Evolution Theory Existed Long Before Darwin

[Diamond7]

When was the last time Intelligent Design was allowed in the schools, text books, even publications?

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism (including ID) alongside evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

1. William Paley (1743–1805):
   • Although he did not use the term “Intelligent Design,” William Paley, an English theologian and philosopher, made significant contributions to the concept.
   • In his book “Natural Theology” (1802), Paley argued that the complexity and order in the natural world implied the existence of a Divine Designer.
   • His famous analogy was the “watchmaker argument”: Just as finding a watch on the ground would lead us to infer a watchmaker, the intricate design of living organisms suggested a purposeful creator.

 

[HarleyER]

Well then, please do so - find evidence that there is such discrimination and present it. Remember - it is your claim that there is discrimination; it is incumbent on you to present the evidence for this claim.

Tell me what? Why do you expect that I would know about intelligent design? Are you suggesting that my not knowing about intelligent design undermines the points I have made? If so, please explain how. I have made no claims about intelligent design.

Again, you are asking me to do your homework for you. If this paper - written by a known creationist - really makes a case that there is unfair discrimination against the publication of their work, then you need to present the case. It is not up to me to read this paper - you need to point us to where in this paper a case is made that unfair discrimination has taken place.

Do you even bother to read anything I say? I posted a paper that talks about discrimination on Intelligent Design as well as two articles about transgenderism by scientists. I've presented some pieces of evidence. Either you just ignore them or you don't wish to be bother about the articles. I'm glad that most scientists are interested in facts as you seem to be. /sarcasm

You are an excellent example of the scientific community of today.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you even bother to read anything I say? I posted a paper that talks about discrimination on Intelligent Design as well as two articles about transgenderism by scientists. I've presented some pieces of evidence. Either you just ignore them or you don't wish to be bother about the articles. I'm glad that most scientists are interested in facts as you seem to be. /sarcasm

You are an excellent example of the scientific community of today.

As the one making the claim it is your responsibility to do more than post a link to a paper - anyone can do that. Instead, as the claimant, you bear the burden of proof - you are obliged to explain how these papers support your case.

First, on the matter of intelligent design. Here is your original claim:

However, there are legitimate scientists who firmly believe in Intelligent Design. They are treated with disdain. They are never allow to publish because they believe there is a creator behind creation.

There is a statement in the paper's abstract where intelligent design proponents "felt" that they experienced religious discrimination. "Feeling" discriminated against is not evidence of actual discrimination. In the abstract, the claim is made by the author of the paper that some deans would never hire an "out-of-the-closet" creationist to a position in academia. Assuming that the author is telling the truth, this does not really support your claim. How do you know that these refusals to hire are not based on a belief that creationists consistently misrepresent the truth and, on that basis, are not considered qualified to hold such positions. Yes, it is possible that these creationists are not being hired "because they believe there is a creator behind creation". But it is also possible that they are not being hired because they consistently play fast and loose with facts.

Now, I am not going to read the rest of the paper and attempt to validate the claims - that would take way too much time.

I fully expect you will reply with something like "see, I presented the evidence and you refuse to deal with it!".

Well, let me explain to you and others why such an objection would be highly inappropriate. It has to do with the universally accepted notion that the one who makes a claim bears the burden of proof. You are engaging in a tactic that is often used here on this site - a link to a lengthy paper or a video is posted in defence of a certain position and the expectation is that other people are supposed to read the paper (or watch the video) to see if it supports the claim.

This is not acceptable behaviour - it is the responsibility of the person posting the link to go on to explain how the paper / video actually supports their position. You are basically trying to "win" the argument by wearing me down - by expecting me to take the time to read the paper and evaluate its content. There is an internet term for this - Brandolini's Law (I had to slightly censor it):

The amount of energy needed to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Now, to be fair, it is possible that the paper does indeed support your claim. But that is not the main point. The main point is that it takes you maybe 10 minutes to find your paper and post the link. But the hard work of verifying its content and showing how it supports your position would take hours.

And even though that is really your responsibility, you act as though it is mine. And if I don't do your homework for you, you will (as you have done) claim that I am not playing fair.

 

[HarleyER]

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism (including ID) alongside evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

1. William Paley(1743–1805):
   • Although he did not use the term “Intelligent Design,” William Paley, an English theologian and philosopher, made significant contributions to the concept.
   • In his book “Natural Theology” (1802), Paley argued that the complexity and order in the natural world implied the existence of a Divine Designer.
   • His famous analogy was the “watchmaker argument”: Just as finding a watch on the ground would lead us to infer a watchmaker, the intricate design of living organisms suggested a purposeful creator.

It has occurred to me that the question, “Can a Christian believe in evolution?” is, at best, incomplete. There are multiple facets to this.

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

No. Not if they want to be true to the Scriptures. God did not create man out of monkeys. Man is unique and even a half-wit should understand that (no matter what science states).​

Can a Christian believe in Intelligent Design, where God evolved animals while creating man independently?

I don’t think that is possible, but I wouldn’t fault a Christian for such an idea.​

Can a Christian believe in Creation as record exactly in Scripture, within six days.

This would seem to be the right view as it mirrors what one is told through Scripture.​

Can an atheist/agnostic believe in Intelligent Design.

Sure. There are some who do. But generally they face persecution within their field.​

Can an atheist/agnostic believe in evolution.

Normally they do. That should tell everyone the answer to the first question.​

 

[HarleyER]

As the one making the claim it is your responsibility to do more than post a link to a paper - anyone can do that. Instead, as the claimant, you bear the burden of proof - you are obliged to explain how these papers support your case.

First, on the matter of intelligent design. Here is your original claim:

However, there are legitimate scientists who firmly believe in Intelligent Design. They are treated with disdain. They are never allow to publish because they believe there is a creator behind creation.

There is a statement in the paper's abstract where intelligent design proponents "felt" that they experienced religious discrimination. "Feeling" discriminated against is not evidence of actual discrimination. In the abstract, the claim is made by the author of the paper that some deans would never hire an "out-of-the-closet" creationist to a position in academia. Assuming that the author is telling the truth, this does not really support your claim. How do you know that these refusals to hire are not based on a belief that creationists consistently misrepresent the truth and, on that basis, are not considered qualified to hold such positions. Yes, it is possible that these creationists are not being hired "because they believe there is a creator behind creation". But it is also possible that they are not being hired because they consistently play fast and loose with facts.

Now, I am not going to read the rest of the paper and attempt to validate the claims - that would take way too much time.

I fully expect you will reply with something like "see, I presented the evidence and you refuse to deal with it!".

Well, let me explain to you and others why such an objection would be highly inappropriate. It has to do with the universally accepted notion that the one who makes a claim bears the burden of proof. You are engaging in a tactic that is often used here on this site - a link to a lengthy paper or a video is posted in defence of a certain position and the expectation is that other people are supposed to read the paper (or watch the video) to see if it supports the claim.

This is not acceptable behaviour - it is the responsibility of the person posting the link to go on to explain how the paper / video actually supports their position. You are basically trying to "win" the argument by wearing me down - by expecting me to take the time to read the paper and evaluate its content. There is an internet term for this - Brandolini's Law (I had to slightly censor it):

The amount of energy needed to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Now, to be fair, it is possible that the paper does indeed support your claim. But that is not the main point. The main point is that it takes you maybe 10 minutes to find your paper and post the link. But the hard work of verifying its content and showing how it supports your position would take hours.

And even though that is really your responsibility, you act as though it is mine. And if I don't do your homework for you, you will (as you have done) claim that I am not playing fair.

I thought the true "scientist" was interested in research. You must be management.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

 

[expos4ever]

I thought the true "scientist" was interested in research. You must be management.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Surely you must understand that others who are reading this thread will know that when you make a claim, it is up to you to defend it. You are doing the same thing many do here - expecting others to do your homework for you. This is widely recognized as unethical behaviour in a debate - if you really read that paper, and if you really know it makes the case that there is bias against creationists, it would be relatively easy for you to summarize. So why not do so?

