What is the general opinion today regarding creation vs. evolution?

[cindymc]

Without context, those quotes mean nothing. Simple dishonist quote mining by creationists, which it typical. I would suggest that Satan is repsonsible for the dishonesty shown in such exercises because clearly there is an intent to mislead and bear false witness.

Here is the article that the quote from Ruse comes from. It is plainly obvious that the quote is out of context.

Try again.

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ek/MRuse002.html

Notice the conclusion.

I never stated that all of those quotes were by creationists. Also, simply quoting someone doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that person has ever said. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I do agree with his assertion that evolution has become like a religion. That was my point.

 

[notto]

I never stated that all of those quotes were by creationists. Also, simply quoting someone doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything that person has ever said. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I do agree with his assertion that evolution has become like a religion. That was my point.

Is it safe to say that you haven't read any of the original material that those quotes came from?

I took one of them, showed that it was 'mined' to make it look like the person quoted meant something they never intened. This is dishonest and the work of Satan.

He is NOT saying that evolution has become like a religion in the same sense you are implying. The science of evolution is nothing like a religion and he clearly says that. The science taught in the classroom is NOT like a religion which was your original point. IT IS SCIENCE.

Ruse's point is that when people attach moral and ethical values to evolution, they are not doing the science of evolution and are treating it like a religion. You will also notice that it is creationists like you who do this most (such as suggesting that it is a lie from satan). Ruses quote is directed at YOU for equating evolution with religion when statements like that could not be further from the truth.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

Wrong, the theory of evolution is a relgion not science.

Now I'm utterly confused.... Evolution says nothing about anything that is supernatural, nor does it say anything about what is ethical, nor does it answer the reason for our existence. Evolution isn't religion in so far as it doesn't answer these questions and doesn't attempt to do so. Unless I'm confused about what a religion is, in which case I beg that you enlighten me...

 

[cindymc]

*sigh* Where's the head beating against a brick wall smiley when you need it?

 

[notto]

What does that have to do with evolution?

I would agree with this man. When I look at the majesty of the biodiversity of life on this planet, i see the truth of God creating as well.

That is why evolution is not a religion. Many (most) people who study evolution and the creation of God are Christians (just like Compton).

Again, evolution is science, not a religion, just like physics.

Thanks for showing us that people can accept mainstream science and still be Christians. Most in the US are.

 

[cindymc]

That wasn't a quote I posted, that was just my new sig.

And I have to disagree with you that Darwinian evolution is 'science', or at least good science.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

*sigh* Where's the head beating against a brick wall smiley when you need it?

I don't really see the answer to my question. Perhaps you are refering to the fact that you suggested the OP may have not meant the normal since of religion, but you aren't the OP... Taking your faith argument though, I see some quote mining, but I don't really trust that anymore, ever since I've seen people make quotes that are one way look like another...

 

[notto]

That wasn't a quote I posted, that was just my new sig.

And I have to disagree with you that Darwinian evolution is 'science', or at least good science.

Great sig, it demonstrates my point nicely. Evolution is not a religion, it is science. Just ask the scientists who work with it (and honestly read their work instead of quote mining from a secondary source who's intent is to deceive you).

What part of evolutionary theory is not good science? What books and resources have you used to study the science of evolution? Were they actually published by biologists? Where do you get your information on evolution that makes you qualified to make such a statement?

It's like saying that 'Physics' or 'Geology' or 'Astronomy' isn't science. It is an absurd statement.

 

[tryptophan]

First of all... you sound more like an atheist than a Christian. Second, he isn't the one talking in the book, he's a journalist, not a scientist. A number of scientists are interviewed.

(I can already hear what your next comment is going to be...)

I'm sure according to you, any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, isn't a scientist.

Just read the book.

How does he sound like an atheist? Did he say that God doesn't exist? Don't accuse somebody of something if you can't back it up.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

*sigh* Where's the head beating against a brick wall smiley when you need it?

Here.

 

[vossler]

1

 

[vossler]

He is NOT saying that evolution has become like a religion in the same sense you are implying. The science of evolution is nothing like a religion and he clearly says that. The science taught in the classroom is NOT like a religion which was your original point. IT IS SCIENCE.

You say that with such enthusiasm, but I must ask you this. Doesn't the word science imply anything found within its realm of study to be scientifically proven facts. As far as I know most evolutionary science isn't something that is easily proven, nor is it agreed upon by everyone. Last time I checked evolution wasn't considered a science but a theory, is this no longer true?

