Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

[AzurePhoenix]

as to ur comment on the homosapien skull is it not a possiblility that it is a new species rather than an ansester?

could you re-ask that in a bit mroe detail so we can be a bit more clear on exactly what you mean?

 

i think also that most primate look a like well wouldnt that meen that chips will eventually "Evolve" into humans if Evolution is true or rather whose to say that we arent the "lower" race and chips are more Evolved than us??

Creatures aren't designed to evolve towards some goal, how they evolve and what they evolve into depends on teh sircumstances of their surivival combined with the mutations that randomly occur. Chimps could potentially go one to evolve into something as non-human as a predatory marine ape with porcupine quills, toward a more sloth-like form, or anything you can imagine within reason.

 

plus they have only found a SKULL a body cannot be constructed from simply finding a skull or fragments of one.

Skulls are not 100% representations of the body of course, but by comparing to them to those of similar and closely related species a fairly accurate guess can be made.

 

there is how ever more evidence supporting the bible and God than there is evolution.

There is absolutely no evidence for metaphysical explanations, whereas those offered by science are obserrvable and proven, supported by libraries of OBSERVED and TESTABLE information. There is no question about the validity of evolution. That does NOT necessarily mean that you're completely unfounded belief system is entirely without substance, it just means that they don't change the fact that evolution did happen.

 

as to the comment about God "guiding" evolution i dont think so becouse its still to random for a God

If evolution's too random for god you're saying that the organisms are too random themselves, which wouldn't be the case in a creation scenario, according to your line of thought. Thereby, by your own statement, life on earth is too random for God to have created.

[swansont]

You are wrong. What I stated was an observation. It's you who made a hasty generalization claiming that I dismissed science though I did dismiss a scientist on a relevant issue.

 

You extrapolated from one scientist to a group ("people with different agendas"). That's a hasty generalization. Your comment on Dawkins contains nothing but dismissive personal attacks (complete fool, childish). That's ad hominem.

[Prime-Evil]

What is ironic is that both creationists and evolutionists, for lack of better terms, are both seeking to oversimplyify the complexity of all creation, or the universe, for lack of better terms.

[MM]

You extrapolated from one scientist to a group ("people with different agendas"). That's a hasty generalization. Your comment on Dawkins contains nothing but dismissive personal attacks (complete fool, childish). That's ad hominem.

 

I'm not sure if your trying to explain yourself or if you are defending the documentary. With the same logic, your are making a fallacy not debating the "facts". Those who decide the funding are still people. His explanation was childish because he thought the causes for religious behavior were solely based on the persons childhood. It was foolish because he has no studies (facts) that tests his guess.

 

As there are people who see Jesus as someone to belive in. I predict that the same kind of behavior for non religious people who aren't too narcissistic. Thereby Dawkins is misusing his influence when he so bluntly and disrespectly talks about religion as if it was a disease.

[nahomadis]

Hi there. I just thought I would give a short response to one paragraph of yours. Please let me know if I am unclear in any thing I say.

 

There is absolutely no evidence for metaphysical explanations whereas those offered by science are obserrvable and proven,...

 

 

 

That is a false dichotomy. Creationists love science. They do not object to the scientific method or evidence. It is the Naturalistic interpretation of evidence relating to Origins that they reject, chiefly because it does fit into the straight forward interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

 

 

 

....supported by libraries of OBSERVED and TESTABLE information.

 

 

That is confusing the controversy. In dealing with Origins science one must make a clear distinction between Operation science (scientific study of present phenomena) and Historical science (treatment of evidence available in the present that relates to past events). The evidence relating to Origins falls in the category of Historical science. The evidence is the same for Darwinists as it is for Creationists. They have the same fossils, the same rocks, the same universe. It is in the interpretation of the evidence that they differ.

 

 

 

There is no question about the validity of evolution.

 

 

That is false. Evolution is built upon the foundation of philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that nature is all there is. This belief can not be tested or disproved. There is certainly no evidence to support this starting point. With such a poorly established philosophical premise, molecules-to-man evolution is not a valid argument for the origin of biological life, complexity or information. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Since God knows everything, and does not lie or make mistakes, his Word is a trust worthy foundation upon which to build our interpretation of evidence relating to Origins.