I will say two things before moving on. First, the author of the paper on alleged bias against creationists is himself a person with some rather dubious credentials. For example, he wrote "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History". This is the old "Darwinism leads to Nazism" notion that all must know is complete nonsense. On this basis alone, readers should not accord any credibility to this fellow.

Second, I will concede that it is indeed likely, in my opinion that as a perhaps understandable reaction to so much creationism nonsense - we see it in these very threads with "it's just a theory" and "the law of themoynamics" says its impossible - it may well be the case that any "legitimate" defenders of creations are dismissed outright. And that would be unfair.

So, yes, there is likely some truth in your claim about bias against creationism in academia. But with so much outright lying from the creationist camp, they arguably have played a role in bringing it on themselves.

 

[HarleyER]

Surely you must understand that others who are reading this thread will know that when you make a claim, it is up to you to defend it. You are doing the same thing many do here - expecting others to do your homework for you. This is widely recognized as unethical behaviour in a debate - if you really read that paper, and if you really know it makes the case that there is bias against creationists, it would be relatively easy for you to summarize. So why not do so?

I will say two things before moving on. First, the author of the paper on alleged bias against creationists is himself a person with some rather dubious credentials. For example, he wrote "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History". This is the old "Darwinism leads to Nazism" notion that all must know is complete nonsense. On this basis alone, readers should not accord any credibility to this fellow.

Second, I will concede that it is indeed likely, in my opinion that as a perhaps understandable reaction to so much creationism nonsense - we see it in these very threads with "it's just a theory" and "the law of themoynamics" says its impossible - it may well be the case that any "legitimate" defenders of creations are dismissed outright. And that would be unfair.

So, yes, there is likely some truth in your claim about bias against creationism in academia.

"For example, he wrote "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History". This is the old "Darwinism leads to Nazism" notion that all must know is complete nonsense. "

It seems you've made a claim. Can you defend it?

"But with so much outright lying from the creationist camp, they arguably have played a role in bringing it on themselves."

This sounds like a bias opinion, claiming the creationists are purposely lying. Can you defend it?

 

[expos4ever]

"But with so much outright lying from the creationist camp, they arguably have played a role in bringing it on themselves."

This sounds like a bias opinion, claiming the creationists are purposely lying. Can you defend it?

Sure, this is easy. For an educated person to claim that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible, they would either need to lack a proper understanding of what the laws of thermodynamics say or be lying. Let's say people are in the first camp - they honestly do not know that the laws of thermodynamics are compatible with evolution. Well, when this is pointed out to them, they invariably double-down. We have seen this behavour in the following thread in the last day or so: Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?.

At this point - when people know they are wrong and they double-down and continute to promote a falsehood - it becomes lying.

Same with the "it's just a theory" lie - creationists here have been repeatedly educated on this and yet they knowingly promote an untruth. Again, this is a lie. The lie, of course, is to intentionally represent evolution as a "theory" in the casual sense we attach to this word in common parlance (as in "I have a theory that Joe is cheating on his wife") when they know that the word "theory" when used in relation to science means something completely different - a "scientific theory", by definition, means an hypothesis that is soundly supported by evidence.

 

[HarleyER]

Sure, this is easy. For an educated person to claim that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible, they would either need to lack a proper understanding of what the laws of thermodynamics say or be lying. Let's say people are in the first camp - they honestly do not know that the laws of thermodynamics are compatible with evolution. Well, when this is pointed out to them, they invariably double-down. We have seen this behavour in the following thread in the last day or so: Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?.

At this point - when people know they are wrong and they double-down and continute to promote a falsehood - it becomes lying.

Same with the "it's just a theory" lie - creationists here have been repeatedly educated on this and yet they knowingly promote an untruth. Again, this is a lie. The lie, of course, is to intentionally represent evolution as a "theory" in the casual sense we attach to this word in common parlance (as in "I have a theory that Joe is cheating on his wife") when they know that the word "theory" when used in relation to science means something completely different - a "scientific theory", by definition, means an hypothesis that is soundly supported by evidence.

