Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Subduction Zone]

I know it's not for you. I'm not trying to force it on you or anything.

That was a dodge and not an answer. If you are here to only troll then why should anyone waste their time with you? Please answer.

 

[Vaccine]

But I have a question for creationists: If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God? I'm guessing probably not.

Depends on what you mean by biological evolution. If you simple mean change over time, then no.
If you mean Darwinism, then yes.

No offense but you're taking a rather superficial attitude toward this. If you dig deeper you'll find the reason this is so controversial:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms -- but this seems to be the message of evolution." (Futuyma 1982)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on what you mean by biological evolution. If you simple mean change over time, then no.
If you mean Darwinism, then yes.

No offense but you're taking a rather superficial attitude toward this. If you dig deeper you'll find the reason this is so controversial:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms -- but this seems to be the message of evolution." (Futuyma 1982)

What do you mean by "Darwinism"? Biological evolution is merely the well known fact that life as we see it is the product of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Depends on what you mean by biological evolution. If you simple mean change over time, then no.
If you mean Darwinism, then yes.

No offense but you're taking a rather superficial attitude toward this. If you dig deeper you'll find the reason this is so controversial:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms -- but this seems to be the message of evolution." (Futuyma 1982)

Absent divine providence, that would be true of the universe and everything in it. Why should it disturb you that atheists hold this opinion about evolution in particular since they also believe it about everything else?

 

[Jimmy D]

Depends on what you mean by biological evolution. If you simple mean change over time, then no.
If you mean Darwinism, then yes.

No offense but you're taking a rather superficial attitude toward this. If you dig deeper you'll find the reason this is so controversial:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms -- but this seems to be the message of evolution." (Futuyma 1982)

I wonder if you've read Futuyma's book? Anyway here's another quote for ya, ...

"...biology provides no evidence for omnipotence, intelligence, purpose, or design."

D. Futuyma, Science on Trial, pg 14.

 

[Astrophile]

The problem with evolution is establishing facts about the distant past, which we cannot verify or see in front of us in a laboratory. (Yes I know there are experiments to do with bacterial mutations or what have you, and the Galapagos finches, but these are very different). It's like a detective who finds a bunch of fossils and goes "ah well this one connects to this one, and this one appears older than this one", and then looks at DNA similarities between species, and they formulate a theory.

I just default to the position that I don't know what happened in the distant past, aside from what the Scriptures have clearly said. It isn't really a big issue to me. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.

Evolution is a very elegant theory to be sure, I like how it fits all the fossils together and comes up with a way that all of life could have developed in all of its diversity. Whether it is actually true or not I do not claim to know, for I was not there in the distant past, the best we have are scientists playing detective.

I prefer the science I can see in a lab, right in front of me. There is clearly something different about the science I see in the lab in front of me, and the one that looks at fossil records over alleged millions of years and makes conclusions.

It seems to me that you, and several other people on this forum, are evading the question in the OP. Strathos asked,

If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God?

Your answer, and that of other creationists, appears to be that evolution could never be proven to your satisfaction, so that there is no need for you to answer Strathos's question. This, as I say, is evading the question.

 

[Strathos]

That was a dodge and not an answer. If you are here to only troll then why should anyone waste their time with you? Please answer.

It seems that you're the one trolling, as you are trying to drag this thread off-topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that you're the one trolling, as you are trying to drag this thread off-topic.

What are you talking about? You started to go off topic and I merely followed. If you can't answer a reasonable question a reasonable conclusion is that it is because you do not have a reasonable answer.

 

[Strathos]

What are you talking about? You started to go off topic and I merely followed. If you can't answer a reasonable question a reasonable conclusion is that it is because you do not have a reasonable answer.

I was responding to someone else. You butted in to try to start trouble.

 

[Vaccine]

What do you mean by "Darwinism"? Biological evolution is merely the well known fact that life as we see it is the product of evolution.

