Is There Any Reason to Doubt Evolution If Faith Is Not A Factor?

homohabilis117

Chew Manioc
Feb 22, 2016
126
26
United States
✟15,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
My question is: if belief in various interpretations of scripture were not a factor, does any reason exist to doubt evolution on evidential grounds? I ask this question because many proponents of creation/ID claim that their theories offer a better explanation of the evidence, implying that faith based considerations have (at least for the moment) been suspended in their analyses.

So my question is directed at those who think that on the grounds of the evidence alone, the theory of evolution fails as an adequate description of material reality. But, would you have been led to these conclusion had faith NOT been a motivating factor to begin with?

If you believe that faith should serve as the starting point for interpreting reality, responding to this question will probably waste both our time. I am interested in talking here with those that think a case can be made against evolution based solely on the evidence.
 

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Possibly. Science throughout history has a habit of producing quotes like, "Hey, you know this scientific fact that we taught you these past 50 years or so? Turns out it was false and we have a new explanation for it!"

So in your mind evolution is about as weakly established as the idea that the elements of the world consist of earth, air, fire and water?
 
Upvote 0

John Hyperspace

UnKnown ReMember
Oct 3, 2016
2,385
1,272
53
Hyperspace
✟35,143.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My question is: if belief in various interpretations of scripture were not a factor, does any reason exist to doubt evolution on evidential grounds? I ask this question because many proponents of creation/ID claim that their theories offer a better explanation of the evidence, implying that faith based considerations have (at least for the moment) been suspended in their analyses.

So my question is directed at those who think that on the grounds of the evidence alone, the theory of evolution fails as an adequate description of material reality. But, would you have been led to these conclusion had faith NOT been a motivating factor to begin with?

If you believe that faith should serve as the starting point for interpreting reality, responding to this question will probably waste both our time. I am interested in talking here with those that think a case can be made against evolution based solely on the evidence.

I believe so. Note that I am Christian, but I'm lead to understand the bible in a much different way than most; and I do not believe the "carnal/earthly/literal" understanding is at all relevant (or, even really knowable in any manner we might call "certainty") so it does not factor into my beliefs about things carnal, such as the idea of "evolution" (I am presuming you are using the term in the popular usage denoting "common ancestry").

But my, let's call it, lack of belief, in evolution (I neither deny it nor affirm it) is because of men. I know men. They are incompetent reasoners, no matter if we call them "genius" or not. They are very prone to error, and very prone to commit reasoning fallacies without ever even noticing. Men are also very biased by their worldview, and will usually "interpret" all data in accordance with this worldview to a fault of dogmatic denial/acceptance of what they don't believe/believe.

So when you ask "is there any reason to doubt 'theory X'?" my reply is, certainly yes; there is reason to doubt anything in which the reasoning of men is involved. Laboratory science/applied science can alleviate doubt by rigorous repetitive analysis; pure theoretics like evolution do not have this luxury, so they will always be open to doubt since they can never actually produce evidential substance which isn't filtered through the lens of the world-view of the man interpreting the data.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
My question is: if belief in various interpretations of scripture were not a factor, does any reason exist to doubt evolution on evidential grounds?

Lee Strobel's DVD "The Case for a Creator" uses 21st century science to address this question. He interviews scientists from a wide range of disciplines who believe modern scientific research is now pointing more toward a supernatural Creator than to the Time, Chance, and Darwinian evolution theory. It's very interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that evolution, like every scientific theory, is a theory that is subject to change and be proven/disproven later like everything a 1920's science textbook taught.

Science is only advanced by fallible human minds
But the theory of evolution remains the only plausible explanation of the observed diversity of live. It explains all of the scientific evidence on hand and is contradicted by none of it. That's as good as it gets in science. And except for an eccentric subset of Evangelical Protestant believers, it does not rule out a Creator.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I believe so. Note that I am Christian, but I'm lead to understand the bible in a much different way than most; and I do not believe the "carnal/earthly/literal" understanding is at all relevant (or, even really knowable in any manner we might call "certainty") so it does not factor into my beliefs about things carnal, such as the idea of "evolution" (I am presuming you are using the term in the popular usage denoting "common ancestry").

But my, let's call it, lack of belief, in evolution (I neither deny it nor affirm it) is because of men. I know men. They are incompetent reasoners, no matter if we call them "genius" or not. They are very prone to error, and very prone to commit reasoning fallacies without ever even noticing. Men are also very biased by their worldview, and will usually "interpret" all data in accordance with this worldview to a fault of dogmatic denial/acceptance of what they don't believe/believe.

