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

[gluadys]

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.

Since you bring Adam into it, you are no longer objecting on the basis of lack of evidence, but on the basis of your theology. You have every right to object to evolution on the basis of theology, if you wish. But be honest about your reasons. Don't hide behind a smoke screen of "no evidence" or "not common sense."

Why is it not common sense to theorize that we have a genetic relationship to a species with which we share 98% of our genes? After all, within the human species you expect a stronger similarity in the DNA of those who are more closely related than between those who are more distantly related. That is the basis of paternity tests.

Why would this rule apply only within the circle of Homo sapiens and not in the wider circle of all hominids including apes?

And this is only one of many lines of evidence.

 

[Rae_Psyche]

I believe in evolution, and every day that goes by, science comes out with something that the Bible had already said. Science and God go hand in hadn, because science was created by God, like it or not, its true....

 

[horuhe00]

I agree with Rae_Psyche. Why do people think it has to be either one or the other? Isn't God powerful enough to create both man and evolution?

 

[Rae_Psyche]

Just a side note, maybe someone will be interested in this. But I am about to buy a book called From Genesis to Genetics, I forgot the author though. It sounds like a really good book, havent really read it though. Im planning on reading it someday when I get myself to buy it.

 

[United]

Am I the only one who is seeing two extremes here? Firstly, we have comments like:

Yet real evidence of evolution has no evidence.

We need to be realistic that evidence does exist for evolution. To deny this fact is easily refuted and is not helpful to the creationalist viewpoint.
Secondly, to state that evolution is proven to the same degree as fundamental physics is equally damaging to the theistic evolutionary viewpoint. I should point out that there is some level of truth mixed in with these arguments. For example:

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.

All forms of science start with a theory based on some observation and evidence. They are subsequently built upon, tested in different ways until more and more evidence is accumulated. And of course there are “competing theories in physics for a lot of the big questions, just like in biology.” This is the nature of science – if all things were proven there would be no need for scientists. What we are really talking about is the DEGREE of proof.

The degree of proof for evolutionary theory should not be compared to that associated with fundamental physics as has previously been mentioned. Evolutionary theory is the best that science can provide at this point – but like it or not it has some issues. I have designed large structures and massive complicated machines using the “theories” of physics. Heaven help me if there was a single issue with these theories!

I have no problems with the belief in evolution – there is some evidence to support it. But I do have a problem with “die hard” belief that evolution is proven. It is a theory in progress, but has a long way to go before it deserves the level of confidence given to it in some of these posts.

Just asking for a little balance!

 

[vossler]

Since you bring Adam into it, you are no longer objecting on the basis of lack of evidence, but on the basis of your theology. You have every right to object to evolution on the basis of theology, if you wish. But be honest about your reasons. Don't hide behind a smoke screen of "no evidence" or "not common sense."

Why is it not common sense to theorize that we have a genetic relationship to a species with which we share 98% of our genes? After all, within the human species you expect a stronger similarity in the DNA of those who are more closely related than between those who are more distantly related. That is the basis of paternity tests.

Why would this rule apply only within the circle of Homo sapiens and not in the wider circle of all hominids including apes?

And this is only one of many lines of evidence.

Fair enough, I receive that, but I have to tell you even as a kid going through school, before I ever was a Christian, I never could grasp the idea that we originated from apes. Like I said, it just didn't make sense. Yeah, you can tell me we share 98% of our genes, but it still doesn't pass the "smell test".

Besides that, then you have to explain where apes came from and it really starts to stink.

 

[vossler]

I have no problems with the belief in evolution – there is some evidence to support it. But I do have a problem with “die hard” belief that evolution is proven. It is a theory in progress, but has a long way to go before it deserves the level of confidence given to it in some of these posts.

I couldn't agree more with this! Therein lies the problem for me, we teach evolution to our kids as if it is a proven fact and discount any other theories or potential explanations. All I want is for everything to be held up to the light and let the discerning individual decide which one is right.

 

[Rae_Psyche]

I think that also a major factor about the problem with evolution, is the theory itself. Not many people really know what Darwin was trying to say. Nowadays even textbooks say tht we come from a common ancestors, so we dont come directly from apes. I mean couldnt evolution be guided by God? After all science does say that life started from mud..... right?

 

[seebs]

Why are you ignoring my question?

Perhaps because it's sort of a rude, personal, and off-topic question?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I couldn't agree more with this! Therein lies the problem for me, we teach evolution to our kids as if it is a proven fact and discount any other theories or potential explanations. All I want is for everything to be held up to the light and let the discerning individual decide which one is right.

If you can come up with a scientific theory that can explain the data as well as evolution, I would have no problems with you teaching it in schools.

 

[gluadys]

Fair enough, I receive that, but I have to tell you even as a kid going through school, before I ever was a Christian, I never could grasp the idea that we originated from apes. Like I said, it just didn't make sense. Yeah, you can tell me we share 98% of our genes, but it still doesn't pass the "smell test".

Besides that, then you have to explain where apes came from and it really starts to stink.

Well, then, this is just a classic argument from personal incredulity. Nothing whatsoever to do with lack of common sense or evidence.