 

 

 

That does NOT necessarily mean that you're completely unfounded belief system is entirely without substance,....

 

 

To turn it around, the implication for molecules-to-man evolution is that it realy is without substance.

 

 

.....it just means that they don't change the fact that evolution did happen.

 

What evidence compells you to conclude Evolution did happen?

 

Yours courteusly

Nahomadis

[Phi for All]

My parents are both religious (and neither of them are creationists). I'm not' date=' and guess what? Chances are I'm going to outlive them! My children will not be religious and neither will theirs be, if I can help it, spawning an exponentially growing ammount of non-believers in my geneological succession.

 

Being religious is a choice, not a genetic trait. ('Course that means my children might become religious, but that's doubtful because of the logic and critical mindset I'm going to instill in them!!)[/quote']Watch out. If you try to "instill" a mindset and your children feel you're trying to "install" a mindset, you're in for a big fight and may even push them away from your goals. Kids dig their feet in pretty quickly when they feel you're trying to govern the way they think.

[swansont]

That is a false dichotomy. Creationists love science. They do not object to the scientific method or evidence. It is the Naturalistic interpretation of evidence relating to Origins that they reject, chiefly because it does fit into the straight forward interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

 

Really? That hasn't been my experience. The ones that post online often wouldn't recognize science if it bit them in the posterior.

 

 

That is false. Evolution is built upon the foundation of philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that nature is all there is. This belief can not be tested or disproved. There is certainly no evidence to support this starting point. With such a poorly established philosophical premise, molecules-to-man evolution is not a valid argument for the origin of biological life, complexity or information. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Since God knows everything, and does not lie or make mistakes, his Word is a trust worthy foundation upon which to build our interpretation of evidence relating to Origins.

 

No, science does not rest upon a belief that "that's all there is." It simply operates under the recognition that it is limited to naturalistic phenomenon. That gets tested all the time, and it keeps working.

[MaxCathedral]

oh, I think...one day...mostly....but far, far off in the future.

 

and I think to some degree..many at some deep level, already know the truth, but can't look it in the eye.

 

It seem to at some egotisical level, diplace our picture of supremacy...what, come from a lower form..never!!

[AzurePhoenix]

That is a false dichotomy. Creationists love science. They do not object to the scientific method or evidence. It is the Naturalistic interpretation of evidence relating to Origins that they reject, chiefly because it does fit into the straight forward interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

It's simple, he said creationism had evidence and that it had more than evolution. That is not true, and I responded accurately. Evidence is evidence, and rejecting it for any reason otehr than that it disagrees with their beliefs is simply dishonest.

 

That is confusing the controversy. In dealing with Origins science one must make a clear distinction between Operation science (scientific study of present phenomena) and Historical science (treatment of evidence available in the present that relates to past events). The evidence relating to Origins falls in the category of Historical science. The evidence is the same for Darwinists as it is for Creationists. They have the same fossils, the same rocks, the same universe. It is in the interpretation of the evidence that they differ.

Creationists try to fit the evidence to what they want it to mean. Science takes the evidence and builds up the answers from there. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory is changed to acccount for it.

 

 

That is false. Evolution is built upon the foundation of philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that nature is all there is. This belief can not be tested or disproved. There is certainly no evidence to support this starting point. With such a poorly established philosophical premise, molecules-to-man evolution is not a valid argument for the origin of biological life, complexity or information. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Since God knows everything, and does not lie or make mistakes, his Word is a trust worthy foundation upon which to build our interpretation of evidence relating to Origins.

You make the unscientific assumption that God is represented at all accurately, without any substantial (as in tangible) reason to do so. It doesn't say nature is all there is, it simply figures out how the nature we see and know to exist ultimately works. The rest is untestable, and whether or not there is some christian or aztec or greek god or whole pantheon of gods in no way changes the very fact that the way science depicts nature to work is indeed how it works.

 

To turn it around, the implication for molecules-to-man evolution is that it realy is without substance.

If you're intending to say that it is without moral fiber or something else like that, then I have to respond that everything is as it is. How it got to be that way doesn't have any effect on that simple fact. There being a god or not or how things came to be doesn't cahnge the way I feel about my loved ones.

 

What evidence compells you to conclude Evolution did happen?

Genetics, fossils, observable evolution in action, taxonomy, the lack of alternate explanations, etc etc etc

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Right, back to the question. Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

[Phi for All]

Creationists love science. They do not object to the scientific method or evidence.

This is so far outside the realm of my actual experience with creationists as to be almost bizarre.

It is the Naturalistic interpretation of evidence relating to Origins that they reject, chiefly because it does fit into the straight forward interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

You are attempting to use science for that which it is not adapted. Supernatural events like a "straight forward interpretation of Genesis 1-11" aren't observable, and therefore not under the purvue of science.

That is confusing the controversy.

There is no controversy.

In dealing with Origins science one must make a clear distinction between Operation science (scientific study of present phenomena) and Historical science (treatment of evidence available in the present that relates to past events). The evidence relating to Origins falls in the category of Historical science. The evidence is the same for Darwinists as it is for Creationists. They have the same fossils, the same rocks, the same universe. It is in the interpretation of the evidence that they differ.

This thread is about evolution, not origins.

That is false. Evolution is built upon the foundation of philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that nature is all there is. This belief can not be tested or disproved. There is certainly no evidence to support this starting point.

Once again, evolution has nothing to do with any starting points.

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Since God knows everything, and does not lie or make mistakes, his Word is a trust worthy foundation upon which to build our interpretation of evidence relating to Origins.

And you accuse science of having a "poorly established philosophical premise"? Science can't simply accept that God is there, can't lie or make mistakes and is therefore to be trusted in all things. That is for faith to decide, not science.

[alt_f13]

Watch out. If you try to "instill" a mindset and your children feel you're trying to "install" a mindset, you're in for a big fight and may even push them away from your goals. Kids dig their feet in pretty quickly when they feel you're trying to govern the way they think.

LOL. So they'll end up crazy and demented. Oh well, I don't hate creationists THAT much.

[swansont]

Right, back to the question[/b']. Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

 

I think we've seen why it won't be universally accepted. It all depends on what fraction of the population want ideology first, and will disregard explanations that do not conveniently fit within those ideologies.

[Prime-Evil]

Right, back to the question[/b']. Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

Not until it is sufficiently wrong.

[bjaminwood]

If you add up the views from the people that answer this question then you will not get a scientific answer as the majority of people on this site already believe in evolution. So I suggest that the overall answer that you get from this site will be YES. But I believe that there will always be Creationists like myself that believe that God created the Universe.

[bjaminwood]

That is for faith to decide, not science.

 

Creationism and Evolution both require faith as both sets of people were not there in the beginning.

[Phi for All]

If you add up the views from the people that answer this question then you will not get a scientific answer as the majority of people on this site already believe in evolution. So I suggest that the overall answer that you get from this site will be YES. But I believe that there will always be Creationists like myself that believe that God created the Universe.

You do understand that most people here are willing to simply remain scientifically skeptical about God and whether or not He created the universe, don't you? When we object to creationism, it's Young Earth Creationism that takes the Bible literally about the earth and all it's life being formed in six days. We object to the idea that the earth is only 6010 years old, because evidence suggests it is much, much older.

 

We object when creationists try to lump the theories of abiogenesis, the big bang and evolution into one big ball called science, then say that evolution is against the teachings of the Bible and call it a controversy that should be taught to all public schoolchildren.

 

Science simply isn't designed to analyze matters of faith.

[swansont]

Creationism and Evolution both require faith as both sets of people were not there in the beginning.

 

To imply that one cannot study past events scientifically is ludicrous. This concept would, by extension, mean that you would not convict any criminal of a crime for which there was not an eyewitness, because the crime happened in the past and nobody was there to see it.

 

And besides, evolution has nothing to do with what happened at the beginning. It describes what happens to populations, i.e. already-living things.

 

edit: changed wording to "to populations" in last sentence.

[Phi for All]

Creationism and Evolution both require faith as both sets of people were not there in the beginning.

If you keep using the "beginnings" strawman in the Evolution forum, you'll be getting warning points for it. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. Print this out and tape it to your forehead.

 

Evolution is also not based on eye-witness accounts of pre-history. It is based on what can be observed and tested today, right now. Every minute of every day every creature is functioning as part of the evolutionary process. The only assumptions which you could say are even remotely faith-based is that it's always been this way, and for that we have the fossil record, not faith.

 

This is the part where I point to the Catholic church and their acceptance of evolution, and you tell me that they aren't true Christians. Then you can throw out more misinformation where you misunderstand evolution because you haven't studied it, you just know that you don't "believe" in it. Then we can continue the dance until I come back around and remind you that science doesn't govern that which is unobservable by definition, like God.

 

At which point you'll probably mention that since God created the universe, evolution can't be an explanation for the origins of life.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I started this half an hour ago but had to leave to take my daughter to public school, where I take her for a well-rounded secular education, as opposed to church, where we go on Sunday for a religious education.

 

Swansont said what I wanted to say, only better, and like the scientist he is, more objectively and patiently than I did.

[nahomadis]

Hi. Thanks for responding. You have raised some interesting points which I want to try to deal with. Again, do let me know if I am not clear in any area.

 

It's simple, he said creationism had evidence and that it had more than evolution. That is not true, and I responded accurately.

 

 

You are quite right, there is no more evidence for Creation than there is for molecules-to-man Evolution. However, when interprted by starting with Genesis assumptions the evidence makes good sense. On the contrary, when the evidence is interpreted from a Naturalistic starting point it does not makes good sense. So the evidence fits better into a Creationary explanatory framework.

 

 

Evidence is evidence, and rejecting it.....

 

Note that it is not the evidence that is controversial. The facts and the evidence are the same to both sides. Creationists do not reject the evidence, but interpret it using Genesis assumpitons, thus rejecting the Naturalistic-based Evolutionist explanation.

 

 

....for any reason otehr than that it disagrees with their beliefs is simply dishonest.

 

 

It is the Evolutionary explanation that I reject, because it, fundamentally, disagrees with what God says. I do not hide this fact from my colleagues who believe in molecules-to-man Evolution so I am not being dishonest. On the contrary, almost all Evolutionists do not disclose the fact that it is their commitment to philosophical Naturalism that compels them to reject the Creationist interpretation of the facts. The honesty of Richard Lewontin, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, is rare. Lewontin said ' ‘We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

 

Creationists try to fit the evidence to what they want it to mean.

 

 

I don't know of any reputable Creationist who does that. It is the Genesis framework into which they seek to fit the evidence. That is the way evidence relating to Origins is interpreted. It is good thing that we have the Genesis account. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be able to make the correct assumptions with which to interpret the evidence.

 

Science takes the evidence and builds up the answers from there.

 

 

That is true of Operational Science. We can build up the answers because we can observe, repeat and measure the phenomena which we are seeking to understand. But we can not build a complete explanation of Historical phenomena because were are not in the past. We must assume certain critical things about the past to fit gaps in our knowledge. In fact, the further in the past the phenomena the more untestable our starting assumption, and thus the more biased our conclusion become.

 

 

If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory is changed to acccount for it.

 

 

Evolutionary scientists like Richard Lewontin are commited to a Naturalistic starting point and will therefore only embrace a theory of Origins that fits their starting point. They will not accept a theory that contradicts Naturalism. And they will not accept another theory, no matter how well it explains the evidence, if it implies Naturalism is false. It is not the evidence that guides them - but their beliefs.

 

 

 

You make the unscientific assumption that God is represented at all accurately, without any substantial (as in tangible) reason to do so.

 

 

It is not wrong to trust God's word without scientific proof. It is not possible to prove God scientifically. But the problem is not God. The problem is the limitation of science. Science is limited because we are limited. For example we can not observe things outside of the material word. We can not repeat or measure distant events. The scientific method is a wonderful tool for discovery, but we have to acknowledge that it will only take as so far.

 

 

 

It doesn't say nature is all there is,.............

 

 

Darwinists assume Nature is all there. That is why they believe everything must have made itself.

 

 

...........it simply figures out how the nature we see and know to exist ultimately works.

 

 

You are confusing Operational science with Historical science. Darwinian assumptions do not greatly impact the conclusions of operational science (medicine, computing, space exploration etc) because the assumptions of Operational Sciece are implicitly taken from the Bible. But they do impact Historical science (geology, anthropology, archeology).

 

 

The rest is attestable, and whether or not there is some christian or aztec or greek god or whole pantheon of gods in no way changes the very fact that the way science depicts nature to work is indeed how it works.