So when you ask "is there any reason to doubt 'theory X'?" my reply is, certainly yes; there is reason to doubt anything in which the reasoning of men is involved. Laboratory science/applied science can alleviate doubt by rigorous repetitive analysis; pure theoretics like evolution do not have this luxury, so they will always be open to doubt since they can never actually produce evidential substance which isn't filtered through the lens of the world-view of the man interpreting the data.

While it is entirely true that scientists are fallible human beings, the methodology of science works over time to minimize human frailties and to edge ever closer to better and clearer understandings. That is why "proof" is never claimed because new information can potentially disprove a theory or cause it to be modified. With the Theory of Evolution this process has been going on now for over 150 years. To date the evidence accumulated has been massive and no serious scientific challenge has ever gained traction. But that could still happen. So my answer to the OP is that in the absence of faith based objections, the ToE would be almost totally unchallenged.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I don't deny that at all. Evolution does not explain to me how the world began, it just explains to me how there's such a diversity of species.
And that is all it is intended to do. Science doesn't really offer an opinion of how the world began, any farther back than the first few seconds of the existence of the universe, nor is there presently a coherent theory of how life began.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Hyperspace

UnKnown ReMember
Oct 3, 2016
2,385
1,272
53
Hyperspace
✟35,143.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
the methodology of science works over time to minimize human frailties

You can't minimize the human frailty of interpretation filtered through paradigm, when the evidence of the paradigm is itself the filter of interpretation. Also, bear in mind I'm not in any way saying "deny it" but I'm also not saying "accept it"; what I am saying is that, whenever a conclusion is based solely on the ability of men to reason and interpret, there is cause to doubt their conclusions.

Also, I would propose that logic and science do not play well together; so logical doubt and scientific doubt do not use the same axioms. Citing "almost complete unchallenged" carries with it many reasoning fallacies precluding it from being a relevant statement of support. As I'm sure you're aware, a great many paradigms can be "completely unchallenged" yet still false. It's a form of numbers/popularity fallacy which assumes challenge is expected, and also assumes challenge can be initiated.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
With science where the tread hits the road is in model building and the bottom line in model building is "does it work?" Science works! Untilwe come up with a model that works better, then the old model will continue to be useful.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You can't minimize the human frailty of interpretation filtered through paradigm, when the evidence of the paradigm is itself the filter of interpretation.
It would be interesting to hear your description of the "paradigm" you think science is filtered through.
 
Upvote 0

RC1970

post tenebras lux
Jul 7, 2015
1,903
1,558
✟80,684.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
My question is: if belief in various interpretations of scripture were not a factor, does any reason exist to doubt evolution on evidential grounds? I ask this question because many proponents of creation/ID claim that their theories offer a better explanation of the evidence, implying that faith based considerations have (at least for the moment) been suspended in their analyses.

So my question is directed at those who think that on the grounds of the evidence alone, the theory of evolution fails as an adequate description of material reality. But, would you have been led to these conclusion had faith NOT been a motivating factor to begin with?

If you believe that faith should serve as the starting point for interpreting reality, responding to this question will probably waste both our time. I am interested in talking here with those that think a case can be made against evolution based solely on the evidence.
Yes, a case can be made solely on evidence, as long as you consider philosophical arguments as evidence. There was a time when "Theology" was the queen of the sciences and philosophy was her handmaiden. The ancient thinkers were way ahead of this faithless generation.

As the Apostle says: "professing to be wise, they became fools..."
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Philosophical arguments employed in the service of religious belief have very often sunk to absurd levels --- "there can only be just four gospels because there are just four winds and four corners of the earth".

Yes, as the Apostle says: "professing to be wise, they became fools..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Hyperspace

UnKnown ReMember
Oct 3, 2016
2,385
1,272
53
Hyperspace
✟35,143.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It would be interesting to hear your description of the "paradigm" you think science is filtered through.

Well, evolution is filtered through the paradigm of evolution. Any data has to be interpreted according to a paradigm, otherwise it can't be interpreted. So the human frailty of interpretation through paradigm is always the beginning and ending of any theoretical science. If I teach you to see the world a specific way, then that is the specific way you are going to see the evidence; as a part of a whole; therefore a "world view". The problem is there in all forms of theoretic interpretation from religion to science. The way you are taught to interpret it is how you are going to interpret it.

Someone has a picture in their signature that says something like "What if I told you a single paragraph of logic cannot overturn a lifetime of indoctrination" and that statement is true along all lines of theoretics, from religion to science. Again, try to note that I'm not saying "it is wrong" or such, I am saying, there is cause to doubt. If a person has no doubt toward a theoretic construct, they are not fit to evaluate it, either logically, or, scientifically.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well, evolution is filtered through the paradigm of evolution. Any data has to be interpreted according to a paradigm, otherwise it can't be interpreted. So the human frailty of interpretation through paradigm is always the beginning and ending of any theoretical science. If I teach you to see the world a specific way, then that is the specific way you are going to see the evidence; as a part of a whole; therefore a "world view". The problem is there in all forms of theoretic interpretation from religion to science. The way you are taught to interpret it is how you are going to interpret it.

