Why evolution isn't scientific

[Speedwell]

Unpopular opinion:
If scientists would be more wise they would acknowlegde God, not say we are a product of matter transforming itself.

No, just a false opinion. You are aware, of course, that a substantial number (like about half) of all scientists are theists of some kind, many of them Christians. They do acknowledge God and at the same time have no problem with the theory of evolution. Why do you?

 

[Kylie]

Unpopular opinion:
If scientists would be more wise they would acknowlegde God, not say we are a product of matter transforming itself.

Citation required.

 

[the iconoclast]

Lots of scientists acknowledge God. Lots don't. In either case, we all do the same science and we really don't need people who don't understand science telling us how to do our jobs.

Hello brother


I understand the frustration one has when someone who is unqualified makes a suggestion or questions the process. This should not stop a layman from having the ability to test the strength of the an idea or examine it.

We are allowed to question and investigate by asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

This does not mean we are ignorant or against 'reality', i for one want to see if there is proof for a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen. Just because i do not have higher education does not mean i cannot.

Thank you for reading my brother, i would really like to continue our discussion and im putting all my current ones on hold so we can do so.

It is a laymans duty to investigate the claims of the expert like any other claim, the experts are not infallible. We do not question your sincerity or to be rude, we do not want scientific propaganda. Even scientists may develop a mind set which becomes unhelpful. There are instances where my offsider - who has 11 yrs less experience than i - has pointed out things i didnt see on the job.

God bless you

 

[Kylie]

I understand the frustration one has when someone who is unqualified makes a suggestion or questions the process. This should not stop a layman from having the ability to test the strength of the an idea or examine it.

We are allowed to question and investigate by asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

But the layman should also recognise that he does not have as much knowledge about the idea he is trying to examine, and therefore he may not be the best qualified to reach a reasonable conclusion about it. The only rational thing he can do is to accept that the people who have studied the idea in depth and who have much greater knowledge about the idea than he has are much more likely to get accurate information and conclusions.

So when the layman's conclusions disagree with the expert's conclusions, the layman should assume that he has made a mistake. He should not assume that the experts are wrong.

 

[NBB]

No, just a false opinion. You are aware, of course, that a substantial number (like about half) of all scientists are theists of some kind, many of them Christians. They do acknowledge God and at the same time have no problem with the theory of evolution. Why do you?

Because evolution says it doesn't need God to make things, it just happens, theistic evolution is another thing more like designed by God actually.

I firmly believe God had a clear picture of what man would be, and he made it possible, not that the process of evolution made us.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because evolution says it doesn't need God to make things, it just happens, theistic evolution is another thing more like designed by God actually.

I firmly believe God had a clear picture of what man would be, and he made it possible, not that the process of evolution made us.

Belief is irrelevant in science.

 

[NBB]

Belief is irrelevant in science.

Except when you actually experienced God and know he is real. Crazy for you, not so crazy for others.

 

[sfs]

Because evolution says it doesn't need God to make things, it just happens,

Evolution -- like all science -- doesn't have anything to say about God at all. It doesn't say God isn't needed and it doesn't say God is needed.

 

[VirOptimus]

Except when you actually experienced God and know he is real. Crazy for you, not so crazy for others.

Nope, still irrelevant.

 

[Kylie]

Except when you actually experienced God and know he is real. Crazy for you, not so crazy for others.

Experiences don't make for objective fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Because evolution says it doesn't need God to make things,

It implies, that God need not stoop to manipulate individual molecules, He lets natural forces do it.

it just happens

Atheists think it "just happens." Theists know that it wouldn't happen at all absent divine providence. The theory of evolution makes no statement on the matter, one way or another.

theistic evolution is another thing more like designed by God actually.

Interesting to note that Theistic Evolutionists and IDers are at odds with each other. It sounds to me as if you are just using "designed" as a synonym for "created" without caring very much about what ID actually teaches.

I firmly believe God had a clear picture of what man would be, and he made it possible, not that the process of evolution made us.

Or, that God knew full well what the evolutionary process of His own conception would eventually bring forth. In other words, both are true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Theists know that it wouldn't happen at all absent divine providence.

While I appreciate the general tenor of your post, you don't "know" any such thing.

 

[Speedwell]

While I appreciate the general tenor of your post, you don't "know" any such thing.

I think you should allow it in the broad sense which encompasses more than cognitive knowledge.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution -- like all science -- doesn't have anything to say about God at all. It doesn't say God isn't needed and it doesn't say God is needed.

Of course, because it's natural phenomenon but when God does something we need a different way of looking at it. Is the resurrection scientific?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course, because it's natural phenomenon but when God does something we need a different way of looking at it. Is the resurrection scientific?

Not known. There was not, alas, a forensic pathologist on the spot with his instruments. In general we have no idea whatever to what extent those historic events which we regard as miraculous involved measurable natural forces or left evidence for us to examine today.

 

[sfs]

I understand the frustration one has when someone who is unqualified makes a suggestion or questions the process. This should not stop a layman from having the ability to test the strength of the an idea or examine it.

Of course it shouldn't stop the layman being able to test the ideas of science. In this case, though, the laymen has spent literally years ignoring the actual ideas and responses of scientists and endlessly repeating his own ideas.

Thank you for reading my brother, i would really like to continue our discussion and im putting all my current ones on hold so we can do so.

Great. As I recall, I asked you what part you didn't understand in the explanation for why phylogenetic trees are evidence for evolution and you didn't respond. So continue the discussion . . .

 

[xianghua]

Except we can't just push them all back. If we did, we'd have to push EVERYTHING back.

everything? including fishes? reptiles? no. just all the groups that is suppose to be related to dolphins. as i said: problem solved.

 

[xianghua]

Only when you arrange them in imaginary trees. In the real world trucks were the first motor vehicles; bicycles weren't developed until much later (and aren't powered vehicles anyway) and cars came after trucks as well. It's odd that you put airplanes in with the wheeled vehicles. The first airplanes didn't have wheels so there is no nested hierarchy there at all.

so if these vehicles were also in the correct period of time you will say that they evolved from each other?

 

[xianghua]

Except that wasn't what the original topic was about. The original topic of this thread was about your claim that evolution isn't science because you claim that it can't be tested. As per the OP.
Case still open.

i actually refer to a later topic in this thread.

 

[xianghua]

Design and nature? Really? That is not peer-review.

is it is. read here:

International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics

"All WIT Press Journal submissions are single-blind peer-reviewed by two well-qualified academics from reputable institutions and paper assignments are made to avoid any conflict of interest. All papers are subject to editorial control."