Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

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.

[felizitation]

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.

I don't know in what extent we are answering to the purpose of the thread.

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 ?

[loseyourname]

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.

[sleuth]

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? :

[loseyourname]

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.

[sleuth]

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially " religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

see how close they are ...evolution is theory as much as creation

[Anonymouse]

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.

No one denies microevolution. If I got a penny for every time I stated this I would have 112 pennies.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by sleuth As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially " religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge—that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed.

see how close they are ...evolution is theory as much as creation

Precisely, which is why evolution is a like class of faith. But look for a response saying "evolution is testable, and provable". Well that all depends on what you agree, macro or micro evolution?

There have been enough contradictions and flaws since Darwin, to now, for it to be an infallible theory. Theories are theories, treat them all the same.

[loseyourname]

You have still yet to propose an alternative. If there is no connection between old and new species, why are they so closely anatomically related? Furthermore, if point mutation and natural selection are not the culprits, how does speciation occur?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Precisely, which is why evolution is a like class of faith. But look for a response saying "evolution is testable, and provable". Well that all depends on what you agree, macro or micro evolution?

There have been enough contradictions and flaws since Darwin, to now, for it to be an infallible theory. Theories are theories, treat them all the same.

You have also yet to name a contradiction or a flaw.