Storm Bay Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) I don't consider that surprising at all, at this point. We know evolution happens. There are scientific theories that we might still say aren't facts, but evolution just isn't one of them to anyone except people who have a reason to want to deny it. There are no atheist scientists who say evolution didn't happen, that I'm aware of. That right there ought to tell you something. There are scientists who disagree about all sorts of things, and they come from all sorts of backgrounds, but when we get to the topic of evolution, the only people who disagree with it are those whose religious beliefs prevent them from accepting it. Correct about scientists, although there are atheist scientist who believe in evolution according to ID, though. ID did not spring up from a group of all Christians or people of faith. At least somer of them were atheists,although they may well be agnostics now. I think it's both unscientific and hasty to say that evolution is a fact based solely on the change within species, or even to new species as we define them, that we have positive evidence of at this point. If you'd like to know why, feel free to PM me as I'm done here :). I just wanted to address the first post and to state why I handle it this way. Edited February 9, 2011 by Karin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Targhee Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Argument may have already been stated in better terms, but here is my take: As to "Gravity is a Theory", well... Yes, but how we understand Gravity still isn't complete, and efforts are always towards a unified field theory where are all forces can be described in one equation/explanation. Scientific Theory is still theory. What is a FACT is that if I let this ball go out of my hand it falls to the ground. We explain that observed FACT with a THEORY. I for one am a religious person, who teaches creation as I understand it from scripture, as well as a scientist who teachers scientific theory as I understand it from scientific literature. I have no conflict between the two, because I believe our understanding of both is incomplete. I for one don't claim have God's extensive knowledge of creation. And I know that science continues to postulate, test, and refine ideas. Both approaches see through a glass, darkly. The Theory of Evolution is that, a theory - a good explanation of the facts we observe (those facts being that organisms adapt, organisms who successfully reproduce pass on their genetic information and those who don't make it to reproduction - because of maladaptation - don't pass on their genetic information, and we have a fossil record of organisms exhibiting modifications from one point in time to another). But remember, even evolution has "evolved" as a theory. Think of Lamarck vs Darwin. Think of the jump that happened after Mendel's experiments. Think of how dating minerals and even atoms has changed. The Old Earth has become even older, as our best scientific estimates provide, in my own lifetime. In teaching the Theory of Evolution, be careful you don't find yourself clinging to the edge of a flat earth because you ascribe current theory to be fact. The rest of science may just sail off with out you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) As to "Gravity is a Theory", well... Yes, but how we understand Gravity still isn't complete, and efforts are always towards a unified field theory where are all forces can be described in one equation/explanation. Scientific Theory is still theory. What is a FACT is that if I let this ball go out of my hand it falls to the ground. We explain that observed FACT with a THEORY. I for one am a religious person, who teaches creation as I understand it from scripture, as well as a scientist who teachers scientific theory as I understand it from scientific literature. I have no conflict between the two, because I believe our understanding of both is incomplete. :iagree:Shannon :hurray::hurray::hurray: Edited February 10, 2011 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetic license Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 errr, just to correct one bit that was mentioned earlier-- and others, such as fundamentalist muslims are also creationists. Muslims are not creationists in the Christian sense of the term. As far as I can understand, the only part of orthodox Islam that would conflict with evolution is that Adam was created in his own unique image, so not derived from any other life form. Microevolution, speciation, natural selection, old earth, etc. etc. are all fair game, so lumping "fundamentalist" (ugh sorry I just dislike that word) Muslims with creationists (esp including young earth folks) is technically incorrect. sorry, carry on :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) errr, just to correct one bit that was mentioned earlier-- Muslims are not creationists in the Christian sense of the term. As far as I can understand, the only part of orthodox Islam that would conflict with evolution is that Adam was created in his own unique image, so not derived from any other life form. Microevolution, speciation, natural selection, old earth, etc. etc. are all fair game, so lumping "fundamentalist" (ugh sorry I just dislike that word) Muslims with creationists (esp including young earth folks) is technically incorrect. sorry, carry on :) Well, that is just the thing. The vast majority of creationists pretty much agree with most of that. Everyone thinks that the differences between what creationists believe and what evolutionists believe is vastly different. That is just not the case. While looking into Young Earth Creationism I have found that they also accept microevolution, speciation, natural selection. The difference comes in at Universal Common Descent (evolutionists) and a few original created kinds (creationist).Many, many people pick a side between evolution and creation without having a full understanding of what either side teaches (I must add here that there are more than two sides, I can think of 5 right off of the bat), then you have more that only have a full understanding of what their chosen side teaches, and not the other. I am in the process of correcting that for my family. (If you have read my old posts in these debates you can see that I was strictly old earth creation and had very little respect for any other positions. Most of the time someone taking this position does so due to a lack of understanding.) Edited February 10, 2011 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayDad Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Law of Biogenesis. I find it interesting how many people have never heard of it before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 There are no atheist scientists who say evolution didn't happen, that I'm aware of. That right there ought to tell you something. . Why would an atheist NOT accept evolution? It simply shows that people who do not subscribe to any religious belief do not believe in a Creator of the universe. Which tells ME not to bother to ask an atheist whether or not they believe in evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna in Texas Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Why would an atheist NOT accept evolution? It simply shows that people who do not subscribe to any religious belief do not believe in a Creator of the universe. Which tells ME not to bother to ask an atheist whether or not they believe in evolution. Atheists accept evolution not because the don't believe in any gods, but because the science is convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Why would an atheist NOT accept evolution? It simply shows that people who do not subscribe to any religious belief do not believe in a Creator of the universe. Which tells ME not to bother to ask an atheist whether or not they believe in evolution. If evolution were a bad theory, then there would be atheists who did not subscribe to it, as well as religious people. Atheists might subscribe to other, non-theistic theories of the origin of species. In fact, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by atheists. This implies that the theory of evolution holds up well unless it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs. Religion being a separate thing from science, this finding would seem to reinforce the solidity of evolution. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 The atheist accepting/ believing in evolution really only has "science" on which to base a faith/ belief system. So they place their "faith" in science. This person will not modify their beliefs to accomodate the existence of possible alternative explanations so the only acceptable and "rational" explanation must fit with their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 Law of Biogenesis. I find it interesting how many people have never heard of it before. (sigh...) don't confuse people with the facts :glare: ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think it is inaccurate to use the term "believe in evolution." I do not "believe" in evolution, because it is not a question of faith. I accept evolution as a scientific theory, just as I accept Maxwell's equations and Newton's law of gravitation. I do not "believe" in gravity or in the existence of electromagnetic fields - I accept these as the best available theories, according to current scientific research, which best explain the phenomena they describe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetic license Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Many, many people pick a side between evolution and creation without having a full understanding of what either side teaches (I must add here that there are more than two sides, I can think of 5 right off of the bat), then you have more that only have a full understanding of what their chosen side teaches, and not the other. I am in the process of correcting that for my family. (If you have read my old posts in these debates you can see that I was strictly old earth creation and had very little respect for any other positions. Most of the time someone taking this position does so due to a lack of understanding.) Do you mind sharing some of your change-in-thought process? Just curious about different shades to the spectrum. :) Re: full understanding-- Regardless of one's belief, one will find that most biologists will say that an understanding of biology is not possible without a proper study of evolution. You simply can't appreciate taxonomy, for instance, or even the neurobiological underpinnings of our behavior without understanding what biologists have to say about evolution. So understanding evolution is really important for everyone, perhaps especially for those who believe in creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna in Texas Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The atheist accepting/ believing in evolution really only has "science" on which to base a faith/ belief system. So they place their "faith" in science. This person will not modify their beliefs to accomodate the existence of possible alternative explanations so the only acceptable and "rational" explanation must fit with their beliefs. I don't "believe" in evolution. I don't "believe" in gravity. I can absolutely modify my acceptance of alternative explanations if there were any that fit in the scope of science. Science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. Science isn't religion, so faith and belief aren't relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Many, many people pick a side between evolution and creation without having a full understanding of what either side teaches (I must add here that there are more than two sides, I can think of 5 right off of the bat), then you have more that only have a full understanding of what their chosen side teaches, and not the other. I am in the process of correcting that for my family. (If you have read my old posts in these debates you can see that I was strictly old earth creation and had very little respect for any other positions. Most of the time someone taking this position does so due to a lack of understanding.) :iagree: Why would an atheist NOT accept evolution? It simply shows that people who do not subscribe to any religious belief do not believe in a Creator of the universe. Which tells ME not to bother to ask an atheist whether or not they believe in evolution. If evolution were a bad theory, then there would be atheists who did not subscribe to it, as well as religious people. Atheists might subscribe to other, non-theistic theories of the origin of species. In fact, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by atheists. This implies that the theory of evolution holds up well unless it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs. Religion being a separate thing from science, this finding would seem to reinforce the solidity of evolution. Laura Herein lies an interesting situation, because What happens when atheists question atheistic evolution to the point of doubting it and moving to another theory (accidental with no creator or design) is that they tend to become agnostics or people of faith, and, therefore, no longer atheists. This happens more often than many realize. One example of someone who switched their evolutionary beliefs from Darwinist to ID is Dean Kenyon who, along with Gary Steinman, wrote Chemical Predestination in 1969. This book took athiestic evolutionary science by storm because at that time it made the best theoretical model of how biolochemical molecules could arise from from non-living chemicals. He didn't even question his theory until about 5 years later when a student challenged him with a good question. I have no idea if he was an atheist or not, but he is the best eg I have off the top of my head who switched. It turns out that this can't happen without catalysts, no matter how hard people have tried to make this scenario work. Just because the overwhelming majority of scientists believe, or at least appear to believe (there are at least some who don't but keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs) something doesn't prove that they are necessarily correct. It is normal for there to be a paradigm theory, and evolution is the best paradigm to fit with the larger current paradigm theory of uniformitarianism. More often than not what people are arguing about is how life started or how evolution (or change in species, etc) occurs, not whether or not it occurs. This is the area where I have yet to find a truly falsibiable theory or belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Do you mind sharing some of your change-in-thought process? Just curious about different shades to the spectrum. :) I don't know what you are looking for... I went from listening to authority. This authority says that YEC teachings are ridiculous, so I agree with that. I was called out on it... how do you know that they are ridiculous? Hmmm... I looked into it and found that they do have reasonable explanations for how the stars could be young, etc. It is hard when you are studying something in depth for a period of time to not lose yourself. I thought YEC was exciting. I started telling a lot of people about their explanations. At the same time, I needed to get a clear understanding of evolution, so I read up on that too. I can see how some of the genetic and fossil evidence is compelling. When I say so in the forums I belong to (for the purpose of debating/exploring origins) then I get a moderator writing to me, "You know, you sound like you are supporting evolution, as someone who identifies as a creationist, you need to be careful... blah, blah, blah..." so... anyway... I identify myself now as an "Agnostic Creationist" not Old Earth... not Young Earth... I don't think that anyone really knows. Re: full understanding--Regardless of one's belief, one will find that most biologists will say that an understanding of biology is not possible without a proper study of evolution. You simply can't appreciate taxonomy, for instance, or even the neurobiological underpinnings of our behavior without understanding what biologists have to say about evolution. So understanding evolution is really important for everyone, perhaps especially for those who believe in creation. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.