Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: SciencyGummyWorms on 19/05/2015 16:46:36
-
Don't post on this anymore!
-
This is asinine, it's exactly like trying to vote on whether gravity is real or not.
-
I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution. But I don't know much about genetics so I want your guys' opinion.
If you believe God created the universe, then you have to believe he created the process of evolution in that universe. We see it all around us from fruit flies evolving, moths changing colour to match their surroundings, species dying out when their environment changes, etc.
perhaps you need to find out more about the theory to see what it really says.
PS I won't be voting.
-
Contrary to popular belief, when Darwin published his theory of evolution, most theologians had already realised that The Bible should not be taken too literally in its entirety. Thus the church was not overly perturbed by Darwin's theory.
Solid evidence of evolution is in abundance all around us and there can no disputing the evidence of fossilised remains of long extinct species.
As Colin wrote:
If you believe God created the universe, then you have to believe he created the process of evolution in that universe.
Evolution need not conflict with your belief in a God. I think there is only a minority of die-hard religious fanatics who continue to take The Bible word for word in a literal sense. I'm sure that this is out of the fear that anything else would diminish the authority of the church and Bible.
The truth of the matter is that there is so much overwhelming evidence, that the time really has come when we should stop referring to the 'theory of evolution' and simply refer to 'evolution', for it really can now be said to be unquestionable 'fact'.
You say you ".... don't believe in the theory of evolution...." but then admit that you nothing about it. This is akin to saying "I've never tried Marmite because I don't like it."
-
I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution.
Belief is irrelevant. This is a science forum.
Look in the mirror. Do you look exactly like both of your parents? If not, you have evolved from them. That is the definition of evolution, whether you believe in it or not.
Evolution is an observation, not a theory.
There are plenty of theoretical mechanisms for the observation and a few that have been verified by experiment.
It is possible that you are concerned by the concept of "evolution of species". Hardly worth bothering about since "species" are arbitrary categories invented by and for the convenience of biologists, not the creations of an omnipotent supernatural authority.
-
Moderator note: the poll has been removed. Evolution is an observation, not a theory.
-
Evolution is an observation, not a theory.
Incorrect. Evolution has been observed. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the Modern Synthesis that arose from it are most definitely theories and should be celebrated as such.
-
Moderator note: the poll has been removed. Evolution is an observation, not a theory.
No offense mod but that is kind of mean for you to remove the poll.
-
Moderator note: the poll has been removed. Evolution is an observation, not a theory.
No offense mod but that is kind of mean for you to remove the poll.
It's my job.
-
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the Modern Synthesis that arose from it are most definitely theories and should be celebrated as such.
By all means I'll allow that evolution by natural selection, evolution of species, and a host of other mechanisms or results of evolution may be proposed as theories, but the fact remains that you can't classify an everyday observation such as sunrise, birdsong or evolution as a theory.
Toleration of such misuse of language allows creationism to infect those of negligible intellect.
-
I am staying in Indiana for two weeks and pius church members look at this strange atheist creature and ask "do you believe in evolution !"
-
Ask them "do you look exactly like both of your parents?"
If church members reproduce sexually, their evolution is inevitable. Though I have my doubts: according to Hollywood, Americans retain their underwear in moments of intimacy.
-
Why does this always come down to religion? You know bigotry also has an impact on this subject. Many bigots actually think that Darwinism is a form of religion in itself.
A lot of this stems from a lack of education and a total lack of motivation to literally open ones eyes and access the vast amount of information freely available on the subject of evolution.
Sometimes it's just easier to close ones eyes and simply convince oneself the way to appear intelligent is to totally disregard the subject in favor of a personal set of beliefs. Whatever the motivation for that may be, religion, bigotry or just a misplaced hatred of science due to a lack of education. I think we must gently guide these people into the world of scientific discovery and hope that they are stimulated by it, the rest is up to them.
Just a further point, I know this is a science forum and even the Bible tells you to be scientific.... Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
So I say seek, and you will most certainly find indeed and knock hard on that door because your mind will be opened by the sheer joyous discoveries you will make in science and subsequent enlightenment.
-
Irrationality takes many forms from harmless superstition to grossly offensive bigotry. Most religious people occupy the "centre left" of that field, but it's a continuum with a single defining characteristic - holding to a hypothesis in spite of the evidence. In most cases, alas, education is the source of that hypothesis: I don't think people are born with irrational beliefs.
-
Hey Alancalvard..... I keep looking for the like button on some posts!
-
Don't post on this anymore!
What do you think gave you the right to say whether members can "post on this anymore"?
-
Don't post on this anymore!
One of the conditions for posting on sites like this is that your ideas and questions will be discussed in public.
If you don't like that, you need to post elswhere.
-
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the Modern Synthesis that arose from it are most definitely theories and should be celebrated as such.
By all means I'll allow that evolution by natural selection, evolution of species, and a host of other mechanisms or results of evolution may be proposed as theories, but the fact remains that you can't classify an everyday observation such as sunrise, birdsong or evolution as a theory.
Toleration of such misuse of language allows creationism to infect those of negligible intellect.
I thought that was brilliant. Creationists could not answer what created a creator, science can answer a lot more.