I'm no whiz at this stuff, I'm just a simple guy with simple questions so please don't jump on me too hard.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

You emphasize that evolution is science. Help me to understand your strong belief that it is. For my rather limited mind science means that it can be proven scientifically. Evolution, as far as I know is nothing but a theory. If I'm wrong please enlighten.

In order to evaluate your definition of science it would helpful to us lurkers if you would please expatiate on what you mean by "proven scientifically". Also many people would find your remark about evolution being "nothing but a theory", some would interpret that as misleading because the colloquial defintion of theory and the usage in the professional are slightly different. The colloquial definition is that a theory is an unsupported guess, this is similar to the scientist's definition of hypothesis. The scientist would define theory as an idea which has supporting evidence (I'm not 100% sure about how much evidence).
To give you some examples of the scientific usage of the word theory I would advise you to consider the following:
The theory of special relativity.
The theory of gravity.
Found a site on the subject

 

[vossler]

Like I said I'm a simple guy and to me any sort of science is going to be based on irrefuteable evidence. It should have clear evidence to substantiate its assertions. I just can't see how evolution can make that claim.

 

[herev]

Like I said I'm a simple guy and to me any sort of science is going to be based on irrefuteable evidence. It should have clear evidence to substantiate its assertions. I just can't see how evolution can make that claim.

That is a very interesting definition of science. What of the science of medical research? Is the search for a cure for cancer not science? And yet, there is (as of yet) no clear (direct) evidence for many aspects of what causes cancer to erupt in some, yet not others. Is this really a definition of science or of fact? Much of science is not based on fact, but on theories, suggesting that there is always room to learn more. The beginning of wisdom, as the expression goes, is to say, "I don't know."

 

[Dark_Adonis]

Like I said I'm a simple guy and to me any sort of science is going to be based on irrefuteable evidence. It should have clear evidence to substantiate its assertions. I just can't see how evolution can make that claim.

Why don't you ask someone at the creation/evolution forum (The non-christian only one) they have plenty of evidence, but you might also checkout the talk.origin's website. I just found a thread which asked for transitional fossils on that forum. And speciation has been observed, I might have to look for it so give me little while on that claim please.

 

[vossler]

Thanks DA,

It looks like I don't have a clear definition of what science is. Interesting! So I suppose my question is how can evolution receive so much credibility with so little evidence?

 

[notto]

Thanks DA,

It looks like I don't have a clear definition of what science is. Interesting! So I suppose my question is how can evolution receive so much credibility with so little evidence?

The evidence for evolution is as strong as it is in any other science.

You just aren't looking. What have you read from actual biologists on the subject? Have you read any journals, purusedthe talkorigins.org website, read Darwin's work?

I would question your ability to claim that their is little evidence unless you have actually pursued looking at the evidence that is available.

The reason it receives the credibility it does is because there is so much evidence and it is the only vialble scientific theory available to explain the diversity of life and the pattern of life in the fossil record and in DNA studies.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

Thanks DA,

It looks like I don't have a clear definition of what science is. Interesting! So I suppose my question is how can evolution receive so much credibility with so little evidence?

It couldn't with little evidence. I must stop here and admit that I'm not a biologist, though I do play one on some test, and so I don't think that I can lead you any deeper on this quest. I can only point you in some nice general directions... I can only suggest that you participate in these forums.

 

[El Guapo]

Doesn't the word science imply anything found within its realm of study to be scientifically proven facts. As far as I know most evolutionary science isn't something that is easily proven, nor is it agreed upon by everyone. Last time I checked evolution wasn't considered a science but a theory, is this no longer true?

I'm no whiz at this stuff, I'm just a simple guy with simple questions so please don't jump on me too hard.

Wellllll you see... a science is pretty much the empirical study of any particular discipline. We could have Vosslerology if we were to do an indepth study and experimentation on yourself. (Definitions will vary slightly of course.) Thus, you can have evolutionary science simply if you study the theory of evolution through observation and experimentation. Both of which are done regularly.

And you are right and wrong about evolution being a theory. It is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that evolution as a fact means simply "change in allele frequency in a population over time." We have observed this thousands of times if not more. No one will deny this (I don't think that's too bold to say.) Evolution is a theory when it explains the fact of evolution. While there are, as you mention, some people who disagree w/ this, frequently these are people who know rather little about it (not trying to sound pretentious there.)

Anyways, I hope that clears some things up. If you have any questions feel more than free to ask and I'd be more than happy to try and answer 'em, as would I'm sure many others. Anyways, Seacrest out!