We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[NxNW]

Thank you for supporting my argument, that no one can prove that a natural process was responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

Nobody is claiming otherwise. As others have stated, I'm not sure what your point is. The TOE has held up for many decades by making correct predictions, and has failed to be falsified, which is as good as it gets.

 

[The Barbarian]

You've never met anyone who has said, "I used to believe the Bible, until I found out science says ..."?

I've seen lots of "I used to believe what people told me about the Bible until I found out about the science." Not the same thing, except to those who think they are authorized to speak for God.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are genetically more different than humans and chimpanzees.

So?

You sure you want "the chimpanzee and the human are still... apes?"

Only on paper.

 

[NxNW]

"carefully validated" ... now that's funny!
Pray tell, how can an explanation of how mammals (allegedly) descended from fish, for example, be "validated"?

By making correct predictions. For example, if said descent happened, then a transitional fish would be expected in a certain time period. Digging commenced in the appropriate layer and Lo and Behold, the Tiktaalik was found as predicted! This is very strong evidence for mammals having descended from fish.

Anyone with a vivid imagination can dream up a story about how such a transition might have occurred according to the theory of evolution, but validating its truthfulness is another matter - in fact,validation is impossible.

Confirmation of predictions is very possible, as illustrated above. The TOE also predicts that we won't find a fossil mammal in the precambrian, and so far that's never happened.

The truth is, a great many so-called scientific explanations of how prehistoric life-forms evolved are heavily laden with hypotheses that can't be tested, which means such explanations don't even qualify as science.

A confirmed prediction is certainly very strong evidence, and definitely qualifies as science.

 

[NxNW]

If it makes you happy to belief that there is no God, that you're just a bag of chemicals and that this life is all there is to existence, good luck to you.

I'd rather accept the evidence of a harsh truth, than cling to a comforting story for which there is no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've seen lots of "I used to believe what people told me about the Bible until I found out about the science."

Look how you worded that.

Why didn't you say:

"I used to believe what people told me about the Bible until I found out what people were saying about science"?

Could it have something to do with faith in what you're hearing?

Not the same thing, except to those who think they are authorized to speak for God.

Are those who put their faith in what they hear science telling them thinking they are authorized to speak for Samael?

 

[NxNW]

It's alleged that fish are the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals, for example, but no one can prove that reptiles and mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

It's more appropriate to discuss evidence and predictions, than proof. Outside formal math, science really doesn't prove things.

The process of common could have been the result of a supernatural process ... unless you can prove that it could not have been the result of a supernatural process.

It could be, but does this hypothesis make any testable predictions at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd rather accept the evidence of a harsh truth,

Would you like me to post some harsh pictures of aftermaths (evidence) of those who thought they were being true?

 

[BCP1928]

Why would believers turn their backs on all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to become atheists?

They don't. Believers who accept the theory of evolution don't have to turn their backs on it and generally don't..It's what people are telling them the Bible says that they're turning theor backs on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The theory of evolution certainly supports atheism, which explains why so many atheists are psychologically addicted to it and defend it so zealously.

The theory of evolution describes how life diversified and changed through time on this planet. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence or belief in any god. I defend it because it is a powerful explanation that is under attack, primarily from the religiously motivated opponents of science. Leaving your religion had no impact on my acceptance of, support for, and defense of evolution.

It's interesting that more than 80% (if memory serves) of evolutionary biologists are atheists. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Don't think that is the case. Do you have a citation for this claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

They don't. Believers who accept the theory of evolution don't have to turn there backs on it and generally don't..It's what people are telling them the Bible says that they're turning theor backs on.

Did you see the phrase I was addressing?

"Believers becoming atheists"

 

[River Jordan]

Almost every scientific paper that attempts to explain how prehistoric life-forms evolved will contain hypotheses that can't be tested, which amounts to pseudo-scientific story-telling, not true science.

Since you can't support your claim, I can't take it seriously.

 

[Buzzard3]

Your response has been and continues to be nothing more than "I don't believe it"

What an interesting comment. Which law of science says one must "believe" a scientific theory?

 

[Fervent]

They don't. Believers who accept the theory of evolution don't have to turn there backs on it and generally don't..It's what people are telling them the Bible says that they're turning theor backs on.

There's more to it than that, as there is an establishable timeline from the Genesis genealogies that puts the Earth at roughly 6000 years. It's more often a particular view of the Bible that is the culprit that leads to science denialism, as the verbal plenary view of inspiration is made pretty untenable with even the slightest acceptance of critical inquiry.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What an interesting comment. Which law of science says one must "believe" a scientific theory?

Science isn't built on belief. @Ophiolite is merely commenting that your "counter argument" when presented with science (facts/theory/observation/etc) is basically to say that you don't believe it. That is no argument at all and certainly not one that can counter evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

What an interesting comment. Which law of science says one must "believe" a scientific theory?

You've conflated different meanings of "believe", such as:
1. "I believe in God."
2. "Based on evidence, scientists believe that tectonic plates have moved thousands of miles over millions of years."
3. "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

 

[Buzzard3]

In other words, embracing evolution can (and does) lead to atheism.

There's some truth to your comment - I've encountered former Christians online who did in fact become atheists after being convinced by the theory of evolution that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process. Come in, sucker!

 

[Fervent]

You've never met anyone who has said, "I used to believe the Bible, until I found out science says ..."?

Or, "I had questions my pastor couldn't answer, so I left the church."

These are more often due to an all-or-nothing approach to belief that sets a peculiar understanding of the Bible as the benchmark for belief. It's not that evolution led them to atheism, but a modern line in the sand that presents them with a false either/or. In my case, accepting evolution increased my faith, and the opposition to my acceptance by well meaning but largely ignorant friends nearly drove me away from the church(though not from faith in Christ).

 

[Buzzard3]

You've never met anyone who has said, "I used to believe the Bible, until I found out science says ..."?

Or, "I had questions my pastor couldn't answer, so I left the church."

Quotes from William B. Provine:

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either." (Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994)

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” (1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address)

"As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." No Free Will (1999) p.123

Remembering William Provine (1942–2015) | Uncommon Descent

From Wikipedia:
William Ball Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) was an American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics. He was the Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor at Cornell University and was a professor in the Departments of History, Science and Technology Studies, and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

These are more often due to an all-or-nothing approach to belief that sets a peculiar understanding of the Bible as the benchmark for belief. It's not that evolution led them to atheism, but a modern line in the sand that presents them with a false either/or. In my case, accepting evolution increased my faith, and the opposition to my acceptance by well meaning but largely ignorant friends nearly drove me away from the church(though not from faith in Christ).

Let me ask you a sincere question:

Do you profess yourself to be wise?

And if not, why not?

Romans 1:22a Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

After all, doesn't "Homo sapiens" mean "wise man"?