Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[JDavis]

 

 

Except that's not an agenda, it's a plain statement of how science works.  If science were to allow "God did it" as an explanation for things, it would no longer be effective and it would essentially cease.

 

Imagine a researcher who's looking into the cause for a disease.  What do you think would happen if he wrote a paper that described the disease and then simply concluded "God does it"?  Does that get us any closer to finding a cure?  Shoot, we can expand this beyond science.  Imagine taking your poor-running car to a mechanic, who pops the hood, looks a bit, and then says "God did it".  Are you satisfied? 

 

See, we all use methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, just as Dr. Lewontin stated.  So why you take his statement as an expression as some sort of "agenda" is not clear.

 

 

Yes, it is an agenda, as clear as can be.

 

and the idea that God did it does not mean that you stop trying to figure out how.

 

The greatest scientist in history all believed that God did it, and it was the fact that they felt God did it that drove people like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and a long list of many more to do what they did. 

 

So you are creating a strawman that the belief that God did it means that people stop looking for the how.

 

What this agenda does is limit where you look for the answers, which is a weakness not a strength. 

 

and at least you do agree that science has some patent absurd constructs and a strong tolerance for unsubstantiated just-so stories. 

[JDavis]

Odd how you skipped a whole paragraph

[~candice~]

I gave you definition, it is a mix of what you call "class" and "order".

That's far too vague to be of any use, and that's my point. "Kind" has no useful definition.

It would depend on the scientist, everyone has an agenda Those that have tied their horses to evolution have the agenda to further the theory.

You claimed that "scientists have redefined species to fit their agenda". What agenda were you talking about?

and lastly, more of the former than the latter. I like to hear what people have to say and how they think.

But if you're interested in understanding the science behind evolutionary biology, why are you trying to gain it in an internet Christian message board? Wouldn't a better approach be to take some classes, read some scholarly books, or read some scientific journals?

as for the agenda...here is one man's take on it...

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...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 absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin

Except that's not an agenda, it's a plain statement of how science works. If science were to allow "God did it" as an explanation for things, it would no longer be effective and it would essentially cease.

Imagine a researcher who's looking into the cause for a disease. What do you think would happen if he wrote a paper that described the disease and then simply concluded "God does it"? Does that get us any closer to finding a cure? Shoot, we can expand this beyond science. Imagine taking your poor-running car to a mechanic, who pops the hood, looks a bit, and then says "God did it". Are you satisfied?

See, we all use methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, just as Dr. Lewontin stated. So why you take his statement as an expression as some sort of "agenda" is not clear.

That made me lol for real.

you make a good point about what science is trying to do and saying "God did it" doesnt achieve that purpose.

but that isnt really the problem

The problem is people taking scientific explanations as if they replace the need for a god and they don't.

[~candice~]

That made me lol for real.

you make a good point about what science is trying to do and saying "God did it" doesnt achieve that purpose.

but that isnt really the problem

Thanks!

The problem is people taking scientific explanations as if they replace the need for a god and they don't.

I wonder though, does it cut both ways? Is there an effective difference between:

1) Science figures something out and a believer responds, "Oh, so that's how God did it"; and

2) Science figures something out and a non-believer responds, "See, no God needed"?

Both are just theological spins on a product of science, right?

understanding how something works teaches us nothing about the existence or otherwise of a god.

[JDavis]

 

 

That made me lol for real.

you make a good point about what science is trying to do and saying "God did it" doesnt achieve that purpose.

but that isnt really the problem

Thanks!

The problem is people taking scientific explanations as if they replace the need for a god and they don't.

I wonder though, does it cut both ways? Is there an effective difference between:

1) Science figures something out and a believer responds, "Oh, so that's how God did it"; and

2) Science figures something out and a non-believer responds, "See, no God needed"?

Both are just theological spins on a product of science, right?

understanding how something works teaches us nothing about the existence or otherwise of a god.

 

 

This is not entirely true.

 

I have just started a 2nd book by Francis Collins, who wrote "The Language of God" and in that book he clearly explains how understanding DNA and the Human Genome was his driving force to finding God.  

 

In his second book, this one on faith and reasoning he speaks of the "fine tuning" of the universe which leads to, in his opinion, only two conclusions...either an infinite number of universes of which we are the only one that supports life, or an intelligent designer i.e. God.

[MarkNigro]

The theory of evolution from atoms to mankind has no facts, not based on a religious assumption, that support it.

Besides all the evidence proves it wrong.

 

But here is a big issue.

 

There is not one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years in the universe or the universe itself.

Therefore there is not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that supports atoms to molecules evolution.

 

 

Provide one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years ago.

 

If I show that you have an religious assumption in your reasoning, you lose all your arguments. I will give you one free try. After that I will up the ante. Agreed?

[MarkNigro]

Mark,

 

As I said, I have no interest in debating whether the universe is 6,000 years old.  Thanks for your input.

Obviously you do not have one single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than about 6,000 years ago.

 

All your conclusions are now false.

 

The answer to the topic question is the Theory of Evolution (atoms to mankind) is false and is just a modern form of a pagan belief.

[craigdressler]

In the view you stated the minor discrepancy between monkey and human DNA matters little.  However, that simply does not explain at all the huge differences between monkeys and humans today.  That minor discrepancy is not minor at all.  It is huge.  In addition, you simply have not dealt with the DNA links between species as they evolved.  In the vast majority of cases DNA changes create problems and deformities not a better species.  Also, DNA changes do not replicate to offspring and their offspring, so evolution on the DNA scale simply does not work. Simply look at the offspring of a horse and a donkey which is a mule.  Mules are sterile.

[MarkNigro]

 

 Also, DNA changes do not replicate to offspring and their offspring, so evolution on the DNA scale simply does not work. 

 

Yes they do and it's so easy to demonstrate in real-time, it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses.

 

But where did DNA even come from?

 

What was the first life form (I do not know if it would be considered living)?

Was it just proteins? How many proteins? How many amino acids were in each of the proteins? What was the amino acid sequence?

Did it have RNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence?

Did it have DNA? How many nucleotides did it have in the RNA? What was the nucleotide sequence?

 

Please provide specific answers.

[MarkNigro]

Mark,

 

If I thought for one second that you were asking those questions out of genuine interest, I would take the time to answer.  However, my distinct impression is that the questions are not posed in good faith and are instead intended to "stump the evolutionist".

 

I suggest if you are truly interested in those subjects you find a library with a decent science section and do some reading.

The reason is that you do not have an answer.

 

Furthermore any answer given would just further prove the evolution of atoms to mankind false.

 

As far as I know there is no answer from the evolutionists on these questions.

 

How can evolution win if this vital point is not even answered yet?

 

How can it ever be sold as remotely true if there is no answer?