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

[Hidden In Him]

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?

You are asking me if I would have been? No, and a resounding No. I was not raised Christian, which means I was utterly brainwashed by Evolution, and would have remained in darkness unless the light of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ entered in, and began revealing to me truths from falsehoods, first in spiritual matters and then in the matter of evolution vs. Creationism. I went back to college almost immediately after getting saved, and the question bothered me. So I took upper level courses in paleontology, and found out quickly that punctuated equilibrium was a total farce, especially when the prof put up charts showing where they had actual fossil evidence and where the rest had to be filled in by little black dots with no actual basis in fact.

This is a spiritual matter, and it takes the Spirit of God to remove the veil. Those Christians who were raised in church may not recognize it so clearly because they didn't walk in the darkness the rest of the world is currently blanketed in.

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 hope I didn't waste your time. The issue has great relevance to the spiritual war. Evolution didn't just happen. It was devised by the Devil himself and perpetrated upon humanity with the specific intent of causing us to doubt God's word.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Maybe I didn't explain properly, I have no issues with information being lost in allele frequency, as in genetic drift.

So when you look at short winged swallows for example:
Are Birds Evolving to Avoid Cars? | Smart News | Smithsonian

Note though, the information for short wings already existed within the gene pool. I guess my issue would be if there was the claim that new information was added to a gene pool without attributing it to anything.

Well, the attribution is there. New information is attributed to mutations and the action of natural selection on the mutations.

 

[danstribe]

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.

The first thing I thought about was that the angels were created before the earth and they were placed here before Adam was created. I think that God put them here to get the earth ready for mankind but they rebelled with Satan as their leader, this could have taken billions of years to influence what once were holy angels. God of course equipped the earth with the building blocks of life and perhaps the angels took it from there and through experimentation and trial and error (just like men do today) they learned to manipulate DNA and genetics to create subtle differences in animal life starting with the simplest life forms (single cell bacteria?) If you think about what man can do today just think of what an angel would be capable of over billions of years? They never die and their minds are far beyond even the best computer. What may look like "evolution" was the angels manipulation of living things. This is why I think the dinosaurs were so huge and vicious, the angels' minds were becoming corrupted by the adversary to point that they thought they were so highly intelligent that they could run things instead of God! God of course crushed their rebellion and wiped out their corrupted creations and when the time was right He created Adam and the animals in Genesis. But Satan and the fallen angels were still here and you know how the story goes. Just my thoughts.

 

[mohmed]

If Jesus was Lord I want you to show me which one Verse Only one phrase of your holy book Any copy of the Bible Where we find that Jesus said I am God Or he said, worship me And swear by God even todey If you can open the Bible and read to us John one one So what do you say? does it say On the word of Jesus i am god Or worship me no what does it say John says In the beginning was the Word and the Word It was with God and The Word was God Ask Christian scholars Where did John come from this word? And decades before the appearance of John There was a Greek philosopher named Philo This sentence was written by his philosophy In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God and The Word was God Which John copied And put it in his book called the Gospel of John!!! I ask the Christian scholars And I say And I say See that word God It first appeared in this verse In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God I ask what is synonymous with the Greek word of God? You should know this because it is the basis of your religion All old texts are available in Greek only In the Greek language...What is the word that is synonymous with the Word of God?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If Jesus was Lord I want you to show me which one Verse Only one phrase of your holy book Any copy of the Bible Where we find that Jesus said I am God Or he said, worship me And swear by God even todey If you can open the Bible and read to us John one one So what do you say? does it say On the word of Jesus i am god Or worship me no what does it say John says In the beginning was the Word and the Word It was with God and The Word was God Ask Christian scholars Where did John come from this word? And decades before the appearance of John There was a Greek philosopher named Philo This sentence was written by his philosophy In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God and The Word was God Which John copied And put it in his book called the Gospel of John!!! I ask the Christian scholars And I say And I say See that word God It first appeared in this verse In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God I ask what is synonymous with the Greek word of God? You should know this because it is the basis of your religion All old texts are available in Greek only In the Greek language...What is the word that is synonymous with the Word of God?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. NASU

 

[The Empirical Agnostic]

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?