I don't know about thermodynamics and evolution. What I would say is that, of all the animals on this planet, man is unique. Man writes music, constructs poetry, builds skyscrapers, devise weapons of mass destruction, and seeks after god/God. Man also has a moral compass. You know when you are lying, cheating, stealing, etc. There is nothing in evolution that compares with man. Of all the thousands of critters (perhaps millions if you want to include bugs), man stands out unique.

And we haven't even touched on the supernatural. Evolution would presuppose life, all life, doesn't have a spirit. Yet, are you willing to say as a Christian, that there is no spirit? Events of the supernatural have been well recorded and documented. I don't dwell on these manifestations but only bring them up because, it would seem to me, an evolutionist would have to deny these things.

As far as a "scientific theory" means an hypothesis, back in my days they would have laughed me out of high school if I suggested such a thing. A scientific theory was something that one could duplicate through creating the same conditions. A hypothesis was something that was assumed but could not be established by experimentation or had yet to be proven. I suppose for convenience sake, it is easier to say "theory" of evolution rather than "hypothesis" of evolution. Even though the theory of evolution is constantly changing from the time of Darwin. That's evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't know about thermodynamics and evolution. What I would say is that, of all the animals on this planet, man is unique. Man writes music, constructs poetry, builds skyscrapers, devise weapons of mass destruction, and seeks after god/God. Man also has a moral compass. You know when you are lying, cheating, stealing, etc. There is nothing in evolution that compares with man. Of all the thousands of critters (perhaps millions if you want to include bugs), man stands out unique.

I am not sure how you know that no other animal has a moral compass. How do you know that gorillas, for example, do not have some kind of moral sense? But, yes, man is clearly "far ahead" of all other creatures in certain respects. But this in no way threatens the theory of evolution.

And we haven't even touched on the supernatural. Evolution would presuppose life, all life, doesn't have a spirit. Yet, are you willing to say as a Christian, that there is no spirit?

I do not deny the existence of the spirit. However, I see no conflict in believing in the existence of spirit and the the theory of evolution.

Events of the supernatural have been well recorded and documented.

Even so, I do not see how the reality of the supernatural challenges the theory of evolution.

I don't dwell on these manifestations but only bring them up because, it would seem to me, an evolutionist would have to deny these things.

I do not see why an evolutionist would need to deny the supernatural.

As far as a "scientific theory" means an hypothesis, back in my days they would have laughed me out of high school if I suggested such a thing.

I did not say that a scientific theory means an hypohesis, I said that "a scientific theory, by definition, means an hypothesis that is soundly supported by evidence"

And if a teacher would have laughed you of high school for saying this, you need to find a more well-educated teacher. According to the University of Hawaii:

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community, and is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation for those observations

A scientific theory was something that one could duplicate through creating the same conditions.

Again, this is not entirely correct. It is now generally agreed that "duplication" is not necessary for something to be a scientific theory. To wit, from Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

If you read this definition carefully, you will see that experimental repeatability is not always needed.

Let me be clear: I am most certainly NOT accusing you of this, but there are some in the creationist camp who know that repeatablity is not necessary for something to be deemed to be a scientific theory, yet they lie by suggesting otherwise.

Even though the theory of evolution is constantly changing from the time of Darwin. That's evolution.

Are you suggesting that because the theory of evolution is itself undergoing some adjustments over time, this casts doubt on the validity of evolution?

 

[HarleyER]

I am not sure how you know that no other animal has a moral compass. How do you know that gorillas, for example, do not have some kind of moral sense? But, yes, man is clearly "far ahead" of all other creatures in certain respects. But this in no way threatens the theory of evolution.

I do not deny the existence of the spirit. However, I see no conflict in believing in the existence of spirit and the the theory of evolution.

Even so, I do not see how the reality of the supernatural challenges the theory of evolution.

I do not see why an evolutionist would need to deny the supernatural.

I did not say that a scientific theory means an hypohesis, I said that "a scientific theory, by definition, means an hypothesis that is soundly supported by evidence"

And if a teacher would have laughed you of high school for saying this, you need to find a more well-educated teacher. According to the University of Hawaii:

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community, and is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation for those observations

Again, this is not entirely correct. It is now generally agreed that "duplication" is not necessary for something to be a scientific theory. To wit, from Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

If you read this definition carefully, you will see that experimental repeatability is not always needed.

Let me be clear: I am most certainly NOT accusing you of this, but there are some in the creationist camp who know that repeatablity is not necessary for something to be deemed to be a scientific theory, yet they lie by suggesting otherwise.

Are you suggesting that because the theory of evolution is itself undergoing some adjustments over time, this casts doubt on the validity of evolution?

"Even so, I do not see how the reality of the supernatural challenges the theory of evolution."

Do you believe angels evolved or were created?

Well, since we're using Wikipedia, here is what Wikipedia states about theory and hypothesis:

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

Theory and hypothesis are different. My high schools teachers were right.

1) A theory (from you): A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.​

​

2) A scientific hypothesis: Requires that one test it.​

​

3) A working hypothesis: A working hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess or thought.​

Theory (1) and scientific hypothesis (2) are used interchangably but they are NOT the same. Both can be tested but a theory can be corroborated according to scientific method principles. A scientiific hypothesis can be tested with the same results but may only be verified by observation.

A working hypothesis (3) is a "provisionally accepted hypothesis" but needs further research It is impossible to test.

Since evolution cannot be tested, based on these definitions and your acknowledgement that evolution is always undergoing "adjustments", evolution has to fall into a "working hypothesis" category. It is nothing more than an "educated guess". And a poor one at that.

 

[expos4ever]

"Even so, I do not see how the reality of the supernatural challenges the theory of evolution."

Do you believe angels evolved or were created?

I believe angels were created. How does this challenge the theory of evolution?

Well, since we're using Wikipedia, here is what Wikipedia states about theory and hypothesis:

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Yes, and testing an hypothesis does not requires run an experiment that reproduces the phenomena in the present

Hypothesis: the big bang will result in 25% of the matter in the universe being helium.
Observation: the amount of helium in the universe is 25 %.

This observation in this instance is the test.

There is nowhere for you to go on this - no reputable source will say that theory of evolution, or the big bang, are not scientific hypotheses. The fact that we cannot reproduce the big bang or many aspects of evolution do not mean that either is not a valid scientific theory.

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Ok, fine.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

Indeed - I have been clear that these are not the same thing.

A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

Theory and hypothesis are different. My high schools teachers were right.

Strawman - I never said that they were the same thing. Please re-read my posts.

So yes, you teachers were right, but you mistakenly believe I think that theory and hypothesis are the same thing. But I have been clear about this all along - they are indeed different.

1) A theory (from you): A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.​

Yes, correct.

​

2) A scientific hypothesis: Requires that one test it.​

​

Again, correct.

3) A working hypothesis: A working hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess or thought. ​

Again, correct.

Theory (1) and scientific hypothesis (2) are used interchangably but they are NOT the same.

I have never claimed they are the same.

Since evolution cannot be tested, based on these definitions and your acknowledgement that evolution is always undergoing "adjustments", evolution has to fall into a "working hypothesis" category. It is nothing more than an "educated guess". And a poor one at that.

Evolution can be tested. And it has been tested. It seem to me that you believe the only way to conduct a test is to recreate the phenonema of relevance. This is not correct. The big bang cannot be reproduced but it is universally held to be a scientific theory.

There is widespread agreement in the scientific community - you do not need to reproduce a phenomenon in order to develop a scientific theory for it.

So, of course, evolution is not an "educated guess".

 

[HarleyER]

I believe angels were created. How does this challenge the theory of evolution?

Yes, and testing an hypothesis does not requires run an experiment that reproduces the phenomena in the present

Hypothesis: the big bang will result in 25% of the matter in the universe being helium.
Observation: the amount of helium in the universe is 25 %.

This observation in this instance is the test.

