"It's Magic"

[Jorge S]

The theory of evolution is established fact, so it's sort of embarrassing oneself to try and disprove it. Might as well try to disprove gravity.

Anybody else out there find this utterly hilarious?

Me too! It could be the kind of lapse caused by uncritically accepting parroted myths.

[johndavid316]

The theory of evolution is established fact, so it's sort of embarrassing oneself to try and disprove it. Might as well try to disprove gravity.

Anybody else out there find this utterly hilarious?

No. And I'll explain. I'm going to simply replace the word evolution in the sentence with other scientific theories.

The theory of gravity is established fact

The theory of relativity is established fact

The theory of quantum mechanics is established fact

The theory of the atom is established fact

The theory of germs are established fact

The theory of cells are established fact

Not so funny, are they? This is because you are using the wrong definition of theory. Here are the dictionary.com scientific definitions of theory:

[Jorge S]

... definitions of theory:

...

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Dude, you have lost it. According to the definition you have yourself quoted above, fact and theory are not the same thing. Calling any theory a fact is like asserting that 'the white stallion is black!'

Do I believe in evolution? NO. Just because something is established scientifically doesn't mean you have to believe in it. It conflicts with my views of the Bible, ...

Interesting proposition. You believe in the Bible because it is unscientific and, at the same time, disbelief the 'scientifically established' wonder of evolution. Yet that doesn't deter you from instructing us all to go get educated on the very same subject you despise.

[johndavid316]

... definitions of theory:

...

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Dude, you have lost it. According to the definition you have yourself quoted above, fact and theory are not the same thing. Calling any theory a fact is like asserting that 'the white stallion is black!'

Do I believe in evolution? NO. Just because something is established scientifically doesn't mean you have to believe in it. It conflicts with my views of the Bible, ...

Interesting proposition. You believe in the Bible because it is unscientific and, at the same time, disbelief the 'scientifically established' wonder of evolution. Yet that doesn't deter you from instructing us all to go get educated on the very same subject you despise.

I must first start by defending myself. I guess that I didn't convey my idea correctly. In science, nothing is called a theory without being established substantially. There are no exceptions. If you must attack evolution because "It is only a theory," then you must attack all other scientific theories, because they are only theories. It is a horrible ground for an attack. If you want to prove evolution wrong, then don't use Intelligent Design. At least don't claim that it is science. It is not. And don't bring up the bacterial flagellum either. The idea that even one protein being taken out of protein being taken out leaves is function-less has been thoroughly debunked. May I suggest you watch this lecture [edit youtube link] for an explanation of that. Evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the diversity of the things that we observe in nature.

Secondly, I do not despise the theory of evolution at all. Here is my stance. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in the literal interpretation of the Word. And I have faith that it is truth. In the Bible, God created man. This conflicts with the scientific view of evolution, however it does not discredit either. You have to remember that God is an all powerful being with ways that cannot be understood by mere humans. Science cannot explain Him, or His ways. God obviously has a plan and a reason for making things appear as if they evolved.

Can you understand my viewpoint now?

Edited October 8, 2010 by traveller
yutube link not allowed

[Jorge S]

Can you understand my viewpoint now?

No, I don't. You're attempting to reconcile two opposite worldviews and when that happens in the context of evolution vs the Bible it usually leads to bad science and even worse theology.

You depart from a solid foundation (e.g. God's Authorship of the Bible, the universe and man, the literalness of the Bible, the limitations of science to explain God and 'His Ways') only to stumble upon the quicksands of relativism, equivocation and error (e.g. making theory, fact and law interchangeable, trivializing the authority of the Bible over a human conjecture about origins, implying that God's Word and Work do not match.)

I'm not a supporter of Intelligent Design, therefore your remarks -although controversial- do not concern me.

Finally, I would contest that your assertion that 'evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the diversity of the things that we observe in nature' implies that evolution is the winner amongst different but equitably funded, researched, taught and publicized models at academic level. Yet we know that the evolutionary model has enjoyed for a century and a half the kind of hegemony that makes it the only accepted explanation in mainstream scientific circles and the media.

PS: Thanks for arguing your points for the most part politely.

[johndavid316]

Can you understand my viewpoint now?

No, I don't. You're attempting to reconcile two opposite worldviews and when that happens in the context of evolution vs the Bible it usually leads to bad science and even worse theology.

