How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution

[Guest]

It means this. Either Genesis is metaphorical and not meant to be taken a science text book, or all of creation, everything about our natural world is a grand lie designed by God specifically to deceive everyone. As there is not a shred of positive empirical evidence in all of peer-reviewed science for literal creationism, then it

[DarkNebulaWelder]

I think his point was that evolution, like religion, is a belief system....but it is a defunct belief system, in that it STILL has not been proven. Since evolution operates in the realm of science, it should at least have some solid evidence behind it, which it does not.

As far as proving God....it WOULD be possible to DISPROVE the Biblical God by PROVING Evolution...as of yet, though, no one has been able to do this, and herein the problem lies.

If evolution IS a science, it should be able to quantify itself through physical evidence, mathematical formulas, or other means. This is TRUE science....and since science has STILL not been able to prove evolution, that just demonstrates it's fallacy as scientific fact. The proclivity to prove it has gone nowhere.

God is not a science....The postulate of God operates by faith. Science has not been able to prove OR disprove God....and it probably never will, since it can't even prove the theories that it holds so dear. How can it possibly prove the existence of God?

Are you kidding me. No proof for evolution? A scientific theory is not just someone's idea. It is a conclusion backed by evidence and observation. Evolution is regarded as one of the two foundational laws of biology. I can't think of a single major scientific theory that has more "proof" behind it than evolution. For example, I can make a trip out to the KU Museum of Natural History and see right before my very eyes, numerous examples of transitional fossils, some showing a full evolutionary transition from one species to another (evolution of the whale for example). I can also see right before my very eyes, evidence of gene flow and common genetic ancestry. One can also see right before their very eyes, examples of complete evolutionary transitions of microscopic organisms such as the Yellowstone Diatoms.

The only way evolution, or any scientific theory comes into conflict with faith is if someone actually tries to use the first two chapters of Genesis as a scientific text book.

Hey, dude;

First of all, everyone knows that science must be based on observational, empirical evidence. The concept of God CANNOT be proven by science because it is not observational, nor testable.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is just that...a THEORY. It cannot be considered an absolute, or a law, because in order to be so, it would need mathematical evidence to back it up....and I have yet to see any such evidence to prove THAT. I've heard itsaid that it cannot be tested because it was a gradual phenomenon, taking place over long stretches of time. Can anyone determine ot prove just how long those stretches of time WERE? Can we equate these with the age of the Earth? Do we know the environmental factors that took place as evolution progressed? How could things progress as they did, in an orderly fashion, uninterrupted, if the environment they evolved in was one of chaos? The fact that cloning can only be achieved in a controlled environment, free from external interruptions, just suggests to me that evolution is VERY unlikely, just because it would have been affected by MANY factors over LONG PERIODS of time. Not logical, IMO.

Truth is, like God, evolution will never be proven 100%....but evolution, unlike God, is a science, and as a science, I would expect some sort of concrete proof. So, evolution continues to be a theory...NOT a law.

You speak of gene flow, and common genetic ancestry. What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that common genetic ancestry exists BECAUSE there is a common genetic code....and ALL codes are formulated by some sort of intelligent design. Just because genes can migrate between populations does not account for the fact that the genome operates according to basic principles which follow an organized structure.

If we DID evolve from single-celled organisms, then where did all of the other amino acids come from that would be necessary to produce the higher life forms? Did they just come about on their own? Please explain.

As you know, gene flow is merely the transferrence of certain genetic traits between different populations...and as I'm sure you're well aware, this can depend on a number of factors, including migration and environmental factors, which are constantly changing. Even so, this does not account for the fact that a common genetic code exists....a code that was. logically speaking, formulated by Intelligent design.....and the fact that the purine and pyrimidine groups can be paired together by a sort of binary fashion just proves that such phenomenon did not appear by accident. Our cells are ENCODED with DNA, and every single form of encoding requires some sort of innate design.

You can talk about transferrence and migration till you're blue in the face, but none of this accounts for the fact that some sort of designer is STILL responsible for genetics at it's codon level. Even so, nothing in genetics indicates that EVERY SINGLE TRAIT was carried by one common ancestor, which if I am correct, evolution seems to claim (that every life form stems from one common ancestor).

