Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution

[JTC]

On 9/18/2020 at 8:40 AM, JAG** said:

Evolution is NOT  a proven scientific fact.

Boy was I ever lucky (or blessed) because I was taught this in both HS and collage. I was told evolution is still just a theory and an unproven theory, at that. Further, after 100 yrs without concrete proof a theory should be abandoned and other theories should be considered. But the only other theories all involve God and most evolutionists simply don't want to believe God is real. That's why they like evolution, it frees them from God. (today we can see where freedom from God is getting man. It doesn't look very good) The original "missing link" was a fossil that was part animal and part human, but today we know of many missing links. I don't know enough biology to explain them, but I've read about it.

  It's true, that evolution was never proven, it was simply assumed to be true because certain people claimed that the existence of an all powerful God was even more far fetched. This is why evolution became the accepted idea in academia, not because of undeniable proof but because atheistic academics didn't want to believe God might be real. But today we have more academics who accept that God is real than we've had in a very long time.

So what is the problem?

Why is evolution being taught as a fact if it's not?

Are you ready for this.

Atheists still control academia. They still out number those who believe God is real. (but we're gaining on them, all the time) If they admitted that evolution is an unproven theory 100's or 1000's of academics will lose their jobs, to say nothing of the money that will be lost. Evolution is the biggest lie that's ever been told to the human race. What a scandal it is!

[JTC]

Many, or most of you reading this accept that God is real. Why do you think evolution is true? You were taught that in school. But do some heavy research, you'll find out it is not.

I used to have a link to a huge website that proves evolution is a failed theory, but I lost it. I haven't scrutinized them yet but try these sites:

https://www.nature.com/articles/444265d

https://www.creationsciencetoday.com/

https://www.nature.com/articles/444406a

https://www.wired.com/2004/10/evolution-2/

Don't believe evolution is true because you were taught it is. I was taught it is not, and the proof for why it is not is out there if you are willing to take the time to find it.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, JTC said:

Many, or most of you reading this accept that God is real. Why do you think evolution is true? You were taught that in school. But do some heavy research, you'll find out it is not.

I used to have a link to a huge website that proves evolution is a failed theory, but I lost it. I haven't scrutinized them yet but try these sites:

https://www.nature.com/articles/444265d

https://www.creationsciencetoday.com/

https://www.nature.com/articles/444406a

https://www.wired.com/2004/10/evolution-2/

Don't believe evolution is true because you were taught it is. I was taught it is not, and the proof for why it is not is out there if you are willing to take the time to find it.

I went through Christian elementary and public high schools and I honestly don't remember spending much time at all on evolutionary theory. Even in my university intro course we barely touched on it. I don't even recall a teacher ever making such pronouncements. It is the underpinning theory with respect to diversity of life and I don't have any problems with that. It is, to paraphrase Dr. Wood, a productive framework for study. It is predictive and supported by evidence. Creationists work to reinterpret that evidence in a different way and that's fine as well but they have a long way to go to create a coherent theory - it's mostly a series of hypotheses.

If it was a failed theory, it would have been abandoned long ago.

I'm not so sure about the "atheists control academia" bit either. It's been a while since I was there, but I never really got a sense of that. I would say that the social sciences and arts departments are far more more hostile to Christianity (or any religious viewpoints). The hard sciences don't seem to really care at all.

Edited September 26, 2020 by teddyv
clarity

[JTC]

4 hours ago, teddyv said:

If it was a failed theory, it would have been abandoned long ago.

   And it should have been, it would have been if it wasn't being used to try and justify some people not believing in God. What you said about creationism being a bunch of hypotheses was what was said about evolution in the 1960's & 70's. I admit that if a person hasn't had a genuine born again experience creationism seems too far fetched. Sometimes even I myself consider that the earth isn't young, but much older. It really doesn't matter for salvation. Whether the earth is young or old I don't believe man evolved from lower life forms. One way or another, God created man as man. If you don't want to call evolution a failed theory then understand it is an unproven theory. When the secular world accepted evolution as fact certain proof was expected to eventually be found, it's that hard proof that was never found. We observe certain facts in the world and then we seek to explain what we see. Evolutionists make suppositions to explain them, just like creationists assume the Bible is true. We can't prove God is real but they can't prove 1 species ever changed into another species. There's proof of change within a species but no proof a cat became a dog or a horse or anything other than another kind of cat. We see evolution within a given species but no proof of inter-species evolution. (I'm probably using the wrong terms) I never studied evolution, I'm just a retired photographer who is now a fundamentalist Christian (more or less). I know evolution is false and it saddens me that some Christians think it's true.

