Nobody can learn anything if they don't accept the assumptions, definitions, and axioms that lie at its heart.
You are starting with the assumption that no God is necessary at any stage of the processes that we call evolution. You are beginning with change in species being axiomatically caused by things that affect the species rather than individuals and that are not related to consciousness or behavior.
How can a "God fearing" man sit down and "learn" evolution. He can merely look at your evidence and show where it deviates from his own beliefs.
It should be easy to create a religious version of evolution and it does seem one has been being cobbled together over the last four decades or so.
Now you are making false assumptions about what I said to Subduction Zone, about Deeje refusals to learn science.
In that post, you have quoted from my reply, only talk about science. Learning science and understanding science don’t require God or religion, but in my reply, I didn’t say anything about there being “no God”.
What you are spinning now, is straw man.
All I have been saying to SZ is that she has repeatedly confused proof and evidence, in nearly 9 years. Many here, have corrected her, and have explain the differences to her that in science, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
A person who who refused to learn this simple fact, is only being wilfully ignorance, and worse, dishonest.
Dishonest, because she keeping making claims, as if no one has corrected her before.
Apparently many creationists refused to learn the differences.
Science seek evidences to verify the knowledge (scientific theory) is true. Science rely on evidences, not proof.
It is the “evidences” that determine if any hypothesis is true or false, not proof.
The more empirical evidences scientists, the more probable is the hypothesis.
If (A) there are more evidences are against hypothesis, or there are lack of evidences, then the hypothesis is false and debunked.
The evidence has to be any one or combination of the following:
- measurable,
- detectable (or observable),
- quantifiable (eg counting the numbers of evidences or the numbers of test results, using statistics and probability),
- testable,
- verifiable (eg repeated testings or discovering many independent evidences)
In science and mathematics, the term “proof” denote a logical statement, often represented as mathematical equations.
Mathematical equations are proofs, not evidences.
In non-science environment, proof and evidence are synonymous, but in the world of science and mathematics, they are not.
Since, you are in Science and Religion” debate forums, and this topic is about creation and evolution, then anyone who participate and contribute in these topics, should at least know how they are different, thus the differences between “evidence” and “proof”.
Biologists are only interested in evidences (eg morphology or physical characteristics of the anatomy, genetic characteristics and DNA or RNA), for or against evolution; they are not interested some abstract mathematical proofs (eg equations).
People have been explaining to her (Deeje) and other like-minded creationists that science needs evidences, not proofs, but they refused to learn simple basic science concepts and terminologies.
Are you one of these creationists, who refuses to learn?