evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Agreed.
-
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!
Theistic Evolution
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
ToE has nothing to do with atheism. Whatever would make you think that?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What can?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
And that causes you to reject the Theory of Evolution for some reason? Why?
Does it also cause you to reject the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Heliocentrism?
Some reason why the Creator of the universe and the world could not also have created evolution?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Because sometimes ToE has been associated with atheism.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Does that mean you care more about what people think than what is common sense?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
By creationists, who are habitual liars. ToE is a scientific theory, you know, like Germ Theory. Like all scientific theories, it sheds no light on the existence of God or lack thereof. It's simply not about that.
And if I have to type that one more time this week, I may just leave RF, because it's getting fatiguing.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Usually by creationists. It's really a dishonest tactic as the theory of evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of god.
Evolution =/= Atheism
Atomist
I love you.
Because christian propaganda? The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life... however, many religions tried to explain such things in the past, but now scientific model give a more coherent and evidence based response. So the problem with the theory of evolution isn't that it's atheistic, but rather calls ******** on theistic claims. At least all those that don't directly try to explain the diversity of life.
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
As others have said, because of propaganda.
Why not follow what is logical, instead of what others think, or what you think you must follow to believe in your religion, or something that is the opposite of atheism?
I am a theist (technically a panentheist/monist) and I accept evolution as reality. Evolution doesn't make one an atheist, even if creationist propaganda have attempted to turn it into an eeeevil atheist conspiracy to turn innocent believers into atheists.
In a way you that will explain it (although simpllified): Evolution is concerned with the mechanics behind how we are here, not from whom or why we are here.
RedOne77
Active Member
Hello Skwim, I was just lurking and found this. I don't think anyone responded, and I think it should be addressed, as I'm sure you aren't the only person to think this. Evolution is still a theory in every sense of the word. Theories don't become fact; facts can be extrapolated from theories yet the theories themselves don't change status. So evolution is both a fact and a theory at the same time. After all, a theory is an explanation of facts, and the theory of evolution still attempts to explain a set of facts in a scientific setting.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes.:yes:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Well said.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And I didn't say the theory became a fact. I said evolution, ("The change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species")* went from being a theory ("A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.")* to being accepted as a fact ("Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.")*RedOne77 said:
No it's not. Your use of "is" implies its current acceptance as such, and aside from needy creationists who like to cast it that way, science---the only reasonable arbiter of such things---does not treat evolution as a theory. Want to use your aunt Tilly's view of evolution as a theory to justify your claim, go right ahead, but I'm not nodding my head in agreement.
And this is why I said "So it's no longer a theory, although some of the mechanisms underlying its operation remain theoretical." It's the theories that attempt to explain evolution, not evolution itself. Just like the theories explaining gravity don't make gravity theoretical. Gravity is a fact.
There's an important distinction here that I think everyone should keep in mind when encountering "the theory of evolution." If one is going to use the notion of "theory" in conjunction with evolution it should be "the theories of evolution" just like "the theories of gravity."
* the freedictionary.com
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Sorry Skwim. There is the FACT that Evolution occurs, and the THEORY(IES) on how it occurs. The theory is backed up by testable and verified hypothesis.
Theories never become facts in science. Theories explain facts.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
Theories never become facts in science. Theories explain facts.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
RedOne77
Active Member
That was not clear at all to me when you said that "[evolution]it lost its standing as a theory and gained status as fact."
To me you were saying that evolution (populations change over time) was once a theory and became a fact.
:sarcastic I thought it was commonplace to say "evolution is a theory" to mean "there are valid scientific theories of evolution". Same idea as biologists saying "I believe in evolution". While not technically true, or perhaps not the best way to express their view, everyone understands what they mean.
For me, "theory of evolution" or "theory of gravity" implies "theories" as appropriate. Just like "evolution" implies "biological evolution".
Skwim
Veteran Member
So evidently my
"So it's no longer a theory, although some of the mechanisms underlying its operation remain theoretical."
and your
"There is the FACT that Evolution occurs, and the THEORY(IES) on how it occurs."
aren't saying the same thing. I'm at a loss.
I'm saying that later on its factuality was recognized and accepted as such. Before that the evidence was too sparse to consider it as anything more than a theoretical possibility. Some people didn't think organisms could evolve (as some even do today) while others thought they did. Until evidence proved them correct those thinking evolution was true had nothing of substance to point to, hence they were in no position to claim evolution to be a fact. When the evidence did start to accumulate to the point where the idea of evolution could no longer be questioned it was promoted to the position of fact.RedOne77 said:
Not really. Among those in science it is, but not out in the wild wonderful world of creationism. Creationists absolutely love to glom onto the phrase "the theory of evolution" and claim it means evolution is only a theory for explaining the diversity of organisms in the world.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So evidently my"So it's no longer a theory, although some of the mechanisms underlying its operation remain theoretical."and your
"There is the FACT that Evolution occurs, and the THEORY(IES) on how it occurs."aren't saying the same thing. I'm at a loss.
No, because you imply that a scientific theory evolves into a fact. This is not so.
(I know Creationists love to confuse Scientific Theories with the colloquial use of theory, but when discussing science one should use the terms correctly)
The Fact of Evolution was observed by Darwin and other naturalists in the 19th century. Darwin, and those who came after him, developed Theories to explain the mechanism of Evolution. As more and more evidence came to light, and more hypotheses made, tested, and confirmed, the original Theory of Evolution was modified and solidified into a more concrete Theory.
The Theory was never made Fact with supporting theoretical mechanisms. The Theory was developed to explain the Fact.
I refuse to kowtow to Creationist ignorance and half truths concerning the Scientific Methods.