There is a common misconception that faith and science are at odds, but this is false.


The Christian faith, for example, uses science to spread the Gospel at home and abroad. There are missionaries who fly to far flung places and once on the ground, they drill wells, install solar panels, administer medicine, set up viewings of films and visual educational materials, all the while documenting the process and communicating with their home church via smartphones. Science is good and people of faith do not have a problem with it whatsoever.


Let’s be honest. The belief that “faith” and “science” are at odds has some truth, yet is a double misnomer. If one desired to communicate honestly and accurately, they would need to use the traditional Judeo-Christian view of Origins outlined in Genesis in place of the word “faith” and use the idea of Darwinian biological evolution in place of the word “science.”


So, is the traditional Judeo-Christian view of Origins outlined in Genesis at odds with the idea of Darwinian biological evolution... or vice versa?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .Let’s be honest. The belief that “faith” and “science” are at odds has some truth, yet is a double misnomer. If one desired to communicate honestly and accurately, they would need to use the traditional Judeo-Christian view of Origins outlined in Genesis in place of the word “faith” and use the idea of Darwinian biological evolution in place of the word “science.”

The biological fact of evolution is a firmly established part of science. Evolution is not called "Darwinian" evolution by scientists, however, that is an archaic description. It's just "biological evolution".

So, is the traditional Judeo-Christian view of Origins outlined in Genesis at odds with the idea of Darwinian biological evolution... or vice versa?

And there are alternate traditional views.

 

[dannheim]

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.

.

The complete lack of any transitional creatures that were predicted by Charles Darwin leaves me with grave doubt. There is no proof that one kind could evolve into another kind. There is absolutely no fossil record to support that even man evolved from a common ancestry shared with apes.. The varied species within a kind is abundantly clear. I think it's foolish to believe that man evolved from a singular cellular organism and actually contradicts the law of entropy.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The complete lack of any transitional creatures that were predicted by Charles Darwin leaves me with grave doubt.

Many transitional fossils have been found, starting with archaeopteryx for birds, going on to tiktaalik for transtions from sea to land, and of course who can forget the recent series of transitional whale fossil discoveries? And these are not all there is, in case you try to pull the ol' "So you depend on just these . . . " ploy.

There is no proof that one kind could evolve into another kind.

Except, of course, the left over vestiges, the shared junk DNA, little details like that . . . your ear wiggling muscles, for example, serve no purpose except to remind us all how we humans have descended from a previous species that could, actually, move its ears to good effect.

There is absolutely no fossil record to support that even man evolved from a common ancestry shared with apes..

Unless, of course, one acknowledges the discovery of australopithecus, homo erectus, and such . .

The varied species within a kind is abundantly clear.

Didn't used to be. Its only in the past twenty years creationists have even conceded that much.

I think it's foolish to believe that man evolved from a singular cellular organism

Actually, its foolish to deny it happened. The matter is settled, scientifically.

and actually contradicts the law of entropy.

A common assertion that never bears up under examination.

 

[shakewell]

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.

Are you not asking for the impossible? Are you insisting that one must choose to use evidence to the exclusion of faith? I don't think that can be done in a truthful way.
Both evidence and faith exist and are always and only good things. They are harmonious. They're only at odds with each other in the misperceptions of a man.
Where is there evidence without faith? Where is there faith without evidence? I think only within a lie but never within the truth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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!"

This pretty well sums it all up.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

Evolution is the best explanation we have based on the current evidence. New evidence often changes our understanding.

Many lives were saved when doctors were told to: "wash your hands". In the mid-19th century, about five women in 1,000 died in deliveries performed by midwives or at home. Yet when doctors working in the best maternity hospitals in Europe and America performed deliveries, the maternal death rate was often 10 to 20 times greater.

In 1850, Ignaz Semmelweis saved lives with three words: wash your hands

 

[more4less]

 

[Saint JOHN]

My 10c worth....a word often missed in these sort of debates....

theory
'???ri/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;............

Oh yes lets not forget all the fossil evidence ???(none); millions of variations of all creatures changing; like foxes into whales or visa versa; honey eaters dead by the thousands waiting for beaks to get long enough ..etc etc..symbiosis..etc..

I mean really !? evolution is such a lame duck its right up there with Micky mouse and Peter Pan.........they may as well teach how fairies jump around the garden !?

just a smoke screen not to believe...

eventually this biological machine will stop for each person...you will have to pay the piper eventually ! whether you believe or not....

Resistance is Futile...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

My 10c worth....a word often missed in these sort of debates....

theory
'???ri/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;............

Oh yes lets not forget all the fossil evidence ???(none); millions of variations of all creatures changing; like foxes into whales or visa versa; honey eaters dead by the thousands waiting for beaks to get long enough ..etc etc..symbiosis..etc..

I mean really !? evolution is such a lame duck its right up there with Micky mouse and Peter Pan.........they may as well teach how fairies jump around the garden !?

just a smoke screen not to believe...

eventually this biological machine will stop for each person...you will have to pay the piper eventually ! whether you believe or not....

Resistance is Futile...

The above denial of evolution was written by a human who ironically has ear wiggling muscles, utterly useless to him, but mute evidence of having descended from a species that could actually move its ears to good effect. He also has a coccyx, mute evidence of having descended from a species with a tail. He also has a multiple digits on his feet he never uses, mute evidence of having descended from a species that could grasp things with its hind limbs.

 

[sfs]

theory
'???ri/
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;............

"scientific theory
noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution."

I mean really !? evolution is such a lame duck its right up there with Micky mouse and Peter Pan.........they may as well teach how fairies jump around the garden !?

I'm a geneticist. Quite a lot of what I do -- of the data I handle -- makes no sense if evolution is not true. Evolution is supported by vast swathes of evidence from a range of fields, and is accepted by virtually all biologists, including the great majority of Christian biologists. By all means, dispute it if you want, but please do us the courtesy of (a) learning something about the theory and the evidence before commenting, and (b) putting together a coherent argument.

 

[more4less]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If Jesus was Lord I want you to show me which one Verse Only one phrase of your holy book Any copy of the Bible Where we find that Jesus said I am God Or he said, worship me And swear by God even todey If you can open the Bible and read to us John one one So what do you say? does it say On the word of Jesus i am god Or worship me no what does it say John says In the beginning was the Word and the Word It was with God and The Word was God Ask Christian scholars Where did John come from this word? And decades before the appearance of John There was a Greek philosopher named Philo This sentence was written by his philosophy In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God and The Word was God Which John copied And put it in his book called the Gospel of John!!! I ask the Christian scholars And I say And I say See that word God It first appeared in this verse In the beginning was the word And the Word was with God I ask what is synonymous with the Greek word of God? You should know this because it is the basis of your religion All old texts are available in Greek only In the Greek language...What is the word that is synonymous with the Word of God?

I don't see the point in your question. You want to have a verse that says Jesus is God and you reject already a verse that says Jesus is God? Well, why bother? This could go on all day. My advice is to turn your question, not to us, we who will merely reply in ways you have heard before, but rather to God. Ask God to reveal His truth to you and wait until He does so. Then be patient and keep asking.

 

[Smidlee]

If Jesus was Lord I want you to show me which one Verse Only one phrase of your holy book Any copy of the Bible Where we find that Jesus said I am God Or he said, worship me And swear by God even todey If you can open the Bible and read to us John one one So what do you say? does it say On the word of Jesus i am god ...

John 20:28-29
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
"Jesus rebuked him and said Thomas, you are mistaken there is only one God and He is in heaven."
..............Wait that not what Jesus said
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me , thou hast believe (My Lord and my God); blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed (My Lord and my God)

 

[rjs330]

Yes there is because evolution as stated is a theory that has not been confirmed by any repeatable tests. It is only an assumption based upon unsupported beliefs. When I say unsupported I mean there is no scientific testing that has confirmed evolution. Not the evolution proclaimed that all life came from one single original creature. It is an unsubstantiated theory.