The theory of evolution rests on the theory that order evolved from chaos, and that things happened by pure chance. Taking into consideration the length of time it took for evolution to achieve it's completion, it just doesn't seem logical.

[DarkNebulaWelder]

In regards to my last post, gentlemen, I am not attempting to argue, but am seeking real evidence and answers. Please don;t think me confrontational or irrational. I am not as up-to-date as you, and am merely speaking from my perspectives, and what I know.

If my logic is flawed, please explain.

[forrestkc]

Hey, dude;

First of all, everyone knows that science must be based on observational, empirical evidence. The concept of God CANNOT be proven by science because it is not observational, nor testable.

That is why science does not address the issue of the existance of God at all.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is just that...a THEORY.

Actually its ones of the two basic laws of biology, with a collection of underling theories.

It cannot be considered an absolute, or a law, because in order to be so, it would need mathematical evidence to back it up....and I have yet to see any such evidence to prove THAT.

Actually, mathmatical population genetics plays a vital role in many of the underling theories of evolution, especially macroevolution, common ancestory, and gene flow.

I've heard itsaid that it cannot be tested because it was a gradual phenomenon, taking place over long stretches of time. Can anyone determine ot prove just how long those stretches of time WERE?

Yes, both in the genetic and fossil record.

Can we equate these with the age of the Earth?

Yes, this is basically where geology, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology converge.

Do we know the environmental factors that took place as evolution progressed?

Yes, see Glaciology and Paleoclimatology.

How could things progress as they did, in an orderly fashion, uninterrupted, if the environment they evolved in was one of chaos?

Actually a changing environment is one of the strongest forcing agents for both micro and macro evolution. For example, the reason we took a different evolutionary path than other higher primates is that other higher primates largely evolved in the forests and we largely evolved in the African Savanna.

The fact that cloning can only be achieved in a controlled environment, free from external interruptions, just suggests to me that evolution is VERY unlikely, just because it would have been affected by MANY factors over LONG PERIODS of time. Not logical, IMO.

Evolution has nothing to do with cloning.

Truth is, like God, evolution will never be proven 100%....but evolution, unlike God, is a science, and as a science, I would expect some sort of concrete proof. So, evolution continues to be a theory...NOT a law.

See first response, and also definition of scientific theory.

You speak of gene flow, and common genetic ancestry. What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that common genetic ancestry exists BECAUSE there is a common genetic code....and ALL codes are formulated by some sort of intelligent design. Just because genes can migrate between populations does not account for the fact that the genome operates according to basic principles which follow an organized structure.

And the positive evidence for this is where?

If we DID evolve from single-celled organisms, then where did all of the other amino acids come from that would be necessary to produce the higher life forms? Did they just come about on their own? Please explain.

Actually the naturalistic creation of RNA has been documented since the 1950s.

As to the rest of your post, and well the parts above as well. All I can tell you is that its a very complex subject. National Geographic had a great article on this a couple of years ago. Here is the first paragraph:

Was Darwin Wrong?

By David Quammen

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally

[Guest]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

Ephesians 2:8

Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.

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

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16

Believer is a term for a man or a woman given a new birth by God through faith in The Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.

Often Believers are known to have a God-given total trust in and deep love for The Holy Bible.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17

Some Believers have elevated effervescent science and fables of beginnings to the position of Ultimate Authority, even over The Lord Jesus Christ, The Creator.

Within their minds both science and SciFi reign as Gospel Truth.

The Words of God are mocked when The Bible dares to show God Is The Creator.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16

Mixers seen to have little or no understanding of the grave danger this mixing of Truth and myth puts them into.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Galatians 5:9

The "mixers" trust in lies and their rejection of large pieces of God's Holy Word is frightening to those who love them.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

On the lighter side of this discussion, you can sometimes see these same "mixers" trying to shame their brothers into denying God's clear truth.

I could give them a hug for their concern that the big bad hopeless atheists might actually laugh and mock and shoot the lip out at sinners-saved-by-Grace who trust and love God's Holy Bible.

For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God;

1 Thessalonians 3:9

My Prayer For Brothers Who Mix And Brothers Who Stand On The WORD

Stand Fast

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 1:24-25

Sinner - Saint - All On Worthy - Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe