If the Theory of Evolution is true what does it prove?

[gnostic]

If I'm going to learn about something, I'm going to look up the person that first pioneered the original theory.

The classic evolution vs. creationism debate also has much to do with worldview and ideology as much as evaluating observable evidence.

All I have to do is a take a course in biology and suddenly I can go around telling people what evolution is? . . ok

Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were all great scientists, and they were Christians. But in the field of science, it was their discoveries, contributions (to science) and genius that made them great scientists, not their personal belief or faith in god.

Galileo was brave enough to write and teach about Copernician heliocentric system, but was arrested by the Church, of all thing - heresy. But Galileo was right, intellectually, and the Church was wrong with their dogma. Newton, on the other hand was too fearful to challenge the church, fearing to share the same faith as Galileo.

Whether the person is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, atheist or something else, is hardly the point with science. Science deal with observable, repeatable tests and evidences (hence on empiricism, falsifiability and the scientific method), not faith or divine intervention.

Until you understand the Genesis (for the 1st eleven chapters) deals with creation myth (more than likely borrowed by the Babylonian religion) and as a part of a whole collection of books of THEOLOGY, and not science book, then the "world view" you talk about for creationism is simply theological dogma, not science.

Does the Bible teach you about anatomy or medicine? If not, then how can it in anyway contribute to science?

Evolution teaches about diversity of species; does the Bible teach anything about why species are different? If not, then why does it even try to compete against evolutionary biology?

There are no factual evidences that man was created from the earth, like clay, or woman created out of man's rib. There are no evidences to support Genesis' story of the everything on earth, including sun, moon and stars, within 6 days. There are no evidences to support the global flood. There are no evidences to support only one language was spoken by mankind prior to the building of the Tower of Babel.

My point is that scientists, religious background, is irrelevant, as long as he remained objective and rigorously used the scientific method.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From what I understand, Darwin was a professed agnostic/atheist . .

In that case, "Darwinist" evolution suggests that species evolved and mutated by random chance.

Of course, I'm just a beginner at the basics of ToE.

This should help clear up those misconceptions.


[youtube]vss1VKN2rf8[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Evolution‬‏

 

[Agnostic75]

If there's a mountain of evidence supporting evolution, why are there creationists?

Why do some people believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young?

Why do many people believe that men have not landed on the moon?

Why do you favor creationism over theistic evolution?

Isn't your main interest inerrancy, not science? Most inerrantists are not experts in science, but they still believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. If your primary bias is the Bible, I suggest that you should be debating at some other forum, not at a science forum.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Biblestudent 007: Consider the following:

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design. Behe is a Roman Catholic, and is married to Celeste Behe, and they have nine children who are homeschooled by Celeste in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2

".......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them...In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection…tries to account for the differences between creatures. …What could cause such staggering transformations? …By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept." The Edge of Evolution, p 2.

Of particular interest are Behe's following comments:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”

Do you have any scientific reasons to dispute that? Since Behe is a Christian, you cannot claim that he is biased against Christianity.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

This should help clear up those misconceptions.


[youtube]vss1VKN2rf8[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Evolution‬‏

Interesting video.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since Behe is a Christian, you cannot claim that he is biased against Christianity.

I am a Christian and I'm acutely biased against Christianity.

People are not so simple-minded as you assume.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a Christian and I'm acutely biased against Christianity.

Yer an animaly....an abnormally...an anomaly......Yer flat out strange. (That's a good thing..)

 

[Oneatatime]

If the Theory of Evolution is true what does it prove? . .

That science works compared to other questionable forms of knowing.

 

[Oneatatime]

If the Theory of Evolution is true what does it prove? . .

That science works

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That science works

Or more precisely that the claims of "evolution" are "true."

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Why do some people believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young?

Because they choose to? . .

Why do many people believe that men have not landed on the moon?

Complicated thinking? . .

Why do you favor creationism over theistic evolution?

Precisely, because God's creative activity is implied all throughout the holy scriptures.

Isn't your main interest inerrancy, not science? Most inerrantists are not experts in science, but they still believe that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. If your primary bias is the Bible, I suggest that you should be debating at some other forum, not at a science forum.

FYI, I don't need anyone to direct me around any of the forums on the Internet.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

That science works compared to other questionable forms of knowing.

That's a straightforward answer.

 

[Oneatatime]

Or more precisely that the claims of "evolution" are "true."

Provisionally true

 

[Oneatatime]

That's a straightforward answer.

Its also an accurate one

 

[Jose Fly]

The classic evolution vs. creationism debate also has much to do with worldview and ideology as much as evaluating observable evidence.

Unfortunately, that is often true. The question then becomes, are you the sort of person who will deny something that is true simply because it conflicts with your worldview?

 

[Father Heathen]

If I'm going to learn about something, I'm going to look up the person that first pioneered the original theory.

Edison was an atheist, does that make electricity atheistic?
Newton was a christian, does that make gravity a christian theory?

And should we ignore new discoveries and developments simply because the original pioneers were unaware of them?

 

[outhouse]

christians found evolution

 

[Agnostic75]

Since Behe is a Christian, you cannot claim that he is biased against Christianity.

I am a Christian and I'm acutely biased against Christianity.

People are not so simple-minded as you assume.

You misunderstood what I meant. I said what I said because many conservative Christians automatically discount anything that skeptic experts say.

Millions of Christians accept theistic evolution. Many if not most inerrantists claim that those people are not Christians. That is of course ridiculous, but that is what many inerrantists believe.

As far as the term "simple-minded" is concerned, I never use it because it is inappropriate.

 

[McBell]

If I'm going to learn about something, I'm going to look up the person that first pioneered the original theory.

Then you need look past Darwin.

The classic evolution vs. creationism debate also has much to do with worldview and ideology as much as evaluating observable evidence.

Only because of the ignorance of some of the debaters..

All I have to do is a take a course in biology and suddenly I can go around telling people what evolution is? . . ok

Perhaps not.
Though it seems such a course would seriously increase your current knowledge of ToE.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Interesting video.

And it's all true.....