Like what? I frequently come across this claim, but it never has any substance. What holes does evolution have?
No the arguments are not both good. The aren’t compatible. One is a philosphical/religious argument and the other is a scientifically testible argument. If you enter YEC or ID into the scientific realm, they don’t hold up (at least not the ID that is put forth by Behe and others).
Nice qualifer. You can’t prove anything to be 100%. That doesn’t mean we can’t accept evolution. Evolution is currently the only scientifically proveable theory that there is. If you want to debate philosophy/religion, that’s fine I can try to debate nihilism (as I understand it) versus Christian truth.
I assume you mean scientific proof, for which their is virtually none on the side of creation. As far as science is concerned, Evolution is it. There are no other opposing scientific theories. I think you do science a disservice by implying that it needs “faith” in order to believe in it. It seems as though it’s an easy slippery slope down to “wild guesses by atheist madmen”, but if I’m wrong, please correct me.
Went surfing and found a sight on creation science. Of course, I realize anyone can come back with a site that supports the theory of evolution, also. As I said, it’s something that there will always be debate on. Sorry I just don’t accept that science has positively beyond a shadow of a doubt proven evolution and there are scientists who believe in creation. Some scientists evidently see evidence for creation, others don’t. To me, it takes more faith to believe in chance existence than in intelligent design. Others disagee, it’ll always be that way. Hope you check the link out. At the bottom is a link to an offer of $250,000 to anyone who can prove the theory of evolutions is true.
This is definitely true. Carl Sagan referred to this problem as “scientific illiteracy.” The media doesn’t help much when it plays along with crap like the “Pet Psychic” and pseudo-documentaries about UFO’s and Bigfoot.
You link “Dr. Dino’s” site?? I’m sorry, but you must be out of the loop in terms of discredited totally unreliable lieing creation “scientists”. This site is not science, it’s heavily biased, and the author (hovind) is a liar.
I agree-some people just can’t accept what is presented by science. I mean, I’m sure there are people who believe the world is flat.
It has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt in the scientific community. It’s as solid as the theory of gravity. What biology scientist believes in “creation” (note: I’m talking about either YEC or ID as expoused by Behe, I’m not talking about theistic evolutionists).
Please don’t tell me you think “Dr. Dino” is a legitimate “Dr.”. AFAIK he didn’t even get his degree from an accredited university.
You said it, now prove it. Remember, I’m not asking you to prove God, I’m asking you to prove “intelligent design”.
Check out the wording of his “offer”. It’s total non-sense. He’s been challenged on it several times.
He states:
Which is NOT EVOLUTION. In order to prove evolution you have to totally redefine evolution!?!?!?
Okay, meatros, whatever you say. You may appear to win the debate, it still doesn’t mean you’re right. I will never believe that this universe came into being by accident Everything just settled right into place, yeahh right. I don’t think so.
That’s an appeal to pity. I’m not trying to “win” the debate. Evolution is not my idea (I wish it was), I don’t get any bonus points if you say you’re right.
Nor should you, but you see this is half of the problem: This is not evolution. You can find out what evolution is if you want to, and when you do you might find that you had no real reason to oppose it at all.
To clarify:
Dr. Dino-Does not know what he’s talking about.
His 250K version of evolution is a total fabrication of the definition of evolution: Check out the fine print:
None of these remotely resembles the actual theory of evolution. They are mischaracterizations that are being used to get Dr. Dino out of legally paying off his wager.
H4E,
I’m sorry, but we do not really have two competing theories here. We have, on the one hand, a thoroughly solid and dependable scientific theory. Every bit of evidence, testing and research which would be reasonably expected to confirm or falsify this theory has confirmed it 100% of the time.
This has been said before, but gravity is also a theory which is tested every day. Technically, we cannot actually “prove” that gravity exists, we can only say that the fact that anything with mass has been pulled back to the Earth 100% of the time that it has been observed leads us to a solid conclusion that something is causing that to happen. We call that something gravity, even though this is really only a term which describes the phenomenon of mass attracting mass. We still don’t really know the reason for this phenomenon, but we know, with as much certainty as can be humanly expected, that mass attracts mass in every instance which has ever been observed.
Now, it is also hypothetically possible that gravity does not exist at all, and that every seemingly observed instance of gravity has only been a coincidence. Perhaps all mass in the universe moves in a purely random manner, and for the past 12 billion years every observable part of the universe has simply been moving in such a way as to look exactly as though gravity exists.
“Disbelieving” evolution requires exactly the same kind of absurd leap in logic. It requires us to believe that all of the expected geology, paleontology, geneology, biology, archaeology, zoology, entemology and anthropology have merely been arranged, by some unbelievable coincidence, to look exactly like simpler species have changed over time into other species.
The evidence to support such a hypothesis is…
Nothing. Not one thing. There is no exhibit A. There is only religious tautology-- which is fine if you find that satisfying, but it is not a scientific theory. Creationism has no more relationship to any kind of biological science than astrology has to astronomy.
Actually, astrology has more going for it. At least astrologers base some of their discipline on the real, observable movements of the planets. They do not invent imaginary orbits to suit their whims.
A belief in a theistic creation of the universe is not, in any way, compromised by evolution. One has nothing to do with the other. It is perfectly reasonable to accept evolution as a confirmed theory and believe that God created the universe. Just read this thread and you will find several people who believe just that. In fact, I daresay that it is probably the most commonly held outlook in America (in that most Americans believe in God and most Americans accept evolution).
Why is it impossible to believe that God created evolution? Personally I think that this would be a beautifully creative and endlessly fascinating way for God to work. Cripes, even the Pope has accepted evolution now (or at least he has declared that it is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine).
I agree and I would also like to add that I think God would have operated in a much more complicated fashion than our ancient ancestors could have understood. Why would God burden ancient man with how he created things, when they didn’t even have the science to understand it?
His4ever, the theory of evolution does not rule out the divine intervention of God. It just doesn’t address it because that is a matter of faith, not science. Your faith is not subject to scientific verification. I see absolutely no contradiction between the belief in God the Creator and the theory of evolution.
Does anyone know of any reputable scientist from a respected university that gives credence to the possibility of Creationism?
Is anything ever actually scientifically proven? I thought that proof was only a math construct.
He also, presumably, gave us our minds, which allows us, slowly and with ever growing wonder, to discover these things for ourselves. What a boring world it would be if there were no puzzles to solve and no jaw-dropping discoveries to make.
Qualification here: on macro scales only. You of course have electromagnetism (and other forces) which may or may not come into play and repel masses. Which is itself a theory in the same vein as gravity.
Sorry, Charlie, but the fact that one can find web sites arguing both ways doesn’t mean there is serious scientific debate on it. As snobbish as this may sound, matters of science are not decided by popular debate on the web…They are decided by study and debate by people who are equipped with the understanding to debate this issues intelligently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You may like to think that all science should be up for popular vote by the masses but that is not the way our scientific process works or should work.
And, while one can certainly find vigorous debate about various issues involving evolution in journals like Science and Nature (and whatever more specialized journals those biologists publish in), they all start from the same basic acceptance of the fact of evolution.
[hijack]
As an aside, it is worth clarifying why one might hold such an anti-democratic notion in regards to science while endorsing democracy in society. I.e., one might ask, why have public policy issues be decided democratically when scientific issues are not? I think there are two points here: (1) The social science issues that come into public policy debates are on much less firm ground than the physical sciences. (2) [And, this is probably the more important.] Public policy decisions involve values and self-interests not just facts. Not to say that self-interest and values don’t find their way into science, but I think we believe that science proceeds best when these are not given a lot of weight whereas there is very good reason to give them weight in public policy decisions.[/hijack]
Right. Science, unlike math, is an inductive system. You can’t prove things rigorously. (Well, you can prove certain things about, say, the mathematical models in various scientific theories but you can never prove that nature will definitely obey these.)
This whole “proof” thing is a way of raising the bar above what is possible in science. Technically speaking, all knowledge in science is provisional. However, it does not then follow that the science for a spherical earth and that for a flat earth are on the same footing and should both be taught as plausible scientific theories.
It seems to me that you need a bit more knowledge of how science works, otherwise, charlatans will get you everytime.
Simply put, scientific theories are not proven - that happens only in mathematics. Scientific theories are just models of nature, of how things work. In other words, they are approximations. Progress comes through refining the models: by revising current theories or replacing an old one with a new one.
Theories can take on a number of statuses depending on how much evidence supports it. A theory with a lot of evidence backing it can be “sound” or even “robust.”
Same thing applies to the Theory of Evolution. It is one of the most robust theories there are. Theodosius Dobzhansky once remarked, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Of course, you can always assert that the Christian god created all this evidence to fool us. By the same token, though, you cannot refute my assertion that this universe came into existence just 15 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
A few of the apparent inconsistencies in evolution can be explained by things like the so-called “selfish” genes that act to propogate themselves regardless of their usefulness to the organism, or by the fact that a helpful trait might not be spread if it causes the organism to be offensive or sexually undesireable in some way to others of it’s kind.
I could refute it by saying that you, and others, are just merely a figment of my imagination.
What inconsistencies are you talking about? Evolution works by change. The basic theory is this: Species change over time. This includes tiny changes and big changes. Their are a few points within evolution that scientists are arguing about, but they are not arguing whether evolution exists or not.