.

 

[Willtor]

Moreover, even if I were to espouse your usage of the term 'valid' within the context of logic, it still wouldn't work here because the theory of evolution, in my opinion, is not logical, but nonsensical. But then we probably have a different way of defining the term 'logical' too.

No, I doubt it. I'm talking about logic as a formal system within mathematics. Of course, one would be right to point out that logic has very little place in science. Logic is far too restrictive. It can only be applied, loosely, as a guide.

 

[ChristianWildlife]

What type of evolution are people talking about? Trans-species?

 

[SH89]

What type of evolution are people talking about? Trans-species?

Macro, Micro, Taco, etc...

 

[SH89]

Um.....

I'm a Christian and a Junior in college, majoring in Physics. T\

- Josiah

....and you're 17?

Impressive, very impressive.

 

[coolstylinstud]

No its not valid

 

[Ragnaros]

I don't know about all this evolution and creationism stuff, but I do know this: we shouldn't let our differences in opinions on the matter separate as, as it's just some silly details in the grand scheme of things. Jesus is Lord, everything else is just details... if we can agree that Jesus is Lord, then we should try to stick together and not let little minor differences in opinion separate us.

Also, ignoring science is utter folly. Science is simply the study of God's creation. There's nothing "false" about God's creation, and the study of the natural world is just as much truth as the scriptures are. Science and the scripture have to meet somewhere, and where they meet is where the true answers lay.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Also, ignoring science is utter folly. Science is simply the study of God's creation. There's nothing "false" about God's creation, and the study of the natural world is just as much truth as the scriptures are. Science and the scripture have to meet somewhere, and where they meet is where the true answers lay.

I agree that science is just man's way of learning about the awesome imagination of the Lord and how he created such beauty. Unfortunately, science and religion can never meet in the middle. Most evolutionists are atheists for a reason. God is not part of the evolutionary puzzle.

 

[Dragons87]

Why?

Cuz that's what Science doesn't do - look into metaphysics.

Metaphysics must be comprehended by the heart, soul, and mind, never physical attributes - hence "meta"physics.

 

[Ragnaros]

I agree that science is just man's way of learning about the awesome imagination of the Lord and how he created such beauty. Unfortunately, science and religion can never meet in the middle. Most evolutionists are atheists for a reason. God is not part of the evolutionary puzzle.

I'm confused as to why you say science and religion can never meet in the middle. Why not? Evolution isn't necessarily "science", and just because the theory of evolution may not exactly fit in with the bible doesn't mean science and religion can't meet. Plus, there are lots of other theories in the scientific community besides the strict orthodox definition of evolution, such as extraterrestrials planting the human race on Earth. There are many theories in the scientific community, and until we get cold hard empirical evidence for every facet of evolution, it's still just one of those theories a lot of scientists subscribe to as what they think is the most likely way life on Earth came to be as it is today.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I'm confused as to why you say science and religion can never meet in the middle. Why not? Evolution isn't necessarily "science", and just because the theory of evolution may not exactly fit in with the bible doesn't mean science and religion can't meet. Plus, there are lots of other theories in the scientific community besides the strict orthodox definition of evolution, such as extraterrestrials planting the human race on Earth. There are many theories in the scientific community, and until we get cold hard empirical evidence for every facet of evolution, it's still just one of those theories a lot of scientists subscribe to as what they think is the most likely way life on Earth came to be as it is today.

I apologize. I should have rephrased that. Most scientists are atheistic evolutionists. Why do you think they are so adamantly opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, alongside evolution? They feel that science is the study of the universe, and they can't accept the fact that there is an entity greater than they, and that he designed it all. They would rather be the one's to make new discoveries and take credit for it, instead of the Lord.

 

[Dragons87]

Unfortunately, science and religion can never meet in the middle.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that...simply because all areas of Knowledge have some overlapping between each other.

 

[Ragnaros]

I apologize. I should have rephrased that. Most scientists are atheistic evolutionists. Why do you think they are so adamantly opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, alongside evolution? They feel that science is the study of the universe, and they can't accept the fact that there is an entity greater than they, and that he designed it all. They would rather be the one's to make new discoveries and take credit for it, instead of the Lord.

Oh, alright. I see where you are coming from. I'm guessing that most scientists don't like Intelligent Design at all, because they consider it a highly flawed theory. A lot of people also don't like it being taught in schools, because it's religious in nature, and there's the whole separation of church and state (I guess they have a point there). Then again, I'm not really very informed on this issue, so I think I'll just keep my mouth shut.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Oh, alright. I see where you are coming from. I'm guessing that most scientists don't like Intelligent Design at all, because they consider it a highly flawed theory. A lot of people also don't like it being taught in schools, because it's religious in nature, and there's the whole separation of church and state (I guess they have a point there). Then again, I'm not really very informed on this issue, so I think I'll just keep my mouth shut.

If you want to hear more of the same ol nonsense, just head on over to the Creation & Evolution board. There are almost no supporters of Creationism by ID over there, and I think a few that they did have, started to support evolutionists ideas. I called them on one question, and they couldn't answer it. That's why I don't go back over there, too narrow minded.

 

[Windmill]

4 is my favourite number...

But anyway, no. Not a scientific theory, because science is something than can be observed or/and tested. Evolution is neither of these things. Its a theory, but not a scientific one.

 

[laterunner]

Does the religion of science have any truth????????

 

[Windmill]

Does the religion of science have any truth????????

Did your post make any sense?????????? I don't get want you mean

 

[artybloke]

Why?

Because God is not a contingent thing that can be examined using scientific method. If God exists, then it's a very different kind of existence from the evidence of things existing.

And yes, folks, evolution has so much evidence in favour of it that there's precious little doubt about its validity. And to the person above who thinks we evolved from sponges, please go and read a few more books.

 

[BOJAX]

no