Apes, btw, came from earlier primates. Probably split from the same stock that gave rise to monkeys. Just like your grandfather's clan and your great-uncle's clan both took their origin in the family of your great-great-grandfather. Nothing mysterious or "stinky" about it.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

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

Hello DA,

Your link actually states that gravity is actually a scientific law and not just a theory. Thought I'd point that out.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

Am I the only one who is seeing two extremes here? Firstly, we have comments like:

We need to be realistic that evidence does exist for evolution. To deny this fact is easily refuted and is not helpful to the creationalist viewpoint.
Secondly, to state that evolution is proven to the same degree as fundamental physics is equally damaging to the theistic evolutionary viewpoint. I should point out that there is some level of truth mixed in with these arguments. For example:
All forms of science start with a theory based on some observation and evidence. They are subsequently built upon, tested in different ways until more and more evidence is accumulated. And of course there are “competing theories in physics for a lot of the big questions, just like in biology.” This is the nature of science – if all things were proven there would be no need for scientists. What we are really talking about is the DEGREE of proof.

The degree of proof for evolutionary theory should not be compared to that associated with fundamental physics as has previously been mentioned. Evolutionary theory is the best that science can provide at this point – but like it or not it has some issues. I have designed large structures and massive complicated machines using the “theories” of physics. Heaven help me if there was a single issue with these theories!

I have no problems with the belief in evolution – there is some evidence to support it. But I do have a problem with “die hard” belief that evolution is proven. It is a theory in progress, but has a long way to go before it deserves the level of confidence given to it in some of these posts.

Just asking for a little balance!

Hello there!

I have been reading what you wrote and it does make sense to me, thought I'd mention it.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

I couldn't agree more with this! Therein lies the problem for me, we teach evolution to our kids as if it is a proven fact and discount any other theories or potential explanations. All I want is for everything to be held up to the light and let the discerning individual decide which one is right.

Hello there!

This is what initially drew my attention to this area of debate a while back. I don't believe there are many if any sciences that generate so much passion for believing in them.

Evolution is not a fact, and should not be taught as a fact simple as that.

When I talk about evolution as I did above, I mean the origin of man and other creatures.

Vossler, the best example of evolution at work that I've seen is a virus being treated with drugs, it was a programme I watched and was quite fascinating. However when we look at evolution to answer the question of the origins of species (including us) it does seem to be answering the questions correctly but really is difficult to believe for many.

I am actually beginning to understand why people accept evolution with no problems, but teaching it to kids as fact is simply wrong in my opinion.

 

[Aeschylus]

All forms of science start with a theory based on some observation and evidence. They are subsequently built upon, tested in different ways until more and more evidence is accumulated. And of course there are “competing theories in physics for a lot of the big questions, just like in biology.” This is the nature of science – if all things were proven there would be no need for scientists. What we are really talking about is the DEGREE of proof.

The degree of proof for evolutionary theory should not be compared to that associated with fundamental physics as has previously been mentioned. Evolutionary theory is the best that science can provide at this point – but like it or not it has some issues. I have designed large structures and massive complicated machines using the “theories” of physics. Heaven help me if there was a single issue with these theories!

I have no problems with the belief in evolution – there is some evidence to support it. But I do have a problem with “die hard” belief that evolution is proven. It is a theory in progress, but has a long way to go before it deserves the level of confidence given to it in some of these posts.

Just asking for a little balance!

You are either unaware of the evidence for evoultion or the evidence for the fundamntal theories of physics.

Evolution is to biology what electromagnetism, or atomic theory is to physics, we know that the basic framework is correct and by any resoanble standard of proof it has been proven.

Special relativity is a fundamental theory of modern physics and we are certain that within it's limits it is correct mainly due to the large amount of empirical evidence we have for it. Yet I doubt that we even have 1% of the evidence for special relativity that we have for evolution.

Ypou say that it is still a theory in progress, this is dishonest as yes we do not claim to know everytyhing there is to know about evoltuion, but we know the framework is correct.

Simlairly we do not claim to know everything about gravitation and the atom (what we do know is that Newton's universal law of gravitation and the atomic model are infact incorrect! They only provide approximate descriptions within certain limits), indeed we very much suspect that even our new improved models (i.e. genral relativity and the standard model) are incorrect/incomplete. So we could simliarly say that gravity and the atomic model are works in progress evenb though that we know the basic frameworkis correct. i suepct you're engineer, well we know that all the physical theories that engineers use are incomplete/incorrect.

There is no competing theory with evolution that has not been faslsifed, simliarly there is no piece of evidence that contradicts the evolutionary framework.

What ypou are trying to do is create a 'false balance', by attempting to take the middel ground you are still incorrect.

 

[Aeschylus]

I am actually beginning to understand why people accept evolution with no problems, but teaching it to kids as fact is simply wrong in my opinion.

As I triecd to illustrate above it is as much fact as any science that is taught.

 

[Buzz_Lightyear]

As I triecd to illustrate above it is as much fact as any science that is taught.

Hello there,

I disagree. Why are there scientific Laws that distinguish a fact from simply a theory?

 

[Aeschylus]

Hello there,

I disagree. Why are there scientific Laws that distinguish a fact from simply a theory?

There's no distibnction between a law of physics and a theory, a law must be or be part of a theory. It certianly does not refer to the proof that exists for a theory, i.e. scientists don't get round a big table and decide to promote a theory to law.

A law usually just a consise, general statement of a theory.

 

[vossler]

Here's an example of a scientist's state of mind or prejudice can and does affect the outcome of one's studies:

In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the founder of modern geology,’ proclaimed:
‘… the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’.

This was later called uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. This is a not a refutation of biblical teaching of creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations.

 

[Aeschylus]

We know that creationism is wrong, what we should reasonably expect to see if the coursde of events unfolded as creatipnist say they do is simply not there, infact we have alot evidince that this is not the case.