 

 

I take it you are refering to Operational science here. The founders of science discovered the scientific method only when they made the assumption that God's word was true. In fact, the scientific method was established using assumptions taken straight from the Bible. They read that the God of the Bible is the Creator who is ordered, intelligent and dependable. They read from the Bible that the Laws of Nature have an an intelligent and dependable origin. And then they assumed the Laws of Nature are dependable and reliable enough to be used (through observation, repetition, measurement of natural phenomena) to understand the Natural world. Now ask yourself, could such a robust theoretical framework for the scientific method be constructed using a Naturalistic starting point? Tell me, using your Naturalistic starting point, why should the sun rise tomorrow? Why should water boil at 100 degrees C now and then at the same temperature 10 minutes later?

 

 

If you're intending to say that it is without moral fiber or something else like that, then I have to respond that everything is as it is.

 

 

 

I meant to say that molecules-to-man Evolution is simply not true.

 

 

How it got to be that way doesn't have any effect on that simple fact. There being a god or not or how things came to be doesn't cahnge the way I feel about my loved ones.

 

 

Since you pointed it out, morality does clashe with our supposed evolutionary heritage. The effect is Darwinists are inconsistent if they love a fellow human being for a non-selfish reason.

 

 

Genetics, fossils, observable evolution in action, taxonomy, the lack of alternate explanations, etc etc etc

 

 

Lets start with the first one. What evidence/fact in Genetics relating to Origins are you referring to? Tell me how this evidence is interpretted under a Creationist framework. Then please tell me how this is interpreted under an Evoluionary framework, showing how the Evolutionary explanation makes better sense of the evidence.

 

 

Thanks. It is lovely talking to you.

Nahomadis

[gcol]

I think the public at large is generally ambivalent to the idea of evolution. The majority of my friends and relatives have "middle of the road" religious views, and seem to quite contentedly go along with creationism and evolution as if there is no contradiction that ought to cause them sleepless nights.

 

Here in the U.K. in my experience there is no big public furore about it. The problem seems to be an American one mainly. Small storm in a sub-continental teacup?

[ecoli]

You are quite right, there is no more evidence for Creation than there is for molecules-to-man Evolution.

you're wrong here... there is no scientific evidence for creationism, just as their is no circumstancial evidence for evolution. There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence for evolution, and just because creationists keep denying that fact, doen't make it true.

 

However, when interprted by starting with Genesis assumptions the evidence makes good sense. On the contrary, when the evidence is interpreted from a Naturalistic starting point it does not makes good sense. So the evidence fits better into a Creationary explanatory framework.

 

The above statement is meaningless.

 

 

Note that it is not the evidence that is controversial. The facts and the evidence are the same to both sides. Creationists do not reject the evidence, but interpret it using Genesis assumpitons, thus rejecting the Naturalistic-based Evolutionist explanation.

In other words, creationists are taking scientific data and applying it towards God, something which cannot be done. Two different realms of thought that cannot be crossed, except at the metaphorical level.

 

It is the Evolutionary explanation that I reject, because it, fundamentally, disagrees with what God says.

No it doesn't... evolution happens. It has been demonstrated at basic levels, even. If you believe in God, as I do, then you would understand that evolution occurs as the ultimate form of God's will. Despite what is metaphorically described in Genesis.

 

On the contrary, almost all Evolutionists do not disclose the fact that it is their commitment to philosophical Naturalism that compels them to reject the Creationist interpretation of the facts.

this is unsubstantiated Bullshit.

 

The honesty of Richard Lewontin, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, is rare. Lewontin said ' ‘We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

I don't know who that guy is, or if that quote is even real... but I have my doubts.

I don't know of any reputable Creationist who does that. It is the Genesis framework into which they seek to fit the evidence. That is the way evidence relating to Origins is interpreted. It is good thing that we have the Genesis account. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be able to make the correct assumptions with which to interpret the evidence.

 

Exactly why creationism is not a science. They take scientific fact and try to bend it into a framework that can't tolerate the science aspect. This is why creationism is not a science and should only be taken metaphorically, or at the very least, only in the context of the religion.