There is nowhere for you to go on this - no reputable source will say that theory of evolution, or the big bang, are not scientific hypotheses. The fact that we cannot reproduce the big bang or many aspects of evolution do not mean that either is not a valid scientific theory.

Ok, fine.

Indeed - I have been clear that these are not the same thing.

Strawman - I never said that they were the same thing. Please re-read my posts.

So yes, you teachers were right, but you mistakenly believe I think that theory and hypothesis are the same thing. But I have been clear about this all along - they are indeed different.

Yes, correct.

Again, correct.

Again, correct.

I have never claimed they are the same.

Evolution can be tested. And it has been tested. It seem to me that you believe the only way to conduct a test is to recreate the phenonema of relevance. This is not correct. The big bang cannot be reproduced but it is universally held to be a scientific theory.

There is widespread agreement in the scientific community - you do not need to reproduce a phenomenon in order to develop a scientific theory for it.

So, of course, evolution is not an "educated guess".

Well, according to Wikipedia (see Evolution), it apparently NOT settled even among die hard evolutionist depending on various points of views

Evolution as fact​

Evolution as fact and theory​

Evolution as fact and not theory​

Evolution as a collection of theories, not fact​

It is interesting, that the writers of these various points of view whom I'm familiar with (Huxley, Einstein, Dawkins, etc.) were/are hard core atheists.

So, while I understand your position, I don't agree with your conclusion nor would I agree with these atheists biologists. You're coming at it from a strictly bias and narrow viewpoint, one that is trying to fit a idea to the exclusion of any other explanations or other fields of study. It is reinforced by the majority of other atheists in your field. Undoubtedly, there is laughter with creationists and probably a bit of smugness in thinking they are right. In your world, there is no creation, no angels, no resurrection, no paranormal activities, no soul. What is left out is life after death. Laws and moral values are meaningless. People are free to do whatever they want since they are nothing more than evolving animals. After all, we exist only to create the next evolutionary chain. Very sad perspective.

Sorry, I don't buy into that line of thought, I don't buy into their "evolutionary evidence", and I'd disagree with the conclusions many of these atheists believe. I know better.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

 

[expos4ever]

Well, according to Wikipedia (see Evolution), it apparently NOT settled even among die hard evolutionist depending on various points of views

Evolution as fact​

Evolution as fact and theory​

Evolution as fact and not theory​

Evolution as a collection of theories, not fact​

It is interesting, that the writers of these various points of view whom I'm familiar with (Huxley, Einstein, Dawkins, etc.) were/are hard core atheists.

Misleading - you toss out phrase sfrom the article and conveniently are silent on other parts that are devastating to your position. From the Wikipedia article:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".

How can it be perverse to withhold assent if evolution is basically "settled science".

Also from the article:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

And more:

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

...and this:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Your summary phrases are profoundly misleading - there is nothing in the article that suggests that the support for evolution is not very strong indeed.

 

[HarleyER]

Misleading - you toss out phrase sfrom the article and conveniently are silent on other parts that are devastating to your position. From the Wikipedia article:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".

How can it be perverse to withhold assent if evolution is basically "settled science".

Also from the article:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

And more:

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

...and this:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Your summary phrases are profoundly misleading - there is nothing in the article that suggests that the support for evolution is not very strong indeed.

Well, this discussion has been enlightening.

Misleading - you toss out phrase sfrom the article and conveniently are silent on other parts that are devastating to your position. From the Wikipedia article:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".

How can it be perverse to withhold assent if evolution is basically "settled science".

Also from the article:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

And more:

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

...and this:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Your summary phrases are profoundly misleading - there is nothing in the article that suggests that the support for evolution is not very strong indeed.

No. I just copied the titles and one can certainly read the information themselves.

As far as being “devastating” to my “argument”, I find this entire discussion to be quite illuminating but I will not take the time to address your concerns. We are just going round and round.

In reading through Wikipedia’s article on evolution thought, I find evolutionists and their views read like a cult. Biologists say evolution happened and the rest of society should either accept it as fact or are just too plain ignorant to understand. THEY determine what is fact and redefine theory, and so it is fact/theory. (In theological circles, people use to call this Gnosticism.) To “prove” their point, they give random equations and models as if that is proof the entire universe evolved. Inconsistencies are just referred to as needing further research. Those few biologists that believe in Intelligent Design are silenced and/or branded as “pseudo-science”, unable to publish their findings or even find work.

Evolutionists disregard any other sciences that conflict with their worldview of evolution. Thus, when asked about other sciences that would encompass such things as moralities, laws, sexual behavior, paranormal activities, historical data, or others, these are all ignored or dismissed. It is far better to stay on topic than to stray into other fields that might contradict one’s beliefs.

While evolutionists may claim to be “Christian”, the fact is they disregard church teaching and what is clearing written in scripture. Thus, changing water into wine is impossible. A six day creation, or even a theistic evolution is impossible. Which makes rising from the death impossible. If they can’t believe the Bible, and especially question the accuracy, then they have a serious spiritual problem. Once again, this behavior is very similar to a cult, who pick and choose what they want to believe while ignoring the Scriptures as the Word of God.

Regrettably, while I’ve enjoyed our discussion, I feel we’re at an impasse. You are so locked into your evolutionary beliefs that it is unlikely you will consider alternatives. One might say the same thing about me that I’m so locked into the Word of God. But I find evolution to be an atheist’s attempt at trying to explain the universe around them, apart from God. A true Christian cannot believe in evolution because of it's inconsistencies. Someday, we’ll find out who was right.

 

[expos4ever]

You're coming at it from a strictly bias and narrow viewpoint, one that is trying to fit a idea to the exclusion of any other explanations or other fields of study.

You have no evidence of this assertion.

In your world, there is no creation, no angels, no resurrection, no paranormal activities, no soul.

Nonsense - I never posted anything that would justify your attributing these beliefs to me.

Laws and moral values are meaningless. People are free to do whatever they want since they are nothing more than evolving animals. After all, we exist only to create the next evolutionary chain. Very sad perspective.

Again, this is nonsense - nothing I have posted justifies your drawing of these conclusions.

 

[expos4ever]

No. I just copied the titles and one can certainly read the information themselves.

The titles are misleading and it certainly appears just laying the titles out there is a ploy intended to sew confusion in the mind of the reader. When readers see these lines:

Evolution as fact​

Evolution as fact and theory​

Evolution as fact and not theory​

Evolution as a collection of theories, not fact​

...they will get the impression that there is a disagreement on what really matters - whether the evidence support evolution or not. The line "evolution as a collection of theories, not fact" is especially misleading as it easily could be interpreted as suggesting that evolution is "only a theory" - one of the profoundly deceptive strategies creationists use.

Is it a coincidence that you did not provide more details from the article, details that show that the hypothesis of evolution is massively supported by the evidence?

In reading through Wikipedia’s article on evolution thought, I find evolutionists and their views read like a cult.

Nonsense. You could equally well suggest that the theory of relativity is a cult. How, exactly, does the theory of evolution qualify as a cult?

Biologists say evolution happened and the rest of society should either accept it as fact or are just too plain ignorant to understand.

How is this different from many other well-established theories/ideas in our culture?

It was medical experts who discovered that defects on certain chromosome causes certain diseases. It is experts in engineering who develope fiber optic technology. It is highly trained physicists / astronomers who developed the big bang theory. Does this make us regular folk who believe in them members of a cult? Of course not. Obviously, we regular people have to trust the experts and we wisely do. You, on the other hand, would have us reject the virtually unanimous consensus among trained biologists when it comes to evolution.

 

[HarleyER]

The titles are misleading and it certainly appears just laying the titles out there is a ploy intended to sew confusion in the mind of the reader. When readers see these lines:

Evolution as fact​

Evolution as fact and theory​

Evolution as fact and not theory​

Evolution as a collection of theories, not fact​

...they will get the impression that there is a disagreement on what really matters - whether the evidence support evolution or not. The line "evolution as a collection of theories, not fact" is especially misleading as it easily could be interpreted as suggesting that evolution is "only a theory" - one of the profoundly deceptive strategies creationists use.

