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

[seebs]

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?

Simple: It can't.

You have a false premise, which is that there is "little" evidence. What we have is a theory which is continually reaffirmed by results in every field even tangentially related to biology. It's about as good as the theory of gravity, at this point.

 

[United]

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

With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.

I'm not saying the that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that it is far from proven.

I assume you are partly drawing your conclusion from the fact that most scientists believe in evolution. This should not be used to justify that evolution is proven. If you are familiar with the "scientific method" then you will know how concepts and theories are built up over time. It is no easy task to "build" on the theory of creation - the act of creation will always be relatively difficult to study and analyse in a scientific manner. There is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence against. Most scientists will prefer to believe in something they can study and quantify (even if it doesn't always fit).

Again, I am not saying evolution is wrong - just suggesting a balanced view.

 

[notto]

With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.

I'm not saying the that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that it is far from proven.

I assume you are partly drawing your conclusion from the fact that most scientists believe in evolution. This should not be used to justify that evolution is proven. If you are familiar with the "scientific method" then you will know how concepts and theories are built up over time. It is no easy task to "build" on the theory of creation - the act of creation will always be relatively difficult to study and analyse in a scientific manner. There is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence against. Most scientists will prefer to believe in something they can study and quantify (even if it doesn't always fit).

Again, I am not saying evolution is wrong - just suggesting a balanced view.

The theories in physics are just that, theories, built on the same types of evidence, observations, and repeatability that we find in biology related to evolution.

What 'facts' of physics are you referring to? Atomic theory?, gravitational theory? These are theories based on observation and observed facts, just like evolution.

There are competing theories in physics for a lot of the big questions, just like in biology. Again, evolution and biology is no different than any other science in this regard.

 

[Aeschylus]

Au contraiure, evolutionary theory is just as well proven as for example the physical theory of electrodynamics (partly chjoosen because it was conceived at around the same time and like much if not most of modern biology is related to or based on evolutionary theory, much or even most of modern physics is based on or related to elctrodynamics). And like with electrodynamics since the theory was conceived, tho' we can be certain that the basic framework is correct and provides a useful description, we have modified it to obtain an even more accurate description (for example with electrodynamics we have the Lorentz transformation and quantum electrodynamics, which is comparable to genetics and DNA in evolutinary theory)

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

With all due respect, this statement is not accurate. I have a science background in physics & a "proven fact" in this field cannot compare to the "theory" of evolution.

I'm not saying the that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that it is far from proven.

I assume you are partly drawing your conclusion from the fact that most scientists believe in evolution. This should not be used to justify that evolution is proven. If you are familiar with the "scientific method" then you will know how concepts and theories are built up over time. It is no easy task to "build" on the theory of creation - the act of creation will always be relatively difficult to study and analyse in a scientific manner. There is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence against. Most scientists will prefer to believe in something they can study and quantify (even if it doesn't always fit).

Again, I am not saying evolution is wrong - just suggesting a balanced view.

The modification of populations over time is very well founded. The uncertainty is only in how this happens.

 

[vossler]

Simple: It can't.

You have a false premise, which is that there is "little" evidence. What we have is a theory which is continually reaffirmed by results in every field even tangentially related to biology. It's about as good as the theory of gravity, at this point.

Well to me the theory of gravity exists everytime I take a step or throw a ball etc. Yet real evidence of evolution has no evidence.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and hopefully learn)

 

[vossler]

Please bring it on I love to be educated about things I'm not educated on.

All I ask is that you keep it simple, a simple mind like mine can only digest so much.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Tell me why do you make carte blanche statements that evolution has no real evidence yet you also claim not to be a scientist and that you are uneducated in these topics.

Which is it to be? Do you have expertise that lends you to these assertions or is it a case of making assertions that you really don't know why you are making them.

And you do not see the theory of gravity when you take a step or throw a ball. You are making observations that are to be explained via a theory but the observation itself is not the theory.

Similarly in biology, observations whether in the lab, out in the wild or via the fossil record are to be explained by theory. The theory that has best explained this up to now is modern evolutionary theory.

Over the last 100 years or so the tens of thousands of biologists who have worked directly on this subject have come up with the current theory. It is unlikely they have all been drastically in error and the whole theory is nonsense. It is also not likely they are 100% correct on every last point, the theory is still evolving (pun), but seriously off base is more unlikely.

 

[seebs]

Well to me the theory of gravity exists everytime I take a step or throw a ball etc. Yet real evidence of evolution has no evidence.

The evidence of evolution is there every time you have a knee joint which is substantially identical to that of a quadruped, even though you use your knees very differently.

Which, for most of us, is pretty much all the time.

 

[vossler]

Tell me why do you make carte blanche statements that evolution has no real evidence yet you also claim not to be a scientist and that you are uneducated in these topics.

Which is it to be? Do you have expertise that lends you to these assertions or is it a case of making assertions that you really don't know why you are making them.