 

 

That is true of Operational Science. We can build up the answers because we can observe, repeat and measure the phenomena which we are seeking to understand. But we can not build a complete explanation of Historical phenomena because were are not in the past. We must assume certain critical things about the past to fit gaps in our knowledge. In fact, the further in the past the phenomena the more untestable our starting assumption, and thus the more biased our conclusion become.

 

Science assumes that evolution predicts models of what the future brings. Therefore it is science. Creationism happened only in the past, and it's affects are immesurable via scientific method... therefore it's not science.

 

 

Evolutionary scientists like Richard Lewontin are commited to a Naturalistic starting point and will therefore only embrace a theory of Origins that fits their starting point. They will not accept a theory that contradicts Naturalism. And they will not accept another theory, no matter how well it explains the evidence, if it implies Naturalism is false. It is not the evidence that guides them - but their beliefs.

 

If anything, you just described creationism, which corrupts scientific data to fit it into the Genesis picture. Creationists will not accept another thoery, becasue their faith blinds them to the differences between science and religion. Now, you are beinh hypocritical.

 

It is not wrong to trust God's word without scientific proof. It is not possible to prove God scientifically. But the problem is not God. The problem is the limitation of science. Science is limited because we are limited. For example we can not observe things outside of the material word. We can not repeat or measure distant events. The scientific method is a wonderful tool for discovery, but we have to acknowledge that it will only take as so far.

 

It's not about right and wrong. I believe in the existance of God, but the idea that creationism occured because there is no proof for otherwise is ridiculous. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

 

What you are saying is that: creationsim happens because God says so. How do you know God exists? Because you believe it to be so. therefore, creationism only existed because you beleive it to be so.

 

Using this 'logic' anything could be said to have existed. Which, is possible, but it's not science.

 

Darwinists assume Nature is all there. That is why they believe everything must have made itself.

 

This is completely wrong. Darwinists KNOW that nature is the only thing humans will be able to observe. Therefore, it's not worth coming up with theories with a basis in the unobservable. That is the truth about science, and why creationsim can NEVER be accepted in the scientific community. We simply cannot base scientific data on something we can't prove to be true.

 

 

Now ask yourself, could such a robust theoretical framework for the scientific method be constructed using a Naturalistic starting point? Tell me, using your Naturalistic starting point, why should the sun rise tomorrow? Why should water boil at 100 degrees C now and then at the same temperature 10 minutes later?

 

the world appears to operate by specific physical laws, and that's the basis of science. We cannot assume God exists, just because it's possible that the laws of physics will change tommorow. God requires faith, which has no place in science. We have to base scientific principles on the assumption that physics is static. This is the only healthy way to do science.

 

I meant to say that molecules-to-man Evolution is simply not true.

 

Using the God of the Gaps fallacy. Which mistakenly used God to prove/disprove scientific principles. You're whole assumption is based of fallacy.

 

Since you pointed it out, morality does clashe with our supposed evolutionary heritage. The effect is Darwinists are inconsistent if they love a fellow human being for a non-selfish reason.

 

Morality has nothing to do with science. If you call evolutionists immoral, then you will be immediately discredited here, if you aren't already.

[AzurePhoenix]

You are quite right, there is no more evidence for Creation than there is for molecules-to-man Evolution. However, when interprted by starting with Genesis assumptions the evidence makes good sense. On the contrary, when the evidence is interpreted from a Naturalistic starting point it does not makes good sense. So the evidence fits better into a Creationary explanatory framework.

The evidence far evolution is irrefutably solid, tangible, and quite extensive. Saying otherwise is simply false. Anywho, this isn't about the origins of life, as previously stated, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

 

Note that it is not the evidence that is controversial. The facts and the evidence are the same to both sides. Creationists do not reject the evidence, but interpret it using Genesis assumpitons, thus rejecting the Naturalistic-based Evolutionist explanation.

And the facts and evidence only support evolution. The creationists reject what the evidence says, and twist it to fit a conclusion that they have already made clear they are resolute to uphold under any circumstances. They don't wish to expand their knowledge, they wish to confirm what they already believe to be true. This is a dishonest way to approach things.

