• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Failure of creationists/theists to undertand scientific theory & facts

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Chance plays a role but Evolution doesn't operate by chance alone.
Sexual selection, genetic drift, gene flow and so on all contribute to evolution.

Evolution is a tough subject to understand because it has so many contributing factors, so I'm not surprised that people have difficulty with it.

I am saddened by how many people simply don't want to make the effort to actually learn what Evolution is before they condemn or praise it.

wa:do
 

Women_Of_Reason

Mystery Lover
I don`t see why Christians hate this theory... Not all Christians of course.... But.... Alot of them.

This theory is a scientific demonstration that Jesus was right: We are all brothers and sisters.
 

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
Chance plays a role but Evolution doesn't operate by chance alone.
Sexual selection, genetic drift, gene flow and so on all contribute to evolution.

Evolution is a tough subject to understand because it has so many contributing factors, so I'm not surprised that people have difficulty with it.

I am saddened by how many people simply don't want to make the effort to actually learn what Evolution is before they condemn or praise it.

wa:do

This is a part I have known to confuse a fair few people, and it would be strictly untrue of you to say evolution isn't purely a chance event, at least in presentation of the naturalistic view of it.

If one holds a view there is no supernatural 'guiding force' to evolution, it is the product of random chance. What you mean to say when you claim it isn't a chance event is that there are guiding biological principles to evolution that would reduce the apparent improbability of the chain of events that have resulted in organism X. Just because we are reconciling the different perceptions of probability doesn't mean that the actual progression isn't random.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
This is a part I have known to confuse a fair few people, and it would be strictly untrue of you to say evolution isn't purely a chance event, at least in presentation of the naturalistic view of it.

If one holds a view there is no supernatural 'guiding force' to evolution, it is the product of random chance. What you mean to say when you claim it isn't a chance event is that there are guiding biological principles to evolution that would reduce the apparent improbability of the chain of events that have resulted in organism X. Just because we are reconciling the different perceptions of probability doesn't mean that the actual progression isn't random.

I wouldn't call natural selection random; evolutive pressure does exist and it has definite directions, albeit not in a truly intelligent way. By way of it the guiding forces of biological evolution acquire an environmental component as well, probably more significant than the biological one, which is in fact quite random.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
This is a part I have known to confuse a fair few people, and it would be strictly untrue of you to say evolution isn't purely a chance event, at least in presentation of the naturalistic view of it.

If one holds a view there is no supernatural 'guiding force' to evolution, it is the product of random chance. What you mean to say when you claim it isn't a chance event is that there are guiding biological principles to evolution that would reduce the apparent improbability of the chain of events that have resulted in organism X. Just because we are reconciling the different perceptions of probability doesn't mean that the actual progression isn't random.

And it seems that you are one of those people confused by this. Evolution is not a purely chance event, even in the naturalistic view of it. Evolution is no more random chance than gravity is, if you drop a stone it will fall to the earth, at a predictable rate, it will not fly off in a random direction. Likewise organisms that are better suited to an environment and better able to reproduce viable offspring will be naturally selected. Yes there is a chance element involved, but evolution is anything but purely chance, even if one holds the view that there is no supernatural “guiding force”.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that “no intentional guiding force” equals “purely random”.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
roli said:
Tell me, do you believe that evolution occurs by chance or intended purpose?

I don't think by intended purpose.

Chance is perhaps better word for it....BUT not quite.

I think a better word is ability to ADAPT (or adjust) to the environment they are in.

I will give a couple of different examples, and that are different to Painted Wolf's post.

Elephants can live in either semi-arid deserts or in tropic jungles, but could not hope to survive during the Ice Ages. Mammoths, on the other hand, can survive better in such colder weathers, because of their woolly hairs. Hence the mammoths have adapted to the cooler changes. They are extinct due to either their natural predators or hunted down to extinction by man.

Man (Homo sapiens) and their primitive counterparts have gone through the same things. During the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods, the Ice Ages, required man and their counterparts, like the Neanderthal man to hunt and gather food. They are to seek new range to hunt, hence they moved like nomads. The Neanderthal died out in Europe long before the end of the Ice Age, possibly around 30,000 BP (Before Present).

