If your ignorance of god does not keep you from accepting god, then why does your ignorance of the theory of evolution keep you from accepting it?
-
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.
I do not understand.
- Thread starter Dharma Gregg
- Start date
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As I see it you argument has two major fatal flaws.
1) you assume Those who have a belief in God are some how ignorant of Him.
2) You believe that it is ignorance of evolution that prevents belief in it.
I would suggest That those who do not believe in God are those who are ignorant of Him, and Perhaps in the case of evolution it is not ignorance that prevents belief. It is a refusal of subscribing to that specific system of belief/faith.
As faith in facts is not akin to a faith in truth, because not all facts are true. A fact is merely a statement that can be proved or disproved. In the case of evolution All "Facts" can't truly be proved or disproved. So the theory of evolution remain a "theory."
As I said, if all you have to combat Christianity is a deeply held belief in accepted (Not proved or disproved) Fact. Then perhaps Christians simply don't see the merit in your system of religious belief. It Appears, True Ignorance lies in the words of the accuser in this thread, not in the accused.
Upvote
0
I need to nip this one in the bud since it is a common misunderstanding.
A theory has been proven.
The word you are thinking of is hypothesis. Which evolution has not been for many years.
Upvote
0
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
To which specific theory are you referring? There are many theories of evolution. None of which have conclusively been "proven" Otherwise there would not be a need for your faith to have so many different theories..
Be careful of which bud you nip.. some nip back.
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
the word "proof" is being incorrectly used. Science doesn't claim anything to be a "law" anymore, either ...
Upvote
0
S
solarwave
Guest
I accept we are all ignorant of the fullness of God, but we believe we have some sort of revelation of truth about God, and speaking for myself it isn't based on some vague feeling of revelation.
Though ignorance of evolution may play a part in keeping some from evolution (I believe it) I think non-belief in evolution generally comes from a huge commitment to their own interpretation. So science and theology is needed to change this view.
I think the main point she is making is that the word theory is a high honour given to an interpretation of data.
I don't know if there are many theorys in evolution, but if there are the basic understanding is that life changed from simple cells to complex organism by way of natural selection and mutation.
Its not as if Christianity doesn't have many theorys in it, but most agree on the basics of Christianity and this doesn't make the whole thing false.
Upvote
0
Adoniram
Senior Member
Even you, claiming to be atheist, are not ignorant of God. It may be that you do not believe, but you are not ignorant, otherwise you would not question.
Rom. 1
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
And it is the fact that the ToE is based upon faulty assumptions that causes rejection of it, not ignorance of what it propounds.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You misunderstand the 'ignorance' of the believer. God calls us while still ignorant of what He is really all about. His indwelling spirit leads us into understanding over time. Someone who accepts the ToE while 'ignorant' of it already had 'itching ears' for it, or, not being called by God, has no reason to question it.
Upvote
0
As far as I am aware, there is only one 'Theory of Evolution'. Are you thinking of the distinction often made between "macroevolution" and "microevolution"? These are not different theories, they are simply distinctions made between the scale on which the theory is applied. Or are you thinking of Lamarck's theory, which is not evolution, has been falsified, and is not generally accepted by the scientific community?
Evolution, in its most basic form, is proven by two easily observable phenomena:
- Random mutation.
- Natural selection.
For example, MRSA (Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria developed in hospitals due to some bacteria in patients having randomly mutated into being immune to antibiotics. Due to natural selection, non-MR bacteria died out, whereas MRSA survived and spread between patients (carried by doctors and nurses). In the UK, according to the National Statistics Office, MRSA now kills around 1000 people each year, whereas non-MR Staphylococcus aureus only kills around 500 people each year.
Providing evidence for large-scale evolution is more complicated (though most people are satisfied in logically stretching their understanding of small-scale evolution to apply historically), but it is still possible. My biology textbook suggests that you need to take a look at fossils - studying the similarities and differences between fossils from different times shows you how animals have changed over time. For example, the horse has a very complete fossil record and studying the forefeet of its ancestors shows you how they gradually changed to adapt to their surroundings over time.
A lot of animals still have body parts as remnants of their ancestors, even if they don't need those body parts anymore - for example, human foetuses have small tails that (usually) are no longer visible by the time they are born, and snakes have tiny remnants of hip bones and hind legs.
I have only a secondary school understanding of evolution (which is enough to personally persuade me), but there are plenty of better-qualified scientists who would certainly be happy to show you more definite, concise proofs of evolution if you are not satisfied with my explanation:
Link
Link
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Scientific Theory - Set of explanations. Logical explanation with broad consensus, based on all the available evidence. Capable of predicting further correlations.
Theories explain the facts-- they are not the facts themselves. Examples: plate tectonics, Theory of Relativity.
A scientific theory has been widely accepted among the scientific community, subjected to scrutiny and peer review. While widely recognized as something that other theories can be built upon, it is still seen as part of the always-changing base of scientific information.
Scientific Law (of Nature) - Rule. Gravity is irrefutable. When objects of mass come close, they attract. A lighter body will predictably "fall" toward the heavier body.
Hypothesis - Educated guess, with some amount of predictability.
Fact - Usually a smaller increment of information, supported by clear and incontrovertible evidence.
It was a fact that they found the salamander in both water and land. It was a hypothesis that all salamanders could survive in both water or land.
A lot of Christians hold to a creation theory, mostly for the one point of man being a direct creation. I would guess that most creationists are not opposed to the ideas of dogs cross-breeding and corn hybrids transforming what we know corn to be.
All Christians are not creationists. All creationists are not Christians.
All Intelligent Design proponents are not creationists.
All agnostics are not evolution proponents.
Scientific study is a realm that tries to remain open to ideas and new information. Scientists need strong theories to build new information upon; but they know it is critical to retain enough humility to realize that new information continually arises.
Theories explain the facts-- they are not the facts themselves. Examples: plate tectonics, Theory of Relativity.
A scientific theory has been widely accepted among the scientific community, subjected to scrutiny and peer review. While widely recognized as something that other theories can be built upon, it is still seen as part of the always-changing base of scientific information.
Scientific Law (of Nature) - Rule. Gravity is irrefutable. When objects of mass come close, they attract. A lighter body will predictably "fall" toward the heavier body.
Hypothesis - Educated guess, with some amount of predictability.
Fact - Usually a smaller increment of information, supported by clear and incontrovertible evidence.
It was a fact that they found the salamander in both water and land. It was a hypothesis that all salamanders could survive in both water or land.
A lot of Christians hold to a creation theory, mostly for the one point of man being a direct creation. I would guess that most creationists are not opposed to the ideas of dogs cross-breeding and corn hybrids transforming what we know corn to be.
All Christians are not creationists. All creationists are not Christians.
All Intelligent Design proponents are not creationists.
All agnostics are not evolution proponents.
Scientific study is a realm that tries to remain open to ideas and new information. Scientists need strong theories to build new information upon; but they know it is critical to retain enough humility to realize that new information continually arises.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