When I say no real evidence, I'm talking about evidence that passes the common sense test, you know is logical and easy to understand. This is one area I can claim some ability.

And you do not see the theory of gravity when you take a step or throw a ball. You are making observations that are to be explained via a theory but the observation itself is not the theory.

But it passes the common sense test.

Similarly in biology, observations whether in the lab, out in the wild or via the fossil record are to be explained by theory. The theory that has best explained this up to now is modern evolutionary theory.

Over the last 100 years or so the tens of thousands of biologists who have worked directly on this subject have come up with the current theory. It is unlikely they have all been drastically in error and the whole theory is nonsense. It is also not likely they are 100% correct on every last point, the theory is still evolving (pun), but seriously off base is more unlikely.

On the surface these points all appear logical and are even substantiated with some empirical evidence, just not enough to pass the ultimate test, common sense. See that's the problem, most people, because of their own ignorance, are intimidated by anything that science produces. They have forgotten to put it up to the light, God's light.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Common sense is a terrible guide in many areas. This is why most non-physicists have terrible problems with relativity theory (i.e. gravity in General Relativity) and quantum mechanics because they go against common sense. They are certainly not intuitive in the everyday sense.

Yes the observation is common sense but the theory is not as most people would think of common sense.

I find most people are intimidated by science, especially physical science, is because they have trouble following the concepts and cannot do the math.

It's like dunking a basketball - most people cannot put their hand over a 10 foot rim and they never shall. Similarly most people no matter how hard they try cannot do math beyond simple algebra or elementary calculus - heck a goodly number can never get that far. This is not elitism it is a fact.

 

[vossler]

Common sense is a terrible guide in many areas. This is why most non-physicists have terrible problems with relativity theory (i.e. gravity in General Relativity) and quantum mechanics because they go against common sense. They are certainly not intuitive in the everyday sense.

Yes the observation is common sense but the theory is not as most people would think of common sense.

I find most people are intimidated by science, especially physical science, is because they have trouble following the concepts and cannot do the math.

It's like dunking a basketball - most people cannot put their hand over a 10 foot rim and they never shall. Similarly most people no matter how hard they try cannot do math beyond simple algebra or elementary calculus - heck a goodly number can never get that far. This is not elitism it is a fact.

Excellent points!!! We agree
However, my point still is God wants us to understand.

Most people can't understand, much less do, the things Michael Jordan can do, but they can appreciate the God given abilities he has that allow him to perform the physical acts he does. It's the same for science, I don't understand most science but I can appreciate the science that presents itself in a beautiful and majestic way.

 

[gluadys]

When I say no real evidence, I'm talking about evidence that passes the common sense test, you know is logical and easy to understand. This is one area I can claim some ability.

But it passes the common sense test.

On the surface these points all appear logical and are even substantiated with some empirical evidence, just not enough to pass the ultimate test, common sense. See that's the problem, most people, because of their own ignorance, are intimidated by anything that science produces. They have forgotten to put it up to the light, God's light.

Evolution is as common sensical and easy to understand as a family tree and has plenty of empirical evidence to back it up. Nor does it require adopting atheism as a default religious position. I think you are raising pseudo-barriers here, and you might like to ask yourself why.

 

[vossler]

Evolution is as common sensical and easy to understand as a family tree and has plenty of empirical evidence to back it up. Nor does it require adopting atheism as a default religious position. I think you are raising pseudo-barriers here, and you might like to ask yourself why.

OK if it is as you say then please give me your common sensical definition of where we humans came from?

 

[gluadys]

OK if it is as you say then please give me your common sensical definition of where we humans came from?

From our biological ancestors. Ever since life first appeared on earth, all organisms have been born of previously living organisms. You have a problem with that?

 

[vossler]

From our biological ancestors. Ever since life first appeared on earth, all organisms have been born of previously living organisms. You have a problem with that?

Yeah I've got a big problem with that if it means my biological ancestors included apes and whatever else you and other evolutionists believe your ancestors to be. Seeing how you stated it is our family tree I can see going as far back as Adam and after that you are stepping out of bounds.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say evolutionistic theories can not pass the common sense test. For anyone to believe that we came from apes and who knows what else just doesn't hold any water. The evidence is so scant for evolution and yet people cling to it for all its worth when the Creator explained everything to us already.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yeah I've got a big problem with that if it means my biological ancestors included apes and whatever else you and other evolutionists believe your ancestors to be. Seeing how you stated it is our family tree I can see going as far back as Adam and after that you are stepping out of bounds.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say evolutionistic theories can not pass the common sense test. For anyone to believe that we came from apes and who knows what else just doesn't hold any water. The evidence is so scant for evolution and yet people cling to it for all its worth when the Creator explained everything to us already.

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

 

[seebs]

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

You have got to be kidding me.

(JOKING!)

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I woudl like to ask you mhess13, your profile says you've been a Christian for 3.5 years, 30 - 3.5 = What did you believe for the first 26.5 years?

Why are you ignoring my question?