-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?
- Thread starter SH89
- Start date
- Status
- Aug 6, 2005
- 17,496
- 1,568
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
DaveS said:
Um.....
I'm a Christian and a Junior in college, majoring in Physics. The two offer NOTHING in conflict for me, but nor can I say that either has had a profound impact on the other. While many of the students and profs here are Christians of all types, plus a goodly number of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus and others (it's a very diverse group here), I'd say more than half are agnostics. While scientists are usually profoundly ignorant of theology (it's mutual!), that does not keep them from pontificating on all subjects - including God. What often comes out sounds a lot like Monistic Hinduism or even an abstract from of pantheism, even some of the "Christians" and "Muslims" that should know better...
My sister, also here but working on her Ph.D. in biology, sees a much stronger coorelation between Christianity and science. She often speaks of her studies in rather religious terms, "I feel like I'm being allowed to peer, ever so dimly, at the very hand of God." Sadly, perhaps because of a century of bashing from fundamentalist Christians, the environment in her field is far less open to Christianity than mine. The Prof under whom she is doing research is a committed Catholic, as is her best friend and fellow researcher, but she admits that unlike my department where theological theorizing is welcomed, in Biology, Christians are often seen negatively.
Just MY experience...
- Josiah
Upvote
0
Dragons87
The regal Oriental kind; not evil princess-napper
DaveS said:All the same, I think it quite likely that science is finding God - even if the scientists themselves (or a lot of them) don't realise it yet. There will come a day...
*puts a DETOUR sign up in front of Science*
Sorry. Wrong way.
*points to another road called Spirit*
God is that way.
I believe that science will never be able to find the existence of God.
Upvote
0
Joykins
free Crazy Liz!
- Jul 14, 2005
- 15,720
- 1,181
- 55
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think evolution is the best explanation we have now for a lot of biological processes; as such it is a valid scientific theory.
Sort of the way Newtonian physics were the best scientific theory for many, many years. No doubt we're missing something, but theories don't have to be perfect so much as useful and descriptive as possible.
Sort of the way Newtonian physics were the best scientific theory for many, many years. No doubt we're missing something, but theories don't have to be perfect so much as useful and descriptive as possible.
Upvote
0
L
LittleRocketBoy
Guest
Natural selection works, as long as you realize that it only works in one direction. It removes traits that do not serve to promote survival of the species. However... it does not create anything new. So it is not "natural selection" as much as it is natural rejection.
Which supports not the theory of evolution... rather the theory of devolution.
Which supports not the theory of evolution... rather the theory of devolution.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
DaveS said:
The short answer is, "A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol." (Bonhoeffer)
The long answer is that any conclusion that is drawn in a scientific journal (arguably the heart of that science, itself) has to be verifiable and reproducible by others. Now, if God were proven through these means, it would not be the God to Whom Christians attest, because God, in our understanding, does not submit Himself to such things ("Do not put the Lord your God to the test," etc. - which really is applicable in this context).
Upvote
0
The theory of evolution is a good theory because it is one that can be tested. Thus any hypothesis that can be tested is a good hypothesis.
However, just because it is a good theory that doesn't make it true. And the theory of evolution, so as it pertains to the origin of humankind, is by no means true. Therefore, it isn't a valid theory.
However, just because it is a good theory that doesn't make it true. And the theory of evolution, so as it pertains to the origin of humankind, is by no means true. Therefore, it isn't a valid theory.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
woobadooba said:
No, even if it isn't true, it may be valid. But if it isn't true, then it isn't sound. Validity relies on logical progression. Validity says that if the assumptions are true, then the conclusion follows. Soundness deals with the actual truth of things.
That said, I think we evolved.
(Just trying to be controversial)
Upvote
0
Yusuf Evans
Well-Known Member
Evolution has some major flaws with it, as does the theory of the young earth creation. I dont' believe it was 6 literal days the earth was created, as the Lord is not hindered by time. Like it says, 1 day is 1000yrs in heaven and vice versa. I believe in evolution within the species. I don't think we just spontaneously combusted into another being overnight, nor did we progressively evolve from another being. We were begun as men and women, and we have evolved as men and women. Look at our skin tones, the makeup of our faces. That should nullify the evolution hypothesis. How about the one part of the body that trumped Darwin, and still stumps evolutionists today, the eye. It is a very complex part of the body, like no other, and I'm not simply referring to humans. I'll give you another example of an animal that stumps evolution: the shark. It has been on earth longer than man has, and it never evolved. Why not? Because it was designed that way.
Upvote
0
Willtor said:No, even if it isn't true, it may be valid. But if it isn't true, then it isn't sound. Validity relies on logical progression. Validity says that if the assumptions are true, then the conclusion follows. Soundness deals with the actual truth of things.
That said, I think we evolved.
(Just trying to be controversial)
We obviously don't agree on the meaning of the term 'valid'.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
woobadooba said:
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).
Upvote
0
As a person majoring in biology, I won't even vote. Simple because I do not want to question myself as to if I believe in evolution or if I believe that God create all kind of animals, most of them were wipe out.
I believe that God made everything on the earth in a week but scientist believes that the animals evolved from the sponge (in the water) after many years. The sponges are organism in the water that is enrich in cells. They grow in the water and when they are squeze (press together), cells come out of them. They don't have a mouth, a heart, lungs, bone, or anything we human have...except skin. They were believe to be the first animal create.
That is unless a day in God's time is a billion years in God's time.
Think about this...God can heal a person in a second but medicine science can heal a person in a longer period of time...that is if the medicine work.
God create everything in just 7 days. <--that...I believe.
I believe that God made everything on the earth in a week but scientist believes that the animals evolved from the sponge (in the water) after many years. The sponges are organism in the water that is enrich in cells. They grow in the water and when they are squeze (press together), cells come out of them. They don't have a mouth, a heart, lungs, bone, or anything we human have...except skin. They were believe to be the first animal create.
That is unless a day in God's time is a billion years in God's time.
Think about this...God can heal a person in a second but medicine science can heal a person in a longer period of time...that is if the medicine work.
God create everything in just 7 days. <--that...I believe.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
