Hi Luis how you doing?
-
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!
What is Christianity support?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Eh. I can't answer 
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
d
this isn't a question to me of evolution. The bible doesn't support evolution. Actually following it, it is the idea of slavery that is done by man and not by God is actually what drives the idea of evolution.
That's why mostly the old testament areas when comes to law or who God is.. you usually find immediately the idea of evolution spring up even in threads. Its always started by man or interpretation of such.
most places slavery begins with someone of their own or own likeness barbarically willing to sell or disown (in most cases), (fyi warfare is usually for that on trade too) Not desired by God but people will scribe or interpret it so. The only "self justification", (I'm not talking about their "personal needs or nobility or greed that actually might be the reason); but the only "self justification" they have to start slavery is disqualify, sometimes its out of jealousy, or consider them less than human. That will start racism movements and reversed racism movements. Which the whole Mediterranean/middle east Asia/and Africa world has documentation of their theories of evolution long before Darwinism even had to be "taught" along side typical views in western places. Which does in part help illustrate history from "empirical thoughts." And it goes back as far to nimrod and pyramid systems. Interpretation of "god". Look if I (I'm using I as only an example) have nothing to really sell or buy, I don't have many things you want but I want more I don't care if I only have mostly desert but I want bigger and better, I'm actually insecure that I wont get from you or you'll come on your own but because you also have the right to leave on your own, I look into an interpretation that makes me like g o d. And I want be that high, I will sell a religion and build a pyramid system, and interpreted God in slavery which only puts you at a lower level. That I don't really have anything that you need where you could go off on your own and get your own. After a while that also scares (me) because I've gotten greedy. (basicly,I lack a lot of light.. pyramids also were designed on the heavens lights and many moments and religious sights actually are)
It would be hard for (me) to come back down to earth. Which is completely possible but I would have to admit that I interpret God in evolution. And then I'd have to evolutionize my own "personal" understanding. The reversed like forced reversed racism or evolution is actually the same but means nothing again because your still interpreting God in evolution. The understanding comes with God that he never endorsed it on the hand of making his creation; no matter who scribed it or told it. Man thought that up first. Like usual that caused a lot of pain and problems.
this isn't a question to me of evolution. The bible doesn't support. The idea of slavery that is done by man and not by God is actually what drives the idea ofHello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)
Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?
Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?[/QUOTE]Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)
Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?
this isn't a question to me of evolution. The bible doesn't support evolution. Actually following it, it is the idea of slavery that is done by man and not by God is actually what drives the idea of evolution.
That's why mostly the old testament areas when comes to law or who God is.. you usually find immediately the idea of evolution spring up even in threads. Its always started by man or interpretation of such.
most places slavery begins with someone of their own or own likeness barbarically willing to sell or disown (in most cases), (fyi warfare is usually for that on trade too) Not desired by God but people will scribe or interpret it so. The only "self justification", (I'm not talking about their "personal needs or nobility or greed that actually might be the reason); but the only "self justification" they have to start slavery is disqualify, sometimes its out of jealousy, or consider them less than human. That will start racism movements and reversed racism movements. Which the whole Mediterranean/middle east Asia/and Africa world has documentation of their theories of evolution long before Darwinism even had to be "taught" along side typical views in western places. Which does in part help illustrate history from "empirical thoughts." And it goes back as far to nimrod and pyramid systems. Interpretation of "god". Look if I (I'm using I as only an example) have nothing to really sell or buy, I don't have many things you want but I want more I don't care if I only have mostly desert but I want bigger and better, I'm actually insecure that I wont get from you or you'll come on your own but because you also have the right to leave on your own, I look into an interpretation that makes me like g o d. And I want be that high, I will sell a religion and build a pyramid system, and interpreted God in slavery which only puts you at a lower level. That I don't really have anything that you need where you could go off on your own and get your own. After a while that also scares (me) because I've gotten greedy. (basicly,I lack a lot of light.. pyramids also were designed on the heavens lights and many moments and religious sights actually are)
It would be hard for (me) to come back down to earth. Which is completely possible but I would have to admit that I interpret God in evolution. And then I'd have to evolutionize my own "personal" understanding. The reversed like forced reversed racism or evolution is actually the same but means nothing again because your still interpreting God in evolution. The understanding comes with God that he never endorsed it on the hand of making his creation; no matter who scribed it or told it. Man thought that up first. Like usual that caused a lot of pain and problems.
Last edited:
It doesn't say that I'm not, does it? It says "Love, Light, and Life".
God is Love ~1 John 4:8
God is Light ~1 John 1:5
God is Spirit (or Life) ~1 John 4:24
Those are all Christian statements about God. If you read my posts, you will see I repeatedly quote from the Christian bible as well. Take from that what you will, but you should actually read what other people post. That way you learn new things.
