so sorry... evolution as a belief system ?

[FO4UR]

 

The idea that life is a mere 6000 years old flies in the face of science, no matter how much people with an admittedly biased agenda try to claim otherwise.

 

 

My point is that many people hold to a belief in an idea....YEC hold no monopoly there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

It amazes me that one can stridently accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and admit that it has changed over time as additional evidence has been found...all in one thread.  

 

Yes, we find new evidence all the time.  Maybe we'll find evidence that debunks everything mainstream scientists today believe.  If we hold too tightly to the Theory of Evolution, I fear we will be too rigid-in-belief to see what is right on front of us.  (I think there is too much rigidity on both sides of the spectrum of belief!)  At one time, the world was flat...and evidence was poo-pooed.  What *I* believe doesn't matter...the world still goes around regardless.

 

Don't let hubris stand in the way of science, is all I'm saying.

 

You would be less amazed if you understood what constitutes a scientific theory and its purpose.

[FO4UR]

I think this is often a point of confusion on both sides. Plenty of people on both sides conflate evolution with origin theory and all of that. Inexact language is one of the tactics used by people like Ham to manipulate the data and public.

 

 

I agree.

 

That said, I think origin theory and evolution are so interconnected that we have to study them together.  

[FO4UR]

You would be less amazed if you understood what constitutes a scientific theory and its purpose.

 

 

Maybe you should explain it for the ignorant.

[Slache]

I think when people say evolution is a belief system they are actually thinking of scientism.  

 

 

But that doesn't work because many Christians accept evolution.

 

 

It was stupid to word it that way. I assume that was Ham? Evolution is a belief, part of a belief system, such as Buddhism. Creation is a belief. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all belief systems that believe in some sort of creation.

[LucyStoner]

My point is that many people hold to a belief in an idea....YEC hold no monopoly there.

 

But YEC proponents like Ham are basing their beliefs on faith, guesses and in some cases, clear fabrications that have no basis whatsoever.  That is not the same thing as a generally accepted scientific theory and it is not based on faith, but observations.  Not all knowledge is equally verifiable. 

 

Personally I wouldn't want to cheapen my faith by sticking to such a sandy premise or turning my ancient religious texts into a science lesson.  Honestly from where I am sitting the people who should have the biggest problem with the likes of Ham are his fellow Christians. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe you should explain it for the ignorant.

 

I will let Wiki do it for me as this is a great explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It was stupid to word it that way. I assume that was Ham? Evolution is a belief, part of a belief system, such as Buddhism. Creation is a belief. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all belief systems that believe in some sort of creation.

 

What belief "system" is evolution a part of?

 

Hint: it isn't.

[LucyStoner]

I agree.

 

That said, I think origin theory and evolution are so interconnected that we have to study them together.  

 

Expanding the theory of evolution to contort it to explaining origins is not scientifically sound.  It tries to make leaps from many scientific branches into a few others, like astrophysics that many people, even many scientists, aren't qualified to make many assertions about at all. 

[SadieMarie]

I think sometimes, as an agnostic, that people assume that you have to have a "belief system" as in religious beliefs.  Because I don't have religious beliefs and accept evolution, it is assigned as a belief system.  It is not my belief system .  I don't organize my life around it.  I don't use it to make decisions about the appropriate course of action in any situation.  I don't use it to judge the morality of my actions or the actions of others.  It creates no rituals.  I don't feel called to any sort of leap of faith to accept it.  

[albeto.]

If new information is being added all the time, then we have to accept that we do not have the complete picture.

This has been admitted a long, long time ago! Science cannot, and thus does not make the claim it has the complete picture! It's a process, a methodology to explore the natural world. We haven't explored the entire world, the entire universe, how could we have? Will we ever? Whoever is teaching you that scientists think they have all the answers is teaching you falsehoods about what science is and how it works.

 

The continual corroboration that you speak of is in danger of being filtered through the *belief* that the theory of evolution is THE way things work on the planet.

So a grand, worldwide, millenia years old conspiracy? Or everyone just happens to make the same mistake, corroborating this mistake with other mistakes, regardless of the culture in which they were born, the language they speak, or the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with each other? A scientist in Poland in the 16th century made the same mistakes as a scientist in Saudi Arabia in the 19th century? How could their mistakes be so well unified if they were conducting their research wrong and interpreting the data incorrectly?

 

You said that it's the best explanation we have so far.  That's it.  It's the best explanation that scientists have come up with so far. In order to believe that evolution is true, you have to *believe* some things without seeing/touching/observing them.

Only evolution isn't a belief. It's an explanation.

 

It amazes me that one can stridently accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and admit that it has changed over time as additional evidence has been found...all in one thread.

It shouldn't amaze you. The scientific method is constantly modifying explanations as new information comes in. This doesn't mean certain things are not facts, it just means we understand certain details better.

 

Don't let hubris stand in the way of science, is all I'm saying.

The scientific method exists to remove variables of one's personal bias. The religious method is predicated on the idea the god of the universe is personally sharing some heretofore unknown information directly, personally, with one person but not another (or most others, or any others). Which idea do you think has more hubris?

[Mrs Mungo]

If new information is being added all the time, then we have to accept that we do not have the complete picture.  The continual corroboration that you speak of is in danger of being filtered through the *belief* that the theory of evolution is THE way things work on the planet.

 

 

You said that it's the best explanation we have so far.  That's it.  It's the best explanation that scientists have come up with so far. In order to believe that evolution is true, you have to *believe* some things without seeing/touching/observing them. <snip for brevity>

 

 

It amazes me that one can stridently accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and admit that it has changed over time as additional evidence has been found...all in one thread.

