Is evolution a fact or theory?

[mark kennedy]

The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.

Nonsense, this is what Darwin contributed:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
​

Naturalistic assumptions, nothing more, it wasn't even his idea.

 

[GenemZ]

The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.

I am only repeating the arguments that I received from secular evolutionists that I used to debate a while ago. They did not believe in God. Others (theistic evolution) could not believe that God created this world's lifeforms in six days. I guess you dwell in another category..

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.

I am only repeating the arguments that I received from secular evolutionists that I used to debate a while ago.

If so, they didn't know any more about it than you do. Again, if you take nothing else away from this discussion, it should be those two things.

This is what Darwinian evolution is. Anything else, is something else.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.

Nonsense,

No, that's wrong. Darwin's discovery of the way natural selection works made it very clear that evolution was not random.

this is what Darwin contributed:

No. Darwinism is entirely different than Lamarckism.

​

Naturalistic assumptions, nothing more

That's a testable claim. Let's take a look...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

I don't see any way to interpret that as "naturalistic assumptions."

it wasn't even his idea.

Long before Darwin, people realized that some sort of evolution must have happened. Darwin's great discovery was the way natural selection works. And of course, as you see, Darwin had no theory of the way life or the universe began. He just assumed God did it.

 

[GenemZ]

Barbarian observes:
The important things to remember:

1. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.
2. Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe was made, or even how life began on Earth.

Get those two things, and you've got it.

So.... Darwin simply stated that God in his omniscience created latent attributes, that when stimulated by a change in environment? Would cause a transformation, better adapting that creature to his altered environment. That's it?

Why was there such a big stink made by the churches, if that is all Darwin intended? What was it that Darwin said that triggered off many in the churches?

Something is not making sense in how you have evolved the position that once caused conflicts.

 

[The Barbarian]

So.... Darwin simply stated that God in his omniscience created latent attributes, that when stimulated by a change in environment? Would cause a transformation, better adapting that creature to his altered environment. That's it?

No, he just suggested that God created the first living things.

Why was there such a big stink made by the churches, if that is all Darwin intended?

It really didn't. Since the Bible takes no sides on the question, most churchmen didn't pay it very much mind. Not until the early 20th century, when the Seventh-day Adventists invented YE creationism.

 

[GenemZ]

It really didn't. Since the Bible takes no sides on the question, most churchmen didn't pay it very much mind. Not until the early 20th century, when the Seventh-day Adventists invented YE creationism.

Can you verify that it was the 7th Day A's?

Odd... They have never been a major influence on mainstream Christianity. So, I wonder where you are getting your facts from.

 

[sfs]

Can you verify that it was the 7th Day A's?

Odd... They have never been a major influence on mainstream Christianity. So, I wonder where you are getting your facts from.

Read Ronald Numbers's history, The Creationists, for details. Many of the key claims of young-earth creationism were put together by George MacReady Price, an Adventist. (Note: the young-earth focus of Adventists was based on the writings of founder Ellen G. White.) Price's ideas then entered fundamentalist circles in the 1960s with the publication of Morris and Whitcomb's book, The Genesis Flood.

 

[GenemZ]

Read Ronald Numbers's history, The Creationists, for details. Many of the key claims of young-earth creationism were put together by George MacReady Price, an Adventist. (Note: the young-earth focus of Adventists was based on the writings of founder Ellen G. White.) Price's ideas then entered fundamentalist circles in the 1960s with the publication of Morris and Whitcomb's book, The Genesis Flood.

There were other books too...

This is a good one (actually, an excellent one)..

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse - the Invisible War. https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-War-Donald-Grey-Barnhouse/dp/031020481X

And, there are plenty more! Here are a few...

https://www.amazon.com/Without-Form...rd_wg=SXRQt&psc=1&refRID=MSKWA1ME95MHQBY5HSAS

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earli...rd_wg=SXRQt&psc=1&refRID=MSKWA1ME95MHQBY5HSAS

https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Not-Theo...rd_wg=SXRQt&psc=1&refRID=MSKWA1ME95MHQBY5HSAS



George MacReady should have been a minor player if pastors were doing their job of proper studying and teaching.

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you verify that it was the 7th Day A's?

Yep. YE creationism was invented by an Adventist "prophetess", Ellen G. White. Her evangelist to the fundamentalists was James McCready Price, who converted Henry Morris and John Whitcomb to the new faith of YE creationism, and they, through the Institute for Creation Research, evangelized many Protestant fundamentailists.

“Ronald Numbers is in a unique position to offer some answers. His 1992 book, The Creationists, which Harvard University Press has just reissued in an expanded edition, is probably the most definitive history of anti-evolutionism. Numbers is an eminent figure in the history of science and religion—a past president of both the History of Science Society and the American Society of Church History. But what’s most refreshing about Numbers is the remarkable personal history he brings to this subject. He grew up in a family of Seventh-day Adventists and, until graduate school, was a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. When he lost his religious faith, he wrote a book questioning the foundations of Adventism, which created a huge rift in his family. Perhaps because of his background, Numbers is one of the few scholars in the battle over evolution who remains widely respected by both evolutionists and creationists. In fact, he was once recruited by both sides to serve as an expert witness in a Louisiana trial on evolution. (He went with the ACLU.)”—Steve Paulson, Salon

Odd...

Yep. Prior to Price's attempt to convert Christians to his new doctrines, most creationists were old Earth creationists. That was the form of creationism presented in the Scopes trial, for example, and was the form advocated by most Baptists like Spurgeon.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is not to say that all evangelical Christians abandoned their traditional beliefs. Many of them remain theistic evolutionists or old Earth Creationists.

But the Adventists have been remarkably successful in proselytizing their new doctrines among other Christians.

 

[NobleMouse]

Can you verify that it was the 7th Day A's?

Odd... They have never been a major influence on mainstream Christianity. So, I wonder where you are getting your facts from.

Just adding my 2 cents here... I've heard the reference to 7th Day A's as far as the source of creationism as well. According to Wikipedia, the 7th Day Adventist denomination was formally established in the United States in 1863. That said, James Ussher calculated the well-known date of 4004 BC back around 1650. We can go significantly further back to early church fathers that also believed in a young earth such as Ambrose of Milan, Basil of Caesarea, and Ephrem the Syrian and this view was held by various theologians throughout the middle ages and protestant reformation... all before the establishment of the 7th Day A's.

So, it would seem that crediting the 7th Day A's as the originator of creationism would be like crediting Frank Whittle as the pioneer of flight. Whittle may have pioneered the initial jet engine designs similar to those now used in modern airliners; however, the pioneers of flight were the Wright brothers, before Whittle ever thought of the first jet engine design.

 

[The Barbarian]

There were always people who thought the world was only a few thousand years old. Mostly, creationists before Price spread the Adventist doctrine of YE creationism to other Protestants, were old Earth creationists.

YE is a modern doctrine. As you see, it was invented by the 7th Day Adventists.

 

[GenemZ]

This is not to say that all evangelical Christians abandoned their traditional beliefs. Many of them remain theistic evolutionists or old Earth Creationists.

Old earth creationists are not followers of theistic evolution by default. Only those who fail to (or, refuse to) see what Genesis One (and other passages) says in the Hebrew and Greek texts. They may surrender to such a point of view out of having nowhere else to turn. If the Bible did not say certain things (that requires serious study to see?) We would most likely all be theistic evolutionists.

 

[GenemZ]

There were always people who thought the world was only a few thousand years old. Mostly, creationists before Price spread the Adventist doctrine of YE creationism to other Protestants, were old Earth creationists.

YE is a modern doctrine. As you see, it was invented by the 7th Day Adventists.

This current "created world" that graces the surface of our planet is relatively new in relation to the age of this planet itself. For other creations of different worlds had preceded this one. Those prehistoric created worlds fulfilled a purpose of God's for the angels. After they fulfilled their purposes they were judged and replaced. The multiple past worlds served as classrooms for the angels who advanced in their education just like we did after starting going to school. Each creation was the next level up in grade in God's teaching for the angels.

This current creation?

Now is the time for man to have his turn in the "School of God."

 

[The Barbarian]

This current "created world" that graces the surface of our planet is relatively new in relation to the age of this planet itself. For other creations of different worlds had preceded this one.

Two problems with that:
1. No evidence for it.
2. No scriptural support for it.

Those prehistoric created worlds fulfilled a purpose of God's for the angels. After they fulfilled their purposes they were judged and replaced. The multiple past worlds served as classrooms for the angels who advanced in their education just like we did after starting going to school. Each creation was the next level up in grade in God's teaching for the angels.

See (1.) and (2.)

 

[The Barbarian]

Old earth creationists are not followers of theistic evolution by default.

Don't remember anyone saying that they are.

Only those who fail to (or, refuse to) see what Genesis One (and other passages) says in the Hebrew and Greek texts. They may surrender to such a point of view out of having nowhere else to turn. If the Bible did not say certain things (that requires serious study to see?) We would most likely all be theistic evolutionists.

So far, no one has come up with a compelling argument for such a novel interpretation.

 

[GenemZ]

Two problems with that:
1. No evidence for it.
2. No scriptural support for it.

Are you asking me in a round about way for evidence and Scriptural support?

The way you speak makes it sound certain that you know there is none. I do not work that way.
You seem determined to keep it that way. Do you have an open mind?

 

[GenemZ]

So far, no one has come up with a compelling argument for such a novel interpretation.

I am perplexed. You present yourself as being well read. But, evidently you are not.

 

[GenemZ]

It free online here....


Without Form and Void - Chapter 1