Anyway, when the Ice Age ended in the northern regions of Europe and Asia, man had to adapt to changing environment. The people in the north, who continued to live in colder regions, would still hunt, fish, and gather food. But further down in more warmer and temperate regions, Man have to adjust. He can settle down, and grown his own food, in a mixture of agriculture and animal domestication. They learned when to plant their crops, depending on the seasons, and workout when they receive the best average rainfall. This is the Neolithic period that began around 10,000 BP. They did other things to store food, so pottery was invented. They lived longer than the hunters in the past. The hunters haven't disappeared, but the farmers made better living and learn new skills and technology.

Eventually, around 5000 BP (or 3000 BCE), grouped together in larger group, and villages became town, and towns became city. Example of this, is the ancient Egyptian city of Buto; originally there were 2 separate predynastic towns of Pe and Dep. This urban living coincided with the discovering of metallurgy, ushering the Bronze Age. People living in the city even longer than those living in Neolithic settlements.

People with pale skin adapt better in colder weather, but get sunburn quite easily in desert. People with darker skin, were able to live better in arid environment and under the harsh sun.

Have you ever notice that people living in the north, are generally taller than those, living further south, towards the equator? I have noticed that it is true that Chinese living north of the Yangtze River are generally taller than those living in the south. Could it be the genes? Environments? Or because of different diets? I don't know myself. I am from the south, but I am fairly tall. About 5 generations ago, on my father's side, my ancestors did live originally in the north, but moved south near Hong Kong. My grandfather was the tallest man in his village, at 6'2''. You may not think that tall, but when you considered that most of my relatives on my mother's side, they were around her height, averaging to about 4'1" to 5'2".

Anyway, there's more to evolution than just chance; I certainly don't believe in intended purpose. Intended purpose, seemed to imply a God or designer. It depends on the living condition and environment, as well as biological adjustment to suit these conditions. I believed that any intention are of inherent nature rather than divine interferences or intervention.
 
Last edited:

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
How convenient that we will never see it, by the way ,wow! where did you get that number.

He probably got that number from school, or reading any simple history of Earth.

So when did this evolutionary process start and stop and where did we come from , are you of the school of the big bang syndrome.

Evolution started when life appeared. It hasn't stopped, and won't stop until there is no more life. It's the Big Bang Theory, not a syndrome, and it has nothing to do with evolution.

That's a bold statement, Evolution will not be disproved" .

Not really. It's true.

The evolution you speak of regarding origin has already been disproved and many questions ,gaps remain.
God created everything and science has the privilege of working within his laws and principals to study and enhance their enviroment.
Who said science is lying, men are a finite and miserably failing species.

Evolution has not been disproven in the least. I has changed a bit, but the core has remained the same.

I think a good idea might be for you to do a little research and then come back and talk about this. I'd say just reading the Wiki entry would do well enough for you. It doesn't make you look very good when you make claims about something you are clearly ignorant about. You're more than welcome to dismiss Evolution altogether, but you should at least have all the facts first.
 

challupa

Well-Known Member
To answer that question, I think it might be helpful for you to check out Bob Altemeyer's work on authoritarian personalities. Specifically the part where he discusses the research suggesting that authoritarian personalities think differently than do most other people. I believe that's in Chapter 3 (.pdf). But for reference, the gist of Altemeyer's research is that authoritarian followers tend to rely more on authority, than on reason and evidence, to establish truths.
I know this goes all the way back to page 1 of this thread and is now off topic, but I went and read the research paper/book and it explained so much to me. Things I have shook my head about for years finally make more sense. Now I understand why people won't give up their negative and self destructive beliefs. They really don't connect the destructive belief with an unfavorable outcome because they can't acknowledge the belief to be wrong and when something happens that's not favorable, it's due to some random out of the blue uncontrollable reason.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
This is in response to Lawrence's thread, Errors in the theory of evolution.

Why do (Christian) theists and creationists failed to understand scientific theory and scientific facts, especially in regarding to Evolution?

No, let me correct myself.

It is not simply Christians who failed to understand the difference. It is mainly American Christians who failed to understand the working of science.

Lawrence is not only one who don't understand science. Others have expressed similar ignorance, due to their belief in church dogma teachings, bible or God.

To them, the theory of Evolution is just a theory, with no facts. They have failed to see over the decades, discoveries have been made. These discoveries are evidences that validate Charles Darwin's theory, time and again.

