Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[The Lady Kate]

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.



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.

Generally speaking, Scripture is often discussed in this forum... but in this particular thread, there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand for a Biblical reference to answer the question of whether evolution is a valid scientific theory.

Whether or not a given poster considers evolution to be valid science is a question best answered by science, not by Scripture... unless one wishes to invoke an AiG or ICR "statement of faith" that swears to toss out any science which goes against one's interpretation of Scripture.

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Have you looked at the context of Genesis 1?

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

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

Please reread my post. It seems you may not be understanding what I have said.

 

[david_x]

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

Of cource, are you saying God could not go against this law if he liked?

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.

Ah ha! Very Good. Science is Fact, the overwelming possibility, and God's word is TRUTH, somthing that is never wrong!

 

[gluadys]

Ah ha! Very Good. Science is Fact, the overwelming possibility, and God's word is TRUTH, somthing that is never wrong!

Exactly. And since fact is true, it is part of God's Truth. That is why evolution cannot be in contradiction to God's Word. If you think it is, there must be something askew either with your understanding of evolution or with your understanding of God's Word.

 

[david_x]

And since fact is true

wrong, you even just said it wasn't. Fact is not true, it simply has an overwelming possibility of being true.

 

[gluadys]

wrong, you even just said it wasn't. Fact is not true, it simply has an overwelming possibility of being true.

If it is an overwhelming possibility that something is true, how does that make it not true?

It is an overwhelming possibility that carrot seed will produce carrots and not peas. Does that mean it is not true that carrot seed will produce carrots? Should we start looking for peas where we have planted carrots?

 

[shernren]

David, give me a fact which isn't true. (See the contradiction?)

 

[serephiale]

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and as fact. The irony is that my own acceptance in evolution basically evolved. I believed that evolution was junk most of my childhood, but I've always gone in earnest of genetics...my eventual downfall. When I heard on a science video that humans are 45% genetically identical to a worm, I was sandbagged to say the very least. I thought "Well, what was to keep God from reusing building blocks?" And then I realized that such a thing was ludicrously close to Theistic Evolution and that I needed to just drop my pride and stop being stubborn.

 

[gluadys]

I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and as fact. The irony is that my own acceptance in evolution basically evolved. I believed that evolution was junk most of my childhood, but I've always gone in earnest of genetics...my eventual downfall. When I heard on a science video that humans are 45% genetically identical to a worm, I was sandbagged to say the very least. I thought "Well, what was to keep God from reusing building blocks?" And then I realized that such a thing was ludicrously close to Theistic Evolution and that I needed to just drop my pride and stop being stubborn.

I was also a creationist until my early 20s. Then it occurred to me that if evolution was such a silly notion, it didn't make sense that well-educated scientists would consider it. So I decided to look into a science book instead of creationist sources to find out why they didn't think it was silly. Got hooked onto theistic evolution real fast.

 

[david_x]

If it is an overwhelming possibility that something is true, how does that make it not true?

It is an overwhelming possibility that carrot seed will produce carrots and not peas. Does that mean it is not true that carrot seed will produce carrots? Should we start looking for peas where we have planted carrots?

These fact's are only true as far as we know. (God could change wine to water, why not carrots to peas?)

David, give me a fact which isn't true. (See the contradiction?)

No contridiction, round earth was a fact. That was wrong, from their perspective it was true.

Maybe you need clerification? please let me know.

 

[gluadys]

These fact's are only true as far as we know. (God could change wine to water, why not carrots to peas?)

Do you think it more likely the carrot seed you buy this spring will produce carrots or that God will make it produce peas? Which probability will you use to select your seed?

Science tells us the most likely event that will happen if God does not override natural process. And in biology that points overwhelmingly to evolution. Remember that God guarantees a regularity to nature, so that farmers can trust that wheat seeds will yield wheat and barley seeds will yield barley and not be surprised by oats growing where they planted corn. God guarantees the regularity of the seasons and of the positioning of the stars that guide birds in their migration.

God can override these things, but most of the time God doesn't. Evolution is one of the regular processes of nature, whose action is as much guaranteed by God as the attraction of iron filings to a magnet.

It takes more than pointing out that God has the power to override nature. You need to provide a reason why God would override the natural processes he created and guarantees for our security and survival. Why make a functioning world and then constantly throw a wrench into its machinery?

 

[david_x]

Do you think it more likely the carrot seed you buy this spring will produce carrots or that God will make it produce peas? Which probability will you use to select your seed?

WHAT???? I never said i expected somthing like that to happen! I was pointing out that a fact is not necessarily true. You imply too much.

 

[gluadys]

WHAT???? I never said i expected somthing like that to happen! I was pointing out that a fact is not necessarily true. You imply too much.

Happy birthday!!

A fact is necessarily true. That is what makes it a fact.

Show that something is not true, and you show that it is not a fact.

That evolution happens and has happened is a fact.

That mutation + natural selection are the principal mechanisms of evolution is also a fact, although there are other factors sometimes at play as well.

That speciation (aka macro-evolution) happens is another fact.

The above facts imply common descent as a logical conclusion. That this conclusion is well-supported by further evidence is, again, a fact. Nothing other than common descent makes sense of many biological observations.

It may be going a step too far to say that common descent is a fact, but without evidence to call it into question, it is by far the best basis for continuing work in biological research.

 

[david_x]

Happy birthday!!

Thanks!

A fact is necessarily true. That is what makes it a fact.

Okay, here is what i mean:
1. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
2. We are making the same point, Facts are true. Theonly thing I'm adding is that history has told us that they never seem to stay that way.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks!



Okay, here is what i mean:
1. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
2. We are making the same point, Facts are true. Theonly thing I'm adding is that history has told us that they never seem to stay that way.

Can you give some examples?

More pertinent to this thread, can you give examples that pertain to biology and evolution?

 

[LoG]

That speciation (aka macro-evolution) happens is another fact.

The above facts imply common descent as a logical conclusion. That this conclusion is well-supported by further evidence is, again, a fact. Nothing other than common descent makes sense of many biological observations.

It may be going a step too far to say that common descent is a fact, but without evidence to call it into question, it is by far the best basis for continuing work in biological research.

That speciation happens is dependent on how it is defined. Evolutionists tend to use a very broad definition of the term to validate that it happens, however the truth is that the type of speciation they require has never been proven or observed. See this page

What makes it even more questionable is that there are a number of different definitions of what constitutes a different species and varies on which taxonomist is doing the classifying.

Speciation is only the variation in the bottom of the ladder. If it can't be reliably proven that it occurs, how much more so when we start looking at the variations between Genus's, Family's, Order's, Classes, Phylum's and Kingdom.

I commend you on your Faith. You must have an awful lot of it to believe in Evolution.

 

[notto]

If it can't be reliably proven that it occurs, how much more so when we start looking at the variations between Genus's, Family's, Order's, Classes, Phylum's and Kingdom.

You are confusing 'observed' with 'reliably proven that it occurs'.

Speciation has more than been reliably proven to occur. It is observation of actual events of speciation that is more difficult to observe directly. We would not expect the observation of it to be an occurance that happens a whole lot in the timeframe that we have been looking for it. Because of the way it happens, the observation of the population at a point where it can be seen directly is also not something we would expect to be easy.

The evidence that it has occured is a whole different thing and there are several independent lines of evidence that point to it having occured.

Life in the past was different than life today - this is about as close to an undisputed fact as one can get.

The fossil record and genetic evidence point to this change of the diversity of life happening through changes to existing populations over time - several independent line of evidence show us this.

That speciation happens to occur has been reliably proven.

 

[gluadys]

That speciation happens is dependent on how it is defined. Evolutionists tend to use a very broad definition of the term to validate that it happens, however the truth is that the type of speciation they require has never been proven or observed. See this page

Especially when the mode of reproduction is asexual. The BSC only applies to sexual reproduction. Still it is the most used definition, and I see no reason for non-scientists to challenge it. When scientists come up with a better definition, it will replace the BSC. It is a complex matter.

If I were a creationist, I would be very hesitant about using the absolute criterion of being physiologically incapable of interbreeding. By this criterion it might be necessary to classify humans and chimpanzees as the same species. As far as I know, no one has made the attempt to prove that hybridization of these two populations is physiologically impossible. Of course, any such experiment would be unethical.

I don't know what you mean by "the type of speciation they require." Could you elaborate?

What makes it even more questionable is that there are a number of different definitions of what constitutes a different species and varies on which taxonomist is doing the classifying.

In closely related species there is often a question of whether the populations one is studying are varieties, sub-species or species. The same fuzziness occurs when one is deciding whether two species should be placed in the same genus, in the same genus but different sub-genera or in different genera.

This debate is more a matter of taxonomy than of evolution. When most biologists assumed fixity of species and used Linnean taxonomy, there were just as many disputes of this nature as there are today.

However, the theory of evolution explains why such fuzziness exists when classifying closely-related species. It is difficult, on the assumption of fixity of species or even special creation of kinds, to explain why divisions between species are so difficult to draw. Why are the species not clearly separated one from another? But on the assumption of evolution, lack of clarity on this is to be expected. Since, in most cases, speciation is a gradual process, we expect to find a gradation of different degrees of separation.

Speciation is only the variation in the bottom of the ladder.

In the first place, evolution is not ladder-like. In the second place, speciation is the final event in the evolutionary process. Most evolution occurs within the species. It is within the species that mutation occurs and spreads. It is within the species that gene flow and genetic drift and sexual and natural selection occur. It is only when populations of the same species are isolated from one another in some way (geographical, behavioral, assortative mating, etc.) that these within-species mechanisms can lead to different outcomes which may lead to speciation.

Once speciation does occur, the only event of equivalent magnitude that can occur afterwards is another speciation.

If it can't be reliably proven that it occurs, how much more so when we start looking at the variations between Genus's, Family's, Order's, Classes, Phylum's and Kingdom.

The higher taxa are simply classifications of species. Nothing more major than speciation is needed to generate them. The process of evolution per se does not create a new family except by creating new species from the common ancestor of the family. Same for other taxa.

I commend you on your Faith. You must have an awful lot of it to believe in Evolution.

I don't need faith to accept evolution: only sense and reason. If you wish to commend me on my faith, look instead to my belief in God, in Christ, in Salvation and the Kingdom to Come. No observation, no deduction could lead to believing these things. But by the grace of God I have faith and hope in their truth.

 

[david_x]

I don't need faith to accept evolution: only sense and reason.

Faith is in the facts. If you don't have any faith in evolution why should anyone else believe it?

Can you give some examples?

More pertinent to this thread, can you give examples that pertain to biology and evolution?

I think you jumped over my meaning, their aren't any examples of things right now. It would go against a law of facts if there was an example. My point was that there have been many scientific theories and eventually they all went right down the drain. Round earth, velocity to weight, etc.