Here is the sort of confusion that I was talking about. Can I use a different scientific principle to maybe explain where people are coming from? (Science people, please excuse me, I majored in literature so this is going to be a simplified version of a complex topic. ;) )

 

We know gravity exists. The existence of gravity is generally considered a fact. Our understanding of gravity and the scientific theories of gravity have changed over time. Newton's theory of gravity more or less works on earth. But, scientists knew for a long time that it didn't explain everything that happened in space. Einstein's Theory of Relativity expanded the theory of gravity and explained a lot more, but still not everything. More and more information, data and evidence have been added to the theory of gravity. This has implications all the way back to how scientists think about the beginnings of the universe. There are competing theories about some aspects of gravity. Some assumptions have changed, but most have only been expanded upon. None of that changes the fact that gravity exists.

 

Evolution is similar. We know evolution happens. Evolution is a fact. There is also the larger theory of evolution which is the one I think you're actually talking about. Only very recently has Neanderthal DNA been found in some humans, when before it was believed that Neanderthals and humans were distinct species that had evolved from a common ancestor. The changing evidence and the competing theories of the HOW behind evolution might change. But, that doesn't change the fact that evolution happens and is a fact.

 

Yes, we find new evidence all the time.  Maybe we'll find evidence that debunks everything mainstream scientists today believe.

Even if that is true? It will only change the "how" behind the theory of evolution, it won't debunk evolution.  

 

At one time, the world was flat...and evidence was poo-pooed.

This is a myth. The ancient Greeks, Native Americans, medieval scholars, they all believed that the earth was round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

 

And yet, in spite of thousands of years worth of knowledge and an abundance of scientific evidence to the contrary, there are people who insist that the world is flat:

http://theflatearthsociety.org

[HRAAB]

If evolution were proved to be false, my life wouldn't fall apart.  My entire life, my moral system, my values, my behavior is not dictated by my acceptance of evolution.  I wouldn't feel lost, abandoned, without hope or salvation because I don't equate evolution with eternal salvation.  I would be extremely curious about learning about the new evidence.  

 

Somehow, if it were possible to prove Christianity absolutely false, I think it would take a far greater toll on people.

 

Evolution is interesting, fascinating, but it's not the salvation of my eternal soul or the one thing saving me from hell, like a person's belief in Jesus.

 

I agree; I spend far more time wondering what we're going to eat for dinner.  Popcorn sounds easy tonight....

[regentrude]

The supreme court decided that creation is not science. The new question is if science is a naturalistic religion.

 

No. Religion implies belief. Science implies questioning, logic, and scrutiny.

 

The only thing scientists must believe in is the one basic premise that natural phenomena have natural explanations which are in principle accessible to human knowledge.

Based on accepting that humans can know and that phenomena have understandable explanations, science searchs for answers.

I see not a single hall mark of religion in the way science operates.

[umsami]

I want to say this in a gentle way to the people who do believe in that the Bible is 100% literal, and so is the Creation story.  Please do not hang your faith (or your children's faith on that).  Please.  You do not want to have them abandon their entire faith over that.  There are plenty of well-regarded theologians who talk about the various literature forms in the Bible--and not all of it is meant to be taken literally.  For example, saying it rained for 40 days and nights, does not mean that it rained exactly that.  The term "40" in Middle Eastern literature means a lot.  So, Jesus was in the desert for 40 days.  Ali Baba and the 40 thieves.  Muslims are told that their neighbors are 40 houses to either side of them.  Etc.  Regardless of what the Bible said, do you really think that people lived hundreds of years longer than now? Even without antibiotics or modern medicine?  Are you going to hang your kids' faith on believing that Methuselah lived nearly 1000 years, when it's rare for somebody to reach 100 years today?

 

I know I can't change your belief, but when talking to your children, at least point out that some believe it is a creation story, but not necessarily meant to be taken literally.  It could be parable.  It could be a lot of things.  There is a preponderance of evidence out there that implies that it is not literally true.  There is a lot of geologic evidence for regional floods, but nothing for a world wide flood.  Your children will likely encounter it at sometime in their life.  They may even believe it.  You do not want them to throw out everything over that…to question everything you have taught them.  At least, leave room for doubt.  There are millions of good Christians who do not believe everything is literally true in the Bible.  People of wonderful faith--both in belief and action.  

 

The only reason I'm bothering to say that is I have a good friend whose entire identity was his faith.  When one think he was taught was proven untrue in his mind, he abandoned everything. It was heartbreaking to watch, but because he had been taught an all/nothing approach, he felt he had to chose nothing.   

[regentrude]

You said that it's the best explanation we have so far.  That's it.  It's the best explanation that scientists have come up with so far. In order to believe that evolution is true, you have to *believe* some things without seeing/touching/observing them. 

 

 

But that is precisely the point: nobody asks anybody to believe that "evolution is true". This is not about truth. Science does not claim evolution is "true".

All science does is say: here is one possible explanation for the processes, and we have not found phenomena that could not be explained with this theory. So, as long as the theory is not falsified by contrary observations, and as long as nobody has suggested a competing theory that is falsifiable and agrees with the observations,  we accept this theory as an explanation for the phenomena.

 

Science keeps an open mind. If an alternative scientific theory is suggested that can be tested and falsified and has predictive power, it will be examined. To this date, nobody has suggested such an alternative scientific theory. Explanations that rely on a higher being that is unknowable do not qualify as scientific theory.

[Mrs Mungo]

I want to say this in a gentle way to the people who do believe in that the Bible is 100% literal, and so is the Creation story.  Please do not hang your faith (or your children's faith on that).  Please.

I completely agree. I've actually seen well known homeschool circuit speakers say that this was a problem for their kids when the kids grew up, went to college and learned about the issue on their own.