[teddyv]

42 minutes ago, JTC said:

   And it should have been, it would have been if it wasn't being used to try and justify some people not believing in God. What you said about creationism being a bunch of hypotheses was what was said about evolution in the 1960's & 70's. I admit that if a person hasn't had a genuine born again experience creationism seems too far fetched. Sometimes even I myself consider that the earth isn't young, but much older. It really doesn't matter for salvation. Whether the earth is young or old I don't believe man evolved from lower life forms. One way or another, God created man as man. If you don't want to call evolution a failed theory then understand it is an unproven theory. When the secular world accepted evolution as fact certain proof was expected to eventually be found, it's that hard proof that was never found. We observe certain facts in the world and then we seek to explain what we see. Evolutionists make suppositions to explain them, just like creationists assume the Bible is true. We can't prove God is real but they can't prove 1 species ever changed into another species. There's proof of change within a species but no proof a cat became a dog or a horse or anything other than another kind of cat. We see evolution within a given species but no proof of inter-species evolution. (I'm probably using the wrong terms) I never studied evolution, I'm just a retired photographer who is now a fundamentalist Christian (more or less). I know evolution is false and it saddens me that some Christians think it's true.

Yeah, creationism is pretty far-fetched (and I refer to the flavour of creationism pushed by groups like Answers In Genesis or Creation Ministries International and others). The earth is most certainly older than what they would try and have us believe (and make it a Christian litmus test in the process). Ultimately I am creationist since I believe God was behind it. I just don't subscribe to the young earth variety. As you rightly say, this should not be a salvation matter.

Anyway, theory of evolution is not a failed theory, no matter how much people say it is. Will it change and grow and adapt as new information comes in? Certainly - all scientific theories do. Genetics could have falsified it, but it appears to only have strengthened it  Could another theory supplant it one day? I suppose it's possible. I could not guess what that would be (from a material-natural perspective). I'm not a biologist either.

There are some people who push the theory too far, or push it into the realm of philosophy and that's a pretty bad mistake.

[JTC]

14 hours ago, teddyv said:

Anyway, theory of evolution is not a failed theory, no matter how much people say it is.

So then call it an unproven theory. Do you realize this theory is several hundred yrs old? I'd have to look up Darwin to be sure. When the theory was accepted as fact the scientific community expected that soon archaeologists would find either bones or fossils that were part animal (hopefully ape) and part human. This was the missing link. This hardcore proof was never found. In good science the theory should have been discarded after 100 yrs. But it was accepted because it gives atheists a justification to not believe in God. Don't forget that even only 300 yrs ago most people accepted the idea that a God existed. It may only be in the last 100 yrs that the idea of a God has gone out of style. Back in the 1970's & 80's you were considered backwards (in your thinking) if you believed a God existed. I think more people believed than they said, but if you were one of them, you kept it a secret. It was kinda shameful. You were more highly thought of if you believed in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. I'm glad to say I think that's changing. This coronavirus is eventually going to make more people believe a God is real, or it could go the other way. Atheists want total freedom. Freedom to choose their own sexuality and now their own gender. They want no rules. All gods put rules on men. Our God is actually pretty tolerant compared to the pagan gods that demanded human sacrifice. How can man justify saying the idea of gods is nonsense, in any system they created everything? The answer is evolution. The problem is it's not true. But this is all about getting freedom from a God or gods. (freedom from our God is a bad idea, it may take another 20 to 40 yrs to be proven but doing away with marriage and the nuclear family is not going to result in better people and a better society. Our God knows what He's talking about)

[teddyv]

7 hours ago, JTC said:

So then call it an unproven theory. Do you realize this theory is several hundred yrs old? I'd have to look up Darwin to be sure. When the theory was accepted as fact the scientific community expected that soon archaeologists would find either bones or fossils that were part animal (hopefully ape) and part human. This was the missing link. This hardcore proof was never found. In good science the theory should have been discarded after 100 yrs.

So what if the theory is a several hundred years old? It has also been modified since Darwin first published it. He hypothesized on mechanisms which have been further expanded on and better understood. Darwin did not have access to modern genetics but a hereditary component was speculated on (IIRC).

The full concept of gravity is still not fully understood from the micro to the macro scale. But it's still a usable theory in that we can send probes to distant planets and predict what will happen.

As for transitional fossils, they have been found all over the globe for all sorts animals. That never seems to satisfy the YEC's, although Answers in Genesis seems to be on board with hyper-speciation, so in a sense they are embracing evolutionary thought - just increasing the rate of change to some ridiculous amount.

Quote

But it was accepted because it gives atheists a justification to not believe in God. Don't forget that even only 300 yrs ago most people accepted the idea that a God existed. It may only be in the last 100 yrs that the idea of a God has gone out of style. Back in the 1970's & 80's you were considered backwards (in your thinking) if you believed a God existed. I think more people believed than they said, but if you were one of them, you kept it a secret. It was kinda shameful. You were more highly thought of if you believed in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. I'm glad to say I think that's changing. This coronavirus is eventually going to make more people believe a God is real, or it could go the other way. Atheists want total freedom. Freedom to choose their own sexuality and now their own gender. They want no rules. All gods put rules on men. Our God is actually pretty tolerant compared to the pagan gods that demanded human sacrifice. How can man justify saying the idea of gods is nonsense, in any system they created everything? The answer is evolution. The problem is it's not true. But this is all about getting freedom from a God or gods. (freedom from our God is a bad idea, it may take another 20 to 40 yrs to be proven but doing away with marriage and the nuclear family is not going to result in better people and a better society. Our God knows what He's talking about)

See, this is where things get muddied with philosophical application of a scientific theory. I can see why an atheist would choose to subscribe to evolutionary theory but it's not a requirement of such a person. Suggesting that evolutionary theory predicates an absence of God is incorrect as the theory won't deal with the supernatural. 

[JTC]

I FOUND IT, THE BEST WEBSITE ABOUT EVOLUTION I'VE EVER SEEN.

  This is the link I wanted to post but couldn't find. This site explains things better than I ever could. I hope some of you look at it.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[Speks]

There are more than a few supporters of evolution who get frustrated by many creationists' understanding of the word "theory." In some creationist thinking a theory is purely conjecture — a hunch without overwhelming evidence. Evolutionists' understanding of scientific theory, however, encapsulates an established range of hypotheses. So, "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory".

The evolutionist accepts the compilation of these hypotheses as a theory that's overwhelmingly supported by current evidence. Someone has usefully identified evolution in this way: "A rigorous framework of testable predictions that accounts for all known evidence and can account for future evidence."

On the flip side, scholarly creationists dispute evolutionary theory's conceptional framework believing too many assumptions are made in how evidence is evaluated. They believe the known evidence can also be used to demonstrate intelligent creation. 

This dispute over how all the essential evidence is interpreted and applied will never go away. It's my view that it's impossible to conclusively prove either position without an element of faith (a mindset based on personal beliefs). Fundamentally, most evolutionists believe everything came from nothing, whereas biblical creationists believe God created everything. 

Because the world's ideology is fallen and driven by godless criteria, we can be sure academia will always reject divine authority. That's stating the obvious! But it proves that the debate over evolution will never be resolved. Both sides will continue to appeal to known scientific facts to bolster their position. We can take heart however, that those known facts can also be read in a way that supports creationist thinking.

[JTC]

7 hours ago, Speks said:

It's my view that it's impossible to conclusively prove either position without an element of faith

Yes, you are quite right. With creationism this okay because God can't be scientifically proven nor did He ever want to be. If He did He would have made it be possible. But with evolution this is not okay. Evolution is supposed to be empirically true and after several hundred yrs there should have been indisputable evidence, but there is not. The fact that you need faith in evolution to believe it proves it isn't correct. It's supposed to be science, not faith.