You depart from a solid foundation (e.g. God's Authorship of the Bible, the universe and man, the literalness of the Bible, the limitations of science to explain God and 'His Ways') only to stumble upon the quicksands of relativism, equivocation and error (e.g. making theory, fact and law interchangeable, trivializing the authority of the Bible over a human conjecture about origins, implying that God's Word and Work do not match.)

I'm not a supporter of Intelligent Design, therefore your remarks -although controversial- do not concern me.

Finally, I would contest that your assertion that 'evolution is currently the best scientific explanation for the diversity of the things that we observe in nature' implies that evolution is the winner amongst different but equitably funded, researched, taught and publicized models at academic level. Yet we know that the evolutionary model has enjoyed for a century and a half the kind of hegemony that makes it the only accepted explanation in mainstream scientific circles and the media.

PS: Thanks for arguing your points for the most part politely.

And the media? Have you seen fox news? Ha ha I kid, I kid.

I posted the lecture and talked about ID not for you, but for other people that might stumble upon this topic. Before I debate with you further, I must clarify a few topics. ID is not at all science, but an untested hypothesis that has been debunked over and over again. It has never (if submitted to) passed through a scientific journal, passed through peer review, or anything else that would qualify this as science. It is simply an attempt to squeeze in religion to schools. If you would care to watch the lecture (I apologize, I know it's long) you would see that the speaker (who is Christian Biologist, by the way) has been on trial when they ruled that ID was an attempt to get creationism into schools. Do I personally agree with the creationist point of view? Yes. But I live in America. We have separation of church and state here, and unless something is conducted in a scientific manner, it should not go into the science class.

Second, I would agree with you that evolution is the only accepted explanation, however that does nothing to discredit it. Is it bad that the only theory of the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth is gravity? No. But gravity doesn't contradict a fundamentalist Christian world view, so no one seems to care.

Lastly, I agree that I depart from logic and reason when I say that God must have had a reason to make things appear evolved. I do it because I have faith that my literal interpretation of the Bible is true. It is no different than when a child dies and someone says "God must have had a plan for him/her." It is not because they have evidence of an actual plan, it is because they have Faith.

[MorningGlory]

The theory of evolution is established fact, so it's sort of embarrassing oneself to try and disprove it. Might as well try to disprove gravity.

Anybody else out there find this utterly hilarious?

No. And I'll explain. I'm going to simply replace the word evolution in the sentence with other scientific theories.

The theory of gravity is established fact

The theory of relativity is established fact

The theory of quantum mechanics is established fact

The theory of the atom is established fact

The theory of germs are established fact

The theory of cells are established fact

Not so funny, are they? This is because you are using the wrong definition of theory. Here are the dictionary.com scientific definitions of theory:

[MorningGlory]

... definitions of theory:

...

2.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Dude, you have lost it. According to the definition you have yourself quoted above, fact and theory are not the same thing. Calling any theory a fact is like asserting that 'the white stallion is black!'

Do I believe in evolution? NO. Just because something is established scientifically doesn't mean you have to believe in it. It conflicts with my views of the Bible, ...

Interesting proposition. You believe in the Bible because it is unscientific and, at the same time, disbelief the 'scientifically established' wonder of evolution. Yet that doesn't deter you from instructing us all to go get educated on the very same subject you despise.

[Jorge S]

Lastly, I agree that I depart from logic and reason when I say that God must have had a reason to make things appear evolved. I do it because I have faith that my literal interpretation of the Bible is true.

Dear John David,

In what sense 'things appear evolved' so as to credit God for it?

And from where in the Bible did you derive any literal interpretation that supports evolution?

Blessings.

[spiritman]

Upon studing Evolution for myself, I have discovered that most Christians understand that there are 2 types of Evolution:

1. Micro Evolution

2. Macro Evolution

Micro Evolution is proven to take place on a small scale: For example 2 long haired dogs get dumped off in a hot climate. Over time their off spring no longer need the long hair, so the gene goes dormant.

The gene is still there it just doesn't do anything.

Macro Evolution: Is considered to be Larger changes which Christians are opposed to. For example Man decending from an ancestor other than human.

Macro evolution clearly is counter to the scriptures. Because as Christians we believe that we were created by God from the Dust of the Earth, and Adam and Eve were fully Adult Humans on Day 1 when God created them.