Yes. If you read my posts you would know that.
First off, the Bible is not a book of science. Period.
Secondly, Evolution creates many things. Look out the window and you'll see. There are lifeforms all over the place! Evolution is God creating. God creates through evolution. ALL things are created through this process - including us.
Being a Christian does not mean being an Evolution-Denier. In fact I'd argue that those who are deniers don't actually have faith in God. They fear knowledge.
Last edited:
Oh, thanks for enlight me about this tip
But the Bible never talk about evolution.
If God created/made what you called "evolution process" , so it's actually under CREATION.
see,this is what 99,99 atheist disagree with you.
including @Aupmanyav.
Bibile suppose book of God (Creator).
I discuss before Zygote how became by time a creature.
so the process of creation through time you call it evolution.
Since the process (changes in period of time) that you called "evolution" is already created by God.
so the origin/start is creation, agree ?
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
In his Institutiones (161 BCE), the Roman jurist Gaius wrote that:
Slavery is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it was that other human invention, war, which provided the bulk of slaves, but they were also the bounty of piracy ... or the product of breeding.
— Gaius, as translated and quoted by Nic Fields [14]
The 1st century BCE Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates that the Roman institution of slavery began with the legendary founder Romulus giving Roman fathers the right to sell their own children into slavery, and kept growing with the expansion of the Roman state. Slave ownership was most widespread throughout the Roman citizenry from the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE) to the 4th century CE. The Greek geographer Strabo (1st century CE) records how an enormous slave trade resulted from the collapse of the Seleucid Empire (100–63 BCE).[15]
King Gezo of Dahomey said in the 1840s:
The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth...the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery...[78]
In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:
We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.[79]
Early modern sources are full of descriptions of sufferings of Christian galley slaves of the Barbary corsairs:
Those who have not seen a galley at sea, especially in chasing or being chased, cannot well conceive the shock such a spectacle must give to a heart capable of the least tincture of commiseration. To behold ranks and files of half-naked, half-starved, half-tanned meagre wretches, chained to a plank, from whence they remove not for months together (commonly half a year), urged on, even beyond human strength, with cruel and repeated blows on their bare flesh...[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
A. most cultures nabbing and grabbing from toltecs and Aztecs to far end in China all around its something "our g o d" which is not. comes up with.
Top comment is probably one of the best.!.!
How they can become animals but also prove we are not animals.
Slavery is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it was that other human invention, war, which provided the bulk of slaves, but they were also the bounty of piracy ... or the product of breeding.
— Gaius, as translated and quoted by Nic Fields [14]
The 1st century BCE Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates that the Roman institution of slavery began with the legendary founder Romulus giving Roman fathers the right to sell their own children into slavery, and kept growing with the expansion of the Roman state. Slave ownership was most widespread throughout the Roman citizenry from the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE) to the 4th century CE. The Greek geographer Strabo (1st century CE) records how an enormous slave trade resulted from the collapse of the Seleucid Empire (100–63 BCE).[15]
King Gezo of Dahomey said in the 1840s:
The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth...the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery...[78]
In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:
We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.[79]
Early modern sources are full of descriptions of sufferings of Christian galley slaves of the Barbary corsairs:
Those who have not seen a galley at sea, especially in chasing or being chased, cannot well conceive the shock such a spectacle must give to a heart capable of the least tincture of commiseration. To behold ranks and files of half-naked, half-starved, half-tanned meagre wretches, chained to a plank, from whence they remove not for months together (commonly half a year), urged on, even beyond human strength, with cruel and repeated blows on their bare flesh...[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
A. most cultures nabbing and grabbing from toltecs and Aztecs to far end in China all around its something "our g o d" which is not. comes up with.
Top comment is probably one of the best.!.!
How they can become animals but also prove we are not animals.
Last edited:
The Bible never talked about New York either, but we know it exists. A lack of mentioning it does not mean it has to deny it. I don't read it as denying evolution. Why do you have to?
Yes, of course. You could quite easily understand evolution as Spirit in motion. It's how creation happens.
Disagree with me about what? Certainly not my acceptance of evolution.
There are many ways to understand what that means, and what that looks like.
The process of change over time is evolution. The Theory of Evolution is about how that process of evolution is what is responsible for speciation.
Of course. Evolution is how God creates form in this universe we call our reality. The only thing this denies is not God, but people's mistaken ideas about the natural world they errantly think God explains to them as scientific realities in what they call "divine revelation". The error isn't the science, but the wrong ideas about God. Change how you understand the nature of "revelation", and you're half-ways home. Don't change, and you'll stay stuck in the Dark Ages forcibly denying mountains of evidence stacked against the errors in your thinking. That to me damages one's spiritual growth. It makes it impossible to grow when we deliberately shut ourselves off from change through knowledge.