Is it a coincidence that you did not provide more details from the article, details that show that the hypothesis of evolution is massively supported by the evidence?

Nonsense. You could equally well suggest that the theory of relativity is a cult. How, exactly, does the theory of evolution qualify as a cult?

How is this different from many other well-established theories/ideas in our culture?

It was medical experts who discovered that defects on certain chromosome causes certain diseases. It is experts in engineering who develope fiber optic technology. It is highly trained physicists / astronomers who developed the big bang theory. Does this make us regular folk who believe in them members of a cult? Of course not. Obviously, we regular people have to trust the experts and we wisely do. You, on the other hand, would have us reject the virtually unanimous consensus among trained biologists when it comes to evolution.

"You, on the other hand, would have us reject the virtually unanimous consensus among trained biologists when it comes to evolution."

According to statistics, biological scientists have the lowest percentage of belief in God (5.5%) and immortality (7.1%) with physicists and astronomers right behind (7.5% and 7.5% respectfully) (stats from 1998) in the scientific community. So I'm not impressed with the virtually "unanimous consensus among trained biologists". Statisitically speaking, they won't even consider Intelligent Design let alone creation. What do I care what a bunch of atheists tell me?

I'm also not impress with brillant and highly trained people. I worked with some very best and brightest in the field. I've learned a long time ago that I would rather have a average hard working person with common sense working for me any day.

1 Corinthians 1:26-28 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

 

[expos4ever]

Here is a claim made by a poster:

THEY determine what is fact and redefine theory, and so it is fact/theory. (In theological circles, people use to call this Gnosticism.)

Well, of course it is biologists (and perhaps certain other specialists) who developed the theory of evolution. What did you expect - that it would be developed by bricklayers or cashiers? And the connection to Gnosticism is absurd - Gnosticism entails the idea certain people have secret knowledge inaccessible to others. So what we are essentially being told is that biologists are some sort of sinister cabal who are colluding together to foist falsehoods on a gullible public.

Where is the evidence for this?

Would it make sense to believe that experts in kidney disease are colluding to develop bad theories about kidney disease to mislead the public?

Would it make sense to believe that astrophysicists are engaged in a dark conspiracy to mislead us about the big bang?

What is more likely? That the theory of evolution involves a complex, world-wide, multi-decade conspiracy among tens of thousands of biologists?

Or that writer of Genesis was using the literary device of metaphor to communicate important truths about God and the world?

 

[expos4ever]

To “prove” their point, they give random equations and models as if that is proof the entire universe evolved.

Random equations?

On what grounds, exactly, do you conclude that the equations are random?

And the theory of evolution is not about the "entire universe".

Inconsistencies are just referred to as needing further research.

What inconsistencies? Please be specific.

Those few biologists that believe in Intelligent Design are silenced and/or branded as “pseudo-science”, unable to publish their findings or even find work.

I do not know enough about this to comment.

Evolutionists disregard any other sciences that conflict with their worldview of evolution.

Which ones? Which sciences do evolutionists ignore?

Thus, when asked about other sciences that would encompass such things as moralities, laws, sexual behavior, paranormal activities, historical data, or others, these are all ignored or dismissed.

Do you have any evidence to support any of these assertions?

While evolutionists may claim to be “Christian”, the fact is they disregard church teaching and what is clearing written in scripture.

Code for: the only way to properly interpret scripture is a strictly literalist one.

So when we read of a talking snake, we are considered to be heretics if we interpret this as an effective metaphor, rather than a literal truth.

I humbly submit that the writers of scripture knew a good metaphor when they saw one.

Regrettably, while I’ve enjoyed our discussion, I feel we’re at an impasse. You are so locked into your evolutionary beliefs that it is unlikely you will consider alternatives.

As above, you speculate. Again, what evidence do you have about the internal workings of mind - where have I posted anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am not open to other alternatives?

A true Christian cannot believe in evolution because of it's inconsistencies.

Again, what inconsistencies?