 

Let's go with the legal-system simile again - This is similar to a court system deciding a man is guily for a crime without any reason to do so, then examing the evidence. Whether or not the evidence idicates he's guilty (which is clearly doesn't and points at another man) the court uses ludicrous and fanciful leaps of illogic to interpret the evidence as stating the man as being guilty, while using similar leaps of illogic to toss aside the evidence that proves his innocence wihtout any doubt (or ignoring such evidence entirely). That is what creationist "science" does

 

It is the Evolutionary explanation that I reject, because it, fundamentally, disagrees with what God says.

That doesn't count for anything without evidence to support that this god was quoted or interpretted properly (or had anything to do with what was written anyway), this god is trustworthy in the firstplace, or that this god even exists.

I do not hide this fact from my colleagues who believe in molecules-to-man Evolution so I am not being dishonest.

Why you believe what you do and the methods you employ to come to that "conclusion" are dishonest.

 

On the contrary, almost all Evolutionists do not disclose the fact that it is their commitment to philosophical Naturalism that compels them to reject the Creationist interpretation of the facts.

If you believe that, then you clearly have no concept of science.

 

The honesty of Richard Lewontin, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, is rare. Lewontin said ' ‘We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

One crackpot does not represent the beliefs of the greater majority.

 

I don't know of any reputable Creationist who does that. It is the Genesis framework into which they seek to fit the evidence. That is the way evidence relating to Origins is interpreted. It is good thing that we have the Genesis account. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be able to make the correct assumptions with which to interpret the evidence.

Exactly, they interpret the evidence to fit what they already believe, and they often go to great lengths to interpret it in ways devoid of rationality to fit that pre-conclusion. The genesis account is worthless as a literal guide to the universe. First of all, it's centuries old written and edited by many people across the ages who had only myths and cultic dogmas to work on, not to mention the political agendas they were pushing.

 

That is true of Operational Science. We can build up the answers because we can observe, repeat and measure the phenomena which we are seeking to understand.

You aren't seeking to understand phenomena at all. It tells you one thing, and you still go on to pretend it doesn't.

 

But we can not build a complete explanation of Historical phenomena because were are not in the past. We must assume certain critical things about the past to fit gaps in our knowledge. In fact, the further in the past the phenomena the more untestable our starting assumption, and thus the more biased our conclusion become.

What history are you talking about? And what efect does it have on evolution? This makes no sense.

 

 

Evolutionary scientists like Richard Lewontin are commited to a Naturalistic starting point and will therefore only embrace a theory of Origins that fits their starting point. They will not accept a theory that contradicts Naturalism. And they will not accept another theory, no matter how well it explains the evidence, if it implies Naturalism is false. It is not the evidence that guides them - but their beliefs.

Again, evolution is not a belief system, it is a theory built up from the facts, a theory that changes to be honest about what the evidence says. And evolution is NOT ABOUT ORIGINS. Go to the astronomy section for that crap.

 

It is not wrong to trust God's word without scientific proof. It is not possible to prove God scientifically. But the problem is not God. The problem is the limitation of science. Science is limited because we are limited. For example we can not observe things outside of the material word. We can not repeat or measure distant events. The scientific method is a wonderful tool for discovery, but we have to acknowledge that it will only take as so far.

No it can't test for God and might never be able to, but it can test for and prove evolution and other worldy aspects of our universe and planet. Youu seem to be indicating that not being able to detect/test god means we can't do the same to the evidence that we know exists, can touch, test and correctly understand. What is wrong to blindly assume word's god is true or honest without any reason to believe so.

 

Darwinists assume Nature is all there. That is why they believe everything must have made itself.

No it doesn't. So far without any evidence to the contrary, we are led to believe that it is possible nothing is there, but should evidence be found to indicate the otherwise, it would be taken into account and the theories of whatever would be properly adjusted. Few evolutionists are Darwinists anymore.

 

You are confusing Operational science with Historical science. Darwinian assumptions do not greatly impact the conclusions of operational science (medicine, computing, space exploration etc) because the assumptions of Operational Sciece are implicitly taken from the Bible. But they do impact Historical science (geology, anthropology, archeology).

I'm sorry, can you send me a PM elaborating on this?

 

 

In fact, the scientific method was established using assumptions taken straight from the Bible. They read that the God of the Bible is the Creator who is ordered, intelligent and dependable. They read from the Bible that the Laws of Nature have an an intelligent and dependable origin. And then they assumed the Laws of Nature are dependable and reliable enough to be used (through observation, repetition, measurement of natural phenomena) to understand the Natural world.