Sure, of course. God is the Source of Creation, and Creation arises from the Source. What you see in the natural world is that arising of form from that Source, and that arising is evolution. Think of it like the unfolding of the flower at the dawn of the day. It doesn't just magically appear fully formed. Does that analogy help?
So why God should talk about everything He created ?
Ok
About God who created ,he may believe that nature by evolution creat, NOT God.
Since you believe evolution is procces of creation in time , so I do agree with you.
Bible is teaching about God is Creator. not nature.
Call it whatever you want since it's about creation process,in first place.
this is other subject.
Theory of Evolution (natural selection,and randomness) is what atheists claim that God not exist.
Do agree with that?
Absolutely not.
The author of the creation account in the book of Genesis talked about God. God didn't write the story. A human person did.
My seeing evolution as how God creates does not put me into disagreement with the atheist about evolution. There's actually no scientific need to include God. Belief or disbelief in God is not a requirement to accepting evolution. The reasons to believe in God go beyond science. Evolution has nothing to do with belief or disbelief in God, except in the minds of those who equate their beliefs about God with God himself and are unable to see beyond their beliefs that way.
Actually, I don't think the atheist would disagree with that statement that evolution creates. That is what evolution does. It creates something new that didn't exist before. I'd be surprised to hear any atheist disagree with that.
But evolution takes what nature provides and creates from it. Let me explain it this way. The Bible says man was created from the dust of the earth. Right? Isn't that precisely what evolution does? Aren't we created from the elements of this planet? Aren't we created from carbon and iron and calcium, and so forth? Isn't that "the dust of the earth", metaphorically speaking? Yes it is. So out of the earth, man emerged. That's not a contradiction to Genesis 2:7. The only problem with that verse is those who take it exactly literally and injecting all sorts of magical assumptions into the story, which really frankly is in fact metaphoric. "The dust of the ground"? That's a metaphor.
Yes, evolution is about creating something new. No atheist should disagree with that. Nor should any theist!
I think atheists who say the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God aren't very good atheists!
The only thing evolution denies is a particular literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It denies a God who literally bent down, and literally spit from his literal mouth into dirt, and made literal clay which he shaped with his literal hands, and made it into a human by literally breathing life from his literal lungs. That's the only thing evolution denies: That frankly childish, Sunday-School book, cartoonish notion of God. To me, that's a good thing!
Last edited:
Here I may should stop discuss since it's DIR.
Evolution of atheist is about all things created by nature through natural selection.God does not exist
I do chat with some of them.
I don't know if word "creation" is exist in atheist dictionary, I guess it's not valid word
There is two choices :
1-Creation of God to all things.
2-Creation of nature (without God).
which one you support ?
Since evolution is just process in time .
God is creating everything, including time and process.
I do agree God who is about creation somthing new (not evolution). atheist should disagree with that, not all theist agree on evolution that creat WITHOUT God intervention.
it's consider as holy book for them.I think atheists who say the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God aren't very good atheists!
for them all things exist in nature through evolution,God has no place on that.
You need to chat in evolution vs creationism DIR to discover that
All things about life to an atheist doesn't include God. Why make evolution to be the reason? Why single that out from everything else? What does evolution have to do with that?
Of course creation exists in atheism. The dictionary definition of creation is, "The action or process of bringing something into existence". Why wouldn't an atheist accept that?I do chat with some of them.
I don't know if word "creation" is exist in atheist dictionary, I guess it's not valid word
Evolution is the process in nature through which God creates all things. I support both.
All things come from God.
God creates through evolution. Evolution creates. Both are true.
An atheist would find including God to be irrelevant. When talking about evolution in how it works, God is not necessary. I agree with that. The atheist and I would not disagree over that point.
A great many theists like to deny evolution is responsible for the creation of the species. That's unfortunate. Others may see God as directly intervening, meddling as it were in natural processes. That would not include me who thinks of God this way. I would say this instead. The natural process of evolution is Spirit unfolding into many and varied forms. That natural creativity is the very Creativity of God manifesting in this universe we call our home.
Here is the problem with most theists on this topic, and I hope something of what I say here might make sense to some. The problem stems from our own imagination about ourselves. In a nutshell. We imagine we are the pinnacle of God's creation, the apple of his eye, the best thing out there, the real deal, a cut above the rest, A number 1 creation, and so forth. In this imagination we think God had a specific humanoid form in mind, that we as we are was perfectly 100% intentional, as it. We cannot imagine that we are "just what happened", because we want to believe we are special. That is a weakness emotionally on our parts, to say the least.
When it comes to evolution it doesn't have a target design in mind. It's creative in that way. It creates and creates, and what comes is a product of what makes sense, and it does it as economically as possible