Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[Audie]

It seems apparent to me that there is a purpose to human creation.

"seems apparent"

 

[YoursTrue]

"seems apparent"

That is correct. Does it seem apparent to you that there is no purpose to life other than live and then die?

 

[YoursTrue]

I can agree that this is a possibility. Here is what you said earlier:

In what way does the apparent creation of life with purpose leads you to conclusions like this?

It seems to me that there is nothing inherent in God creating life that rules out scientists explaining the how and why and when.

How would you combine the two, i.e., God creating life and how scientists explain how, why and when?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How would you combine the two, i.e., God creating life and how scientists explain how, why and when?

This is what makes them "non-overlapping magesteria." One describes magic, the other explains reality, which makes it non-magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is what makes them "non-overlapping magesteria." One describes magic, the other explains reality, which makes it non-magic.

You have your viewpoint.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing could ever be conclusive- to you.

Pretty hard to quit. She did agree to learn what is and what is not evidence a long long time ago, but she ran away when she saw where it was going.

 

[anotherneil]

Think a bit.

But for one, rejecting an idea one knows
nothing about has to be about the height of
stupidity.

Well, it depends on whether you mean summarily, absolutely, perpetually rejecting something (yes, this is indeed stupid), or you mean tentatively not yet accepting something until they've had a chance to study it, research it, test it out or vet it out for themselves in other ways (no, this isn't stupid at all).

Homer Simpson and... the Pythagorean Theorem?

What Homer Simpson knows, or rather doesn’t know, about geometry.

www.exstemsions.com

 

[anotherneil]

I rejected evolution long before becoming a believer, for the same reason I rejected religion. It's stupid. Any of the reasons that are given for rejecting religion are basically the same.

You rejected evolution then you became a believer - believer of what? I'm having trouble following everything else here, but let's start with this.

 

[anotherneil]

How about the reason: people wanting to have their ' ears tickled ' ___________________

I don't know what this type of expression means, so I tried searching online for an explanation & it gives some religious text passages as sources for this, having to do with this religious idea of bringing people to Jesus & if that's what's meant here, then this certainly doesn't qualify as not being based on religious beliefs, since it is specifically based on religious beliefs.

Are you trying to say that some people don't want to hear that their ancestry is primitive and less developed animals and organisms?

After all, evolution is promoted with 'religious fervor '

You're just making a claim, here, not an argument; please show me some examples of evolution being promoted with "'religious fervor'", and if necessary, with an explanation of what makes it religious and with fervor. Are other things from biology & geology not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Are other branches of science, such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy & any topics within those fields, not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Is there anything at all taught with "'religious fervor'", other than religion itself?

Even though evolution is presented in ' scientific language', so to speak, it can be taught as if it is a secular religion

I don't know what "secular religion" means; this sounds self-contradictory.

Are you trying to say that evolution has been taught in the same way that religion is taught? If so, then I would agree that this may be happening, but is not the correct way to teach evolution, or anything else about science.

That is because

Ok, pause - rewind: you haven't established that evolution is being taught the way you described; you've only made the assertion without backing it up with supportive evidence.

the teaching of evolution affects how people view God

People are taught things later in life that affect their view of The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Leprechauns with their pots of gold at the end of the rainbow; do you want to stop having such things taught for the sake of not affecting their views of them?

and others

Please expand on this part; I suspect that what you're referring to is quite relevant & maybe even has some potential to being key to the topic.

What is evolution's underlying message: You can do what you want and Not be held accountable

Are you asserting, or asking? If you're asking, then the answer is no, that has nothing to do with it; it's only about showing what's observed, regardless of whether it's good, bad, or ugly. If you're asserting, then please explain what backs up your claim.

Such an evolutionary message ' tickles' people's ears even if they are also involved with a religion

I suppose it is just a "message" to someone who has only read an article on evolution (especially from a religious source), and knows nothing more about it. What is it for those who have actually studied evolution - those who actually picked up a shovel & dug up some fossils, spent time & effort working in a laboratory to directly examine specimens & evidence that supports evolution?

 

[I Am Hugh]

You rejected evolution then you became a believer - believer of what? I'm having trouble following everything else here, but let's start with this.

I rejected theism and evolution as a young atheist in school. Then, many years later became a believer in the Bible. I still reject organized religion, and think the evolution/creation debate is nonsensical on a few different levels.

 

[anotherneil]

I rejected theism and evolution as a young atheist in school. Then, many years became a believer in the Bible. I still reject organized religion, and think the evolution/creation debate is nonsensical on a few different levels.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

 

[Yerda]

How would you combine the two, i.e., God creating life and how scientists explain how, why and when?

If you want to tomatoes you grow a tomato plant, right? You might say that God planted the seeds and the scientists study the plant. Where, when and how it was planted. How it grows and changes. The number and frequency of fruit it bears and when they will ripen. What it is that makes it flourish and what it is that makes it fail.

Does this analogy work for you?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to tomatoes you grow a tomato plant, right? You might say that God planted the seeds and the scientists study the plant. Where, when and how it was planted. How it grows and changes. The number and frequency of fruit it bears and when they will ripen. What it is that makes it flourish and what it is that makes it fail.

Does this analogy work for you?

Here is how I look at it now, because when I was younger I did not believe in God or understand the Bible. Now I see the Bible as God's way of communicating with mankind. So when Jesus spoke of the prayer often referred to as the Lord's Prayer, he taught his disciples to pray for the Kingdom of God and the sanctification of God's name. Why do you think that is so?

 

[Audie]

I don't know what this type of expression means, so I tried searching online for an explanation & it gives some religious text passages as sources for this, having to do with this religious idea of bringing people to Jesus & if that's what's meant here, then this certainly doesn't qualify as not being based on religious beliefs, since it is specifically based on religious beliefs.

Are you trying to say that some people don't want to hear that their ancestry is primitive and less developed animals and organisms?


You're just making a claim, here, not an argument; please show me some examples of evolution being promoted with "'religious fervor'", and if necessary, with an explanation of what makes it religious and with fervor. Are other things from biology & geology not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Are other branches of science, such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy & any topics within those fields, not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Is there anything at all taught with "'religious fervor'", other than religion itself?


I don't know what "secular religion" means; this sounds self-contradictory.

Are you trying to say that evolution has been taught in the same way that religion is taught? If so, then I would agree that this may be happening, but is not the correct way to teach evolution, or anything else about science.


Ok, pause - rewind: you haven't established that evolution is being taught the way you described; you've only made the assertion without backing it up with supportive evidence.


People are taught things later in life that affect their view of The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Leprechauns with their pots of gold at the end of the rainbow; do you want to stop having such things taught for the sake of not affecting their views of them?


Please expand on this part; I suspect that what you're referring to is quite relevant & maybe even has some potential to being key to the topic.


Are you asserting, or asking? If you're asking, then the answer is no, that has nothing to do with it; it's only about showing what's observed, regardless of whether it's good, bad, or ugly. If you're asserting, then please explain what backs up your claim.


I suppose it is just a "message" to someone who has only read an article on evolution (especially from a religious source), and knows nothing more about it. What is it for those who have actually studied evolution - those who actually picked up a shovel & dug up some fossils, spent time & effort working in a laboratory to directly examine specimens & evidence that supports evolution?

" just making things up"

 

[LeftyLen]

• I do not like it...
• I do not understand it...
• teaching evolution degrades values, undermines morals...
• evolution leads to objectionable results, i.e. eugenics and Nazi racial theory,,,

Evolutionary biology and social Darwinism are different things. One is science, the other is a philosophical construct. No scientific methodology has anything to do with atheism, agnosticism or theism.

 

[LeftyLen]

No scientific methodology has anything to do with atheism, agnosticism or theism. There is too often a conflation of philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The largest opposition to evolution is from fundamentalists, who have been anti science for 99 years.

 

[Audie]

Well, it depends on whether you mean summarily, absolutely, perpetually rejecting something (yes, this is indeed stupid), or you mean tentatively not yet accepting something until they've had a chance to study it, research it, test it out or vet it out for themselves in other ways (no, this isn't stupid at all)

All such is news of the obvious though it does serve to undecline that what you referred to as "good and sufficient" reason is in fact anything but.

 

[YoursTrue]

To reject it? Not that I am aware of. To be skeptical of it, yes.
One should always be skeptical of a scientific theory. Science can't work without skepticism.

I have found the theory of evolution to be unsupportable in the details, that is, the postulates that cannot be corroborated by direct observation. Such as the idea that fish evolved to be humans.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why don't you just say, " I make up my own reasons, as many as I need."
Do try to make up better ones though.

Not my reasons but reasoning on 2nd Timothy 4:3-4
For No one can prevent the spread of the Bible's message - 2nd Timothy 2:9 B
What could be better than the good news about God's Kingdom government to replace failing governments - Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14
Mankind's l-o-n-g history has proven that man can't direct his step so that is why God will have Jesus step in

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know what this type of expression means, so I tried searching online for an explanation & it gives some religious text passages as sources for this, having to do with this religious idea of bringing people to Jesus & if that's what's meant here, then this certainly doesn't qualify as not being based on religious beliefs, since it is specifically based on religious beliefs.
Are you trying to say that some people don't want to hear that their ancestry is primitive and less developed animals and organisms?
You're just making a claim, here, not an argument; please show me some examples of evolution being promoted with "'religious fervor'", and if necessary, with an explanation of what makes it religious and with fervor. Are other things from biology & geology not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Are other branches of science, such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy & any topics within those fields, not taught with "'religious fervor'"? Is there anything at all taught with "'religious fervor'", other than religion itself?
I don't know what "secular religion" means; this sounds self-contradictory.
Are you trying to say that evolution has been taught in the same way that religion is taught? If so, then I would agree that this may be happening, but is not the correct way to teach evolution, or anything else about science.
Ok, pause - rewind: you haven't established that evolution is being taught the way you described; you've only made the assertion without backing it up with supportive evidence.
People are taught things later in life that affect their view of The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Leprechauns with their pots of gold at the end of the rainbow; do you want to stop having such things taught for the sake of not affecting their views of them?
Please expand on this part; I suspect that what you're referring to is quite relevant & maybe even has some potential to being key to the topic.
Are you asserting, or asking? If you're asking, then the answer is no, that has nothing to do with it; it's only about showing what's observed, regardless of whether it's good, bad, or ugly. If you're asserting, then please explain what backs up your claim.
I suppose it is just a "message" to someone who has only read an article on evolution (especially from a religious source), and knows nothing more about it. What is it for those who have actually studied evolution - those who actually picked up a shovel & dug up some fossils, spent time & effort working in a laboratory to directly examine specimens & evidence that supports evolution?

Guess I'm showing my age . The saying of having one's 'ears ticked' means: tell people what they want to hear - 2nd Tim. 4:3-4
Paying attention to misleading statements rather then accept what Jesus taught as inspired aka Scripture - 1st Tim. 4:1
Such people don't want to hear Bible Truth but want to hear what they desire
Such apostate thinking was foretold by Jesus - Matt. 13:24-25,38
Since the first century (Acts 20:29-30) such apostasy has grown and spread - 2nd Thess. 2:3,8
The theory of evolution affects how people view or don't view God with evolution's message do what you want to do
False clergy teach their religious lies, customs and traditions as gospel truth when Not found in Scripture - Matt. 15:9
'secular religion' can be when one looks in a mirror and sees his god, worship of things other than God
How do fossils support evolution, after all fossils are part of creation