First of all, tehy're entire starting point of "they read" is a very soggy and uneven foundation for intreting evidence if it's combined with unwavering, inflexible faith.

 

Now ask yourself, could such a robust theoretical framework for the scientific method be constructed using a Naturalistic starting point?

Make an observation that you can see to be true and get curious about it; make an assumption about how you think it works; test that assumption and see if it holds true; base a new conclusion off of what the test has shown you. THAT is scientific method. SImple curioisty and the desire to learn is reason enough. You don't need a big petty bully in the sky to want those things.

 

I meant to say that molecules-to-man Evolution is simply not true.

Show us evidence that suggests this.

 

Lets start with the first one. What evidence/fact in Genetics relating to Origins are you referring to? Tell me how this evidence is interpretted under a Creationist framework. Then please tell me how this is interpreted under an Evoluionary framework, showing how the Evolutionary explanation makes better sense of the evidence.

Nothing to do with origins. That involves whole other sciences that have nothing to do with evolution. As for Genetics supporting evolution, the simple processs that change dna (mutation, acting in concert with natural selection and other population dynamics) and passes it generation to generation is evidence enough on its own. Observable evidence showing us without question what occurs.

 

Since you pointed it out, morality does clashe with our supposed evolutionary heritage. The effect is Darwinists are inconsistent if they love a fellow human being for a non-selfish reason.

What I pointed out is that morality or ethics or whatever is disntinct and separate from the "origins" you keep referring to. If anything, if I were to set aside my scientific values and argue about it form a philisophical standpoint, I would say that Biblical creationism paints a very ugly picture when it comes to humanity in an ethical sense, and cheapens such things as ethics, emotions and existence in general if taken literally. But, this has nothing to do with the point and is devoid of scientific meaning, so I won't get caught up in it.

[mattbimbo]

R

ight, back to the question. Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

 

why not ask whether the laws of thermodynamics or the speed of light are widely accepted by the public.?

 

has anyone ever been able to accurately predict what the public will or will not widely accept? isn't that the more scientific question? since science is partly about predicting future events.

[swansont]

You are quite right, there is no more evidence for Creation than there is for molecules-to-man Evolution. However, when interprted by starting with Genesis assumptions the evidence makes good sense. On the contrary, when the evidence is interpreted from a Naturalistic starting point it does not makes good sense. So the evidence fits better into a Creationary explanatory framework.

 

Nothing you've said here is objectively true, not the least of which is that molecules-to-anything is not part of evolution. If you've already assumed that Genesis is true, then the rest is circular reasoning.

 

 

It is the Evolutionary explanation that I reject, because it, fundamentally, disagrees with what God says. I do not hide this fact from my colleagues who believe in molecules-to-man Evolution so I am not being dishonest. On the contrary, almost all Evolutionists do not disclose the fact that it is their commitment to philosophical Naturalism that compels them to reject the Creationist interpretation of the facts.

 

The Creationist interpretation breaks physical law. Evolution doesn't say God didn't do it, it just says that if he did, that we can see the mechanism.

 

 

The honesty of Richard Lewontin, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, is rare. Lewontin said ' ‘We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ [i']Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.[/i]

 

Lewontin is stating an opinion, and this is just an appeal to authority if you think it applies to anyone but Lewontin.

 

 

I don't know of any reputable Creationist who does that. It is the Genesis framework into which they seek to fit the evidence. That is the way evidence relating to Origins is interpreted. It is good thing that we have the Genesis account. If we didn't have it we wouldn't be able to make the correct assumptions with which to interpret the evidence.

 

There are reputable Creationists?

 

Lets start with the first one. What evidence/fact in Genetics relating to Origins are you referring to? Tell me how this evidence is interpretted under a Creationist framework. Then please tell me how this is interpreted under an Evoluionary framework' date=' showing how the Evolutionary explanation makes better sense of the evidence.

[/quote']

 

How about 59 alleles of the HLA gene in humans? How do you get that from Adam and Eve (or even Noah and his family) in 6000 years without evolution? (Or basically any genetic diversity in animals that started from a single breeding pair. Define what a "kind" is)