I think you just answered you own question. It has to do with not being able to distinguish a fact from a narrative. As Mark Kennedy pointed out, evolution is a phenomenon in nature, Darwinism is one long argument against creationism.

 

[Vaccine]

Absent divine providence, that would be true of the universe and everything in it. Why should it disturb you that atheists hold this opinion about evolution in particular since they also believe it about everything else?

It doesn't bother me what Atheists believe, that's their business. In fact, I think most of them are reasonable people. What bothers me is when they uncritically assume they are in an unassailable position and assert philosophy as fact. See post #763 and #765 as exhibit A.

 

[Vaccine]

I wonder if you've read Futuyma's book? Anyway here's another quote for ya, ...

"...biology provides no evidence for omnipotence, intelligence, purpose, or design."

D. Futuyma, Science on Trial, pg 14.

The quote seems to support what I said about the reason for the controversy. I wonder if he used the scientific method to come to the conclusion "...biology provides no evidence for omnipotence, intelligence, purpose, or design"? Seems he's doing that thing where his philosophy is being asserted as a biological "fact".

 

[Speedwell]

I think you just answered you own question. It has to do with not being able to distinguish a fact from a narrative. As Mark Kennedy pointed out, evolution is a phenomenon in nature, Darwinism is one long argument against creationism.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. The theory of evolution is its own argument against creationism, along with current theories of cosmology, geology, archaeology and a number of other sciences. What special role do "Darwinists" play?

 

[USincognito]

Depends on what you mean by biological evolution. If you simple mean change over time, then no.
If you mean Darwinism, then yes.

What the heck does this even mean??? What is "Darwinism" and how is it different from plain old evolution?

 

[USincognito]

I think you just answered you own question. It has to do with not being able to distinguish a fact from a narrative.

I'm sorry, but that's even more vague.

As Mark Kennedy pointed out, evolution is a phenomenon in nature, Darwinism is one long argument against creationism.

Mark doesn't know what he's talking about. He also tends to make up definitions and expects everyone else to accept them.

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn't bother me what Atheists believe, that's their business. In fact, I think most of them are reasonable people. What bothers me is when they uncritically assume they are in an unassailable position and assert philosophy as fact. See post #763 and #765 as exhibit A.

Subduction zone said (post #763) "Biological evolution is merely the well known fact that life as we see it is the product of evolution."

This is hardly philosophy, it is a fact of observation. Life has indeed evolved and diversified since it began. Whether the Theory of Evolution is an adequate explanation for this evolution is another question, but the fact of evolution remains.

Jimmy D quoted Futuyma (post #765) "...biology provides no evidence for omnipotence, intelligence, purpose, or design."

Nor should it. The methodological naturalism implied by the scientific method precludes biology or any of the other sciences from making pronouncements on those matters one way or another. The sciences are silent, as they ought to be, on theological questions.

 

[SteveB28]

The quote seems to support what I said about the reason for the controversy. I wonder if he used the scientific method to come to the conclusion "...biology provides no evidence for omnipotence, intelligence, purpose, or design"? Seems he's doing that thing where his philosophy is being asserted as a biological "fact".

There is no controversy.

Perhaps you might like to show how biology does provide evidence for omnipotence, etc...?



.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you just answered you own question. It has to do with not being able to distinguish a fact from a narrative. As Mark Kennedy pointed out, evolution is a phenomenon in nature, Darwinism is one long argument against creationism.

You seem to be describing your actions. And you are seem to be quite confused as well. There is no need to argue against creationism. That nonsense was refuted over one hundred years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was responding to someone else. You butted in to try to start trouble.

It is an open forum. There is no " "butting in". I was not trying to start trouble, I only wanted you to support your claims.

 

[Vaccine]

You seem to be describing your actions. And you are seem to be quite confused as well. There is no need to argue against creationism. That nonsense was refuted over one hundred years ago.

Another charge of confusion by someone who doesn't know what a question is?
A theory or statement can be refuted. A worldview something that is believed or not believed. Perhaps it is you who is confused.