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

[setarcos]

I'm far more interested in science than in quibbling over "creationist", and I don't care what religious texts say; religious text are not my go-to place for referencing definitions, science, truth, or anything else

That's fine. Its good to get to know where each persons biases lay.
But you posted...
"From a religious POV evolution doesn't seem to "make sense" to creationists."
which is a comment on creationists and religious POV's.
If you wish to strictly stick to scientific concerns then why post a comment on involving religious concerns but act as if you don't care to acknowledge a religious persons counterpoint?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a similar definition I am implying.
From Oxford languages...
"the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
That developing entity is the universe from high entropy to low.
The word evolution has become somewhat synonymous with how changes in living organisms has been accomplished because of all the "hoopla" surrounding the theory that everyone is drawn into.
The definition you quote is dealing with the specific theory of how only living organisms changed over time. However evolution can mean simply : a change over time in a system.
Consider these examples...again from Oxford...
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
"the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process"
"silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions"

One should never rely on dictionaries for complex scientific ideas. One will be inevitably wrong. Now it is true that complexity does quite often arise in the process of evolution. But it is not required. In fact part of evolution is often taking a small step back as when traits are lost at times. For example in our past we lost our tails because they were no longer useful. That is still evolution even if the organism that results was "less complex".

 

[Pogo]

This is a similar definition I am implying.
From Oxford languages...
"the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
That developing entity is the universe from high entropy to low.
The word evolution has become somewhat synonymous with how changes in living organisms has been accomplished because of all the "hoopla" surrounding the theory that everyone is drawn into.
The definition you quote is dealing with the specific theory of how only living organisms changed over time. However evolution can mean simply : a change over time in a system.
Consider these examples...again from Oxford...
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
"the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process"
"silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions"

Consider the etymology of the words origin:

early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n- ) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ maneuver in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.



Hopefully the above clarifies the meaning I am using. I haven't redefined anything. I'm using the original meaning of the word before it became coopted by evolutionists to mean only their limiting definition as applied to living organisms.
Now you were talking specifically about "changes in living organisms" and I understand that. I've simply expanded that to include the universe in general.

In genesis we have an evolving universe. Things came in steps. They weren't all created in time as if in the same moment and that includes the living things mentioned. There is an "unrolling" movement towards a more complicated system from a less complicated system written in the language available at the time.
The specific definition you mentioned with its specific mention of specific organisms and specific language conveying specific ideations didn't exist in the language Genesis was written in at the time. Your not going to find a verbatim, equivalence of a 19th century definition in Genesis and it would be ridiculous of you to expect

This is really rather silly, it is an attempt to make a semantic apologetics based on a word that is only vaguely connected to Genesis in that it is a creation myth that describes change from nothing to the present over some time period. in that simple sense rolling out can describe it.

Does that make sense from the reading of Genesis now?

I also said Genesis was a synopsis and not a detailed account of how each step happened.
Genesis implies a specific beginning to the universe - in line with current scientific understanding - and it implies a stepped process to the formation of the earth - again in line with current scientific understanding - and then a stepped process to the formation of the living inhabitants of that earth - again in line with current scientific understanding. And again, it speaks in generalities (sometimes metaphorically) but not in specifics. The limitations of the language used at the time would be something to consider as well.

Yes, change over time is apt, but the total lack of specifics says that is basically the entirety of the relationship, after all if we go that far, what is rolling?
Maybe the carpet of the universe of Sci Fi, where pulling on a thread changes history.

Why do you believe God is Creator? What led you to that conclusion? What do you mean by "as a singularity"?

Perhaps. I don't know how much credence you put in scripture, - your obviously not a Christian or Jew - I'm presuming you're a deist of sorts by how you speak but Genesis clearly indicates different creative moments in time and therefore different points of interaction after the beginning of creation. So I lean towards Christianity religiously since it seems to generally align with current scientific discovery where scientific discovery is a factor.

You might look at the avatar for a clue.

I also think some amount of purposeful intervention is implied according to what we now know about the complexities involved in this creation.
For example:
The complexities of such structures as Cilia and flagella as arising through natural purposeless processes has still not been adequately explained to my knowledge.
Nor has the purposeless development of the complex specific information content contained within the DNA molecule, and the creation of the structure of the molecule itself an extremely low probability event if only natural unintentional processes are considered as shown by Stephen C. Meyer and others…
Quoted from same:
“So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."”

This is all just your diversion into Intelligent Design and the argument from ignorance that says I don't understand it so there must have been a creator.
Specified complexity has never even been defined and Meyer's silly calculations have nothing to do with evolution in that, that is not how proteins came to be. You also totally don't understand Priogogine's work which was demonstrating that in fact complex structures could occur in the right situations, just not the thermodynamic equilibrium situations that creationists falsely think describe nature.
ID is still touted by a subset of sciency sounding creationists, but it has been demonstrated a dead end, so much so that you will have to look at Talk Origins archive sites and the like to even find it discussed in any detail.