-
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the Modern Synthesis that arose from it are most definitely theories and should be celebrated as such.
By all means I'll allow that evolution by natural selection, evolution of species, and a host of other mechanisms or results of evolution may be proposed as theories,
No, you won't allow it. That is not in your remit. The scientific community has decided quite some time ago that is was theory.
And it is not a matter of allowing it to be proposed as a theory. It is a theory.
.... but the fact remains that you can't classify an everyday observation such as sunrise, birdsong or evolution as a theory.
I repeat. There are observations of evolution and there is a theory of evolution to account for them.
Moreover the observation of evolution is one hell of lot more difficult to make than sunrise, or birdsong. Were that not the case it would not have taken millenia of civilisation for someone to notice it.
Toleration of such misuse of language allows creationism to infect those of negligible intellect.
Precisely. I suggest you consider that thoroughly before next stating that evolution is not a theory.
-
The scientific community has decided quite some time ago that is was theory.
At the risk of sounding like Margaret Thatcher, the "scientific community" is a figment of lazy journalism. Science proceeds by challenge, not consensus. However:
Moreover the observation of evolution is one hell of lot more difficult to make than sunrise, or birdsong. Were that not the case it would not have taken millenia of civilisation for someone to notice it.
You observe evolution every time you look in a mirror: you do not look exactly like both of your parents. Everyone has observed it, for ever. Many people have used it to create breeds of dogs, cattle, wheat, etc., over millennia.The observation that offspring are different from their parents is a fact, not a theory, and that fact is what we call evolution.
There are numerous theoretical mechanisms for evolution, and a very reasonable theory that evolution has led to the differentiations that we call species, but they all attempt to explain the commonly observed fact that living things evolve between generations.
Admittedly I'm being very pedantic, but intellectual rigour is the best defence against ignorance and superstition. No creationist can argue that he has not evolved from his parents, and all that Darwin's theory assumes is that the process of evolution, whatever the mechanism, has been going on for a long time.
-
For myself as a non-religious believer in God, I have no conflict with God, the creative mind of the universe and the evolutionary process. To me God works at the microscopic level and not the macroscopic level.
Thus God created man from a form of bacteria which over a billion years produced first man and first woman. To me the Darwinian process is the crude process but it is guided by a fine spiritual process.
-
"non-religious believer in God"
You use the word "religious" but I do not think you understand what it means.
-
Thus God created man from a form of bacteria which over a billion years produced first man and first woman. To me the Darwinian process is the crude process but it is guided by a fine spiritual process.
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being spend a billion years doing something he could do by magic instantly? And why did he do it at all? Seems odd to derive a complex being from bacteria and then let bacteria kill it.
I find physics and chemistry a lot more rational than any god.
-
Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being spend a billion years doing something he could do by magic instantly?
Why would such a being make such a distinction between 1 second and a billion years? It seems to me that you're comparing His perception of time with yours. Our perception of time is regulated by chemistry. There's no reason to assume it'd be with Him. Suppose He chose the best way to create organic beings and that was through evolution. There has never been any evidence that God used "magic" at any time in history. I've read the Bible twice cover to cover and never have I seen any instance of Him using what could be called magic. The only instances close to that was in curing the ill and all that required was the manipulation of molecules. But that's not magic. For all we know He could exert forces on matter that we can't.
-
For all we know He could exert forces on matter that we can't.
I think that's a fairly robust definition of magic.
-
I think that's a fairly robust definition of magic.
Not at all. Consider the strong force before it was discovered. Physicists didn't know how alpha nuclei were being held together. It was merely an unknown force at that time. Only later was it discovered. The same thing could still be happening today with all particles even today with another type of force. We simply don't know what it is ... yet! In fact that's exactly what's going on if there is a God. But there's no reason to call it magic. That's what individuals in a tribe of people who have never been exposed to science might conclude had they been shown a Van de Graaff generator. They'd call it magic, would they not? But would it really be magic?
You can't call the unknown supernatural in my opinion.
In fact, in my opinion, not only does the supernatural not exist but it can't exist, by definition. All that exists is the known of nature and the unknown and the unknown doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For example; a virtual photon might exist but if it does it can't be observed.
-
Admittedly I'm being very pedantic, but intellectual rigour is the best defence against ignorance and superstition. No creationist can argue that he has not evolved from his parents, and all that Darwin's theory assumes is that the process of evolution, whatever the mechanism, has been going on for a long time.
Exactly. And that is why it is so important to use precise terms. Your examples are observations of the consequences of evolution, not of evolution itself. The distinction is not pedantic. It is essential.
For example:
You observe evolution every time you look in a mirror: you do not look exactly like both of your parents. Everyone has observed it, for ever.
Nonsense. We observe the consequences of evolution. It required a sequence of progressive insights, followed by the genius and dedication of Darwin to interpret what they were observing.
-
So how would you define evolution, if not "the phenomenon of variation between generations" or something similar?
And I'm going to be strict here: I want a definition of "evolution", not of the theory, mechanism or consequences of evolution. And your definition must be sufficiently robust to cover the demotic use of evolution to describe intentional changes in the design of artefacts.