Someone has a picture in their signature that says something like "What if I told you a single paragraph of logic cannot overturn a lifetime of indoctrination" and that statement is true along all lines of theoretics, from religion to science. Again, try to note that I'm not saying "it is wrong" or such, I am saying, there is cause to doubt. If a person has no doubt toward a theoretic construct, they are not fit to evaluate it, either logically, or, scientifically.

An excellent examination of this problem is found in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
 
Upvote 0

John Hyperspace

UnKnown ReMember
Oct 3, 2016
2,385
1,272
53
Hyperspace
✟35,143.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
An excellent examination of this problem is found in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

I hear what you're saying. I think in the end, I have a stricter threshold of the sufficiency criteria, you know what I mean by that? Theoretical propositions (along with theoretically interpreted evidences) are by their nature insufficient to generate belief for me. I suppose we all have different sufficiency thresholds and mine is pretty difficult to cross. Perhaps one may say, I'm being too skeptical, even to a fault; but I would say that from my experience I'm sufficiently skeptical. In the end "is doubt justified?" will always be a relative question. Religionists and scientists, and all their disciples disdain my skepticism of their propositional doctrines, but it's my nature.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You can't minimize the human frailty of interpretation filtered through paradigm, when the evidence of the paradigm is itself the filter of interpretation. Also, bear in mind I'm not in any way saying "deny it" but I'm also not saying "accept it"; what I am saying is that, whenever a conclusion is based solely on the ability of men to reason and interpret, there is cause to doubt their conclusions.

Also, I would propose that logic and science do not play well together; so logical doubt and scientific doubt do not use the same axioms. Citing "almost complete unchallenged" carries with it many reasoning fallacies precluding it from being a relevant statement of support. As I'm sure you're aware, a great many paradigms can be "completely unchallenged" yet still false. It's a form of numbers/popularity fallacy which assumes challenge is expected, and also assumes challenge can be initiated.

I'm sorry, but the above thinking on your part is itself an example of human logic that cannot be trusted and therefore I don't have to give it much credence.

Logic and science DO play well together.

The evidence in favor of evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory is vast and satisfactory; there is no scientific reason to doubt it. The doubts that arise, these days, come from those who deny evolution because of religious reasons. They deserve as much respect as those who opposed Gallileo and Copernicus. They choose to remain in error because they reject learning about what God did from the things, themselves, that were made by God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Hyperspace

UnKnown ReMember
Oct 3, 2016
2,385
1,272
53
Hyperspace
✟35,143.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The evidence

The young earth creationists will also deluge a man with "physical evidence"; but all such "physical evidence" (from both camps) is merely data that must be interpreted. Interpret the data through your paradigm and you will have physical evidence of your paradigm. This is how it works. This is why young earth creationists have "sufficient evidence" and this is why old earth evolutionists have "sufficient evidence" when both really only have illusory evidence emergent from their own paradigm superimposed upon the raw data.

The doubts that arise, these days, come from those who deny evolution because of religious reasons.

I'm not doubting for religious reasons. My doubt is coming from knowledge of the incompetency of the reasoning of men, and the blind and biased faith men will place into whatever they believe; and interpret reality in like to their own bias. Mostly, though, in this thread, I am talking with lay people; not scientists in any relevant or encompassing field. As such, yes, you lay people have very much reason to doubt what you are being told. If you do not doubt your authorities, you are simply engaging in blind faith, and neither young earth Christian or old earth atheist is any different in mind and thought: you are two sides of the same coin. The only difference is in the words expressing your blind faith in your teachers' abilities to reason correctly.

They deserve as much respect as those who opposed Gallileo and Copernicus. They choose to remain in error because they reject learning about what God did from the things, themselves, that were made by God.

It was the Aristotlean scientists that opposed Galileo. They believed in strict observation of the natural world and veiwed Galileo's use of a telescope as superfluous, and his heliocentric ideology as a direct threat to the geocentric paradigm of the Aristotlean scientists. It was science that opposed Galileo; bad science.

Bad science which was near universally accepted, which remained unchallenged for centuries; bad science which had seas of believing laypersons all blindly trusting in the ability of their teachers to reason correctly. Bad science which was founded on raw data interpreted through the lens of an established paradigm of scientific thought. Bad science which had plenty of reason to be doubted; but never was doubted; all who doubted were scoffed at (or, worse). There is nothing more damaging to science than a sea of laypersons all blindly accepting a doctrine with no doubt. There is also nothing more damaging to religion. Two sides. One coin.
 
Upvote 0