@IndigoChild5559 appears to have an understanding of both science and your scriptures without relying on major semantic gymnastics to force them to somehow say the same thing about two different subjects.

And that’s just one protein. A single cell has hundreds of specialized proteins.

OOPS missed this line, it is still irrelevant to science and the study that is evolution in that context of the word.

 

[ppp]

Nope.
At least not until you start replying to what I actually post and not to your assumptions of what you think my posts mean.

Good for you. It's clear that theor posts are made in bad faith.

 

[Audie]

Nope.
At least not until you start replying to what I actually post and not to your assumptions of what you think my posts mean.

You’re not alone in that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a similar definition I am implying.
From Oxford languages...
"the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."

Sure. this is the FIGURATIVE use of the word, not the scientific understanding. For example, I can say that Rock and Roll evolved from Jazz.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. If you had said, "I don't mean evolution the way scientists mean it. I'm not talking about biology. I'm speaking figuratively," we would have been fine. The confusion arises because this is a forum set aside for the discussion of the TOE and creationism. Anyone reading the word "evolution" in this particular forum, is going to assume you are speaking of evolution as understood by scientists.

Hopefully the above clarifies the meaning I am using.

Very much so. Thank you.

I also said Genesis was a synopsis and not a detailed account of how each step happened.

That's fine. You have certain religious beliefs, including a literal reading of Gen 1. For me, I see it as a teaching story, not a science text. There is no such thing as light existing before there were stars, nor did birds come into being before land animals.

Why do you believe God is Creator? What led you to that conclusion?

It's an article of my faith. I believe it, but not because it is proven. Genesis 1 teaches God is creator, but Genesis 1 does not prove God is creator. There is no evidence either for or against this idea. My intuition says that the design of the universe implies a designer. However, I'm also aware of the fallibility of intuition, so I know that no matter how strongly I feel this, I may be wrong.

What do you mean by "as a singularity"?

Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm the wrong person to ask. My very limited understanding is that the singularity before the Big Bang is simply a point from which matter, energy, space, and time originated and expanded.

Perhaps. I don't know how much credence you put in scripture, - your obviously not a Christian or Jew

Hate to break it to you, but I'm totally a Jew, and a religious one at that. I read the Torah weekly, eat kosher, keep the shabbat, fast on Yom Kippur, etc. etc. Nor do I keep it a secret -- it's why I use an menorah for my avatar.

I know this is often surprising to many Christians, but Jews, even religious Jews, have a variety of different ideas and opinions on almost everything. Are there Jews who take Genesis 1 literally? Sure. Are there Jews who don't? Sure. There are even Jews who don't believe in a Creator at all. I take my cue from Maimonides, one of the most brilliant and influential rabbis in history, who taught that Genesis 1 was ALLEGORY, not history.

- I'm presuming you're a deist of sorts by how you speak but Genesis clearly indicates different creative moments in time

It seems that way to you because you think of it as a book of history. I don't.

and therefore different points of interaction after the beginning of creation. So I lean towards Christianity religiously since it seems to generally align with current scientific discovery where scientific discovery is a factor.

But it doesn't. How do you reconcile Genesis 1 presenting birds as being created before land animals, when science has proven that today's birds evolved directly from dinosaurs?

How do you explain Genesis 1 speaking of light on day 1, but saying the sun, moon, and stars weren't created until day four? There was no light before there were stars.

Explain how plants can grow before the creation of the sun, since plants depend on sunlight for photosynthesis?

How do you explain Genesis 1 presenting the earth being created before the stars, when in fact planets such as the earth form from the material from stars that went supernova?

Genesis 1 is an amazing and and inspiring story. Myth is one of the most powerful forms of literature we have, so no wonder we have myths included in the bible. I love this story.

But it's not history. And it's not science.

Nor has the purposeless development of the complex specific information content contained within the DNA molecule,

There is nothing about natural selection that is purposeless. Natural selection by definition is non-random.

Saying "I cannot imagine how that could have happened" is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen. I can't imagine how an egg and sperm combining result in the living breathing baby I hold in my arms, but it happens rather routinely.

 

[anotherneil]

That's fine. Its good to get to know where each persons biases lay.
But you posted...
"From a religious POV evolution doesn't seem to "make sense" to creationists."
which is a comment on creationists and religious POV's.
If you wish to strictly stick to scientific concerns then why post a comment on involving religious concerns but act as if you don't care to acknowledge a religious persons counterpoint?

Because this is the "Evolution Vs. Creationism" subsection of the "Religious Debates" subsection of the "Religious Topics" section of an online forum called "Religious Forums", so I think when something's put in an A vs. B perspective, it's understood that the context is that A and B contrast in such a way that they're quite different or opposites; this means that the context for creationism in this forum subsection is one which makes it distinct and opposite from evolution, and establishes creationists as those who don't accept evolution as a scientific explanation of how life developed, progressed, changed, and brought about distinctions and differences in living organisms that exist now.