Evidences can either prove or disprove any given theory. If the evidences or repeated testing can prove the theory have substance, then the more evidences found to support the theory, the theory will become scientific facts. We called such evidence-finding, observations, experiments, testings, and validations, as scientific method.

Charles Darwin have done his own research, prior to writing his work, On the Origin of Species (1859), when he sailed on board the HMS Beagle, where he had made a number of discoveries.

His visit to the islands of Galapagos was pretty profound on his researches with living species. The islands are quite remote in the Pacific. You would think that each island would roughly have the same types of animals, but he found that each island have unique features. The islands are close enough together, and yet there are some animals are distinctive from the neighboring islands. Different islands have change some animals because they were required to adapt to different environments.

Since then, other scientists have visited these islands, and have confirmed his finding.

For creationists and theists to ignore the evidences at Darwin's time, and since then, showed the lack of understanding these creationists/theists have for evolution as proven facts.

Why do they failed to see evidences given that prove a theory? Why do continue to say that Evolution is not science or not facts?

It's still a Theory,fact is conclusive
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Theories explain facts....

To suggest that a scientific theory is not "fact" demonstrates the OP's premise... misunderstanding of science and how it works.

wa:do
 

Luminous

non-existential luminary
It's still a Theory,fact is conclusive
its not a hypothesis, its a theory. And though it might not be 100.000000000000000000...% conclusive. it is far more believeable and backed by evidence than creationism.

anyway, what 'fact' is 100% conclusive? unless it uses circular logic or except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition as in, "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles".

It can only look 'conclusive' but there is no way to know for sure.
 
Last edited:

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Columbus stood on the shore watching the ships as they went to sea and as the disapeared over the horizon it gave him the theory that the Earth was round and this theory is proven by many Sailors circumnavigating the globe.
Evolution is a massive jigsaw that is incomplete so until it is it is still a theory,myself i have nothing againt the TOE but science is'nt infallible which can be seen through history.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Columbus stood on the shore watching the ships as they went to sea and as the disapeared over the horizon it gave him the theory that the Earth was round and this theory is proven by many Sailors circumnavigating the globe.
Evolution is a massive jigsaw that is incomplete so until it is it is still a theory,myself i have nothing againt the TOE but science is'nt infallible which can be seen through history.

Do you realize that by now Evolutionists have FAR better, more complete and more tested evidence than Columbus ever had? And that this has been true for nearly a century?

I wonder what you mean by "massive (incomplete) jigsaw)", myself.
 

ThereIsNoSpoon

Active Member
Why do (Christian) theists and creationists failed to understand scientific theory and scientific facts, especially in regarding to Evolution?
I think one problem is that they can't reconcile Evolution with their belief.
Another is the inability to accept mankinds "unimportance". I once had a discussion with a lady that just ended it with "I won't be the child of apes. My grandgrandmother was no ape".
A third reason is in my view the inability or the simple avoidance to actually have a good look at the theory of evolution.
And a fourth reason are the strange and silly books of creationists (like for example Harun Yahya) that so much appeal to theists by providing "simple" answers and "easy targets to blame".

To them, the theory of Evolution is just a theory, with no facts.
First of all ... anything in science is a theory !
Secondly "evolution" is (in this lonely form) neither a theory nor a fact.
The term evolution has too many meanings in these days and there are many theories ABOUT evolution.
 
Last edited:

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
You do realize that "Germs cause disease" is still a theory?
Or "the Earth goes around the sun"... just a theory.

Columbus is a poor example, as the shape of the Earth (and its size) was widely known by the time of the Pharaoh's.
Columbus's hypothesis... (not theory) was that it was faster to get to Asia by going west... his hypothesis was disproven by running into the Americas.

Again, evidence that people talk about science without ever actually attempting to understand it.

wa:do
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
The best scientists can say about TOE is that it has not been disproven by science,any scientist would admit there is always a minute amount of doubt.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The best scientists can say about TOE is that it has not been disproven by science,any scientist would admit there is always a minute amount of doubt.

Of course! There is also a minute amount of doubt in the notion there are no pixies under your chair. But what do minute amounts of doubt have to do with what it's reasonable to believe?
 
Top