Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evolution and Religion
Collapse
X
-
Evolutionists believe in evolution because evidence and reason dictate that it be so. Nothing about the theory rules out creation, nor does it even rule out the active involvement of an intelligent director.
-
link is evolutionists and creationists...
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
did u get the link? :
Leave a comment:
-
If you think science leaves no room for polemics, you don't know much history. Every single revolutionary scientific theory that has ever been formulated has been met with fierce resistance, in particular by religious organizations. Nobody within the mainstream scientific community questions whether or not evolution happened. The questions all lie in how it happened. Religion's place is to question why it happened.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname There is a mountain of evidence consisting mostly of experiments conducted with bacteria and by observations of galapagos finches. Small changes are observed - in the case of microorganisms, jumps to entirely new species have been observed.
You have yet to propose an alternative explanation as to why the fossil record shows closely related species following one another chronologically and geographically.
Anyway, to resume your example, some experiences showed also the spontaneous creation of very primary organic species inside a particular environment.
The matter here is, I think, not the question of evolution, since as you said it exists and has been proven many times. This is about evolution and what we are doing of these observations.
It has been proven that, from a certain species, new ones may appear. But, this observation does not state that a certain species came from another one. Evolution is a "forward science".
I heard of some people saying that mithoncondria were, some old times ago, a separate species and then were assimilated inside the cells we may observe today. But it hadn't been proven, and i'm very doubtful concerning the fact that someday a strong theory can be built around that.
As Anon said, evolution is not a science, at least until now. It is more observations. A science is a particular system in which no contradiction exists. Another example: the monkey. Evolutionarists and observators said that human species come from this, and now other people are saying something else.
This proves at least one thing: evolution is not a science, because sciences does not let room for polemics.
There something I don't understand in this thread: what is the link with religion ?
Leave a comment:
-
By the way, a priori probabilities are established according to arbitrary parameters. The a posteriori probability of evolution, given the fossil record, as well as the observed effects of point mutations and natural selection, is extremely high, as close to 1 as a scientific theory can get.
Leave a comment:
-
There is a mountain of evidence consisting mostly of experiments conducted with bacteria and by observations of galapagos finches. Small changes are observed - in the case of microorganisms, jumps to entirely new species have been observed.
You have yet to propose an alternative explanation as to why the fossil record shows closely related species following one another chronologically and geographically.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Science is an inductive process, pal. Hume pointed out several hundred years ago that we do not witness any connection that might be named either "cause" or "effect." This does not negate the strength of the inductive logic. One species disappears, and is replaced by another species that is very closely related anatomically with one small variation that made it better suited to survive at that time and in that environment. Tell me what you think happened.
Leave a comment:
-
Science is an inductive process, pal. Hume pointed out several hundred years ago that we do not witness any connection that might be named either "cause" or "effect." This does not negate the strength of the inductive logic. One species disappears, and is replaced by another species that is very closely related anatomically with one small variation that made it better suited to survive at that time and in that environment. Tell me what you think happened.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Evolution has an evidential basis, and both Gould and Dawkins have shown it quite well. Your belief in God is based entirely on personal conviction, much like the belief of the young earthers. In addition, nothing about evolution rules out creation. I don't see your conflict.
Basically, this is no different than personal conviction.
"Evidential basis". I like how nice language is used to give it an aura of empiricism. The fact is, your assertion that one species leads to another is anything but on an evidential basis. It is assumed.
Leave a comment:
-
I wasn't referring to you about the assumption part, but rather people I have come across in my daily life.
As far as my input...I offered my take on this issue in my very first post in this thread, in the form of a question. I don't feel that babbling on about it is necessary.Last edited by sSsflamesSs; 01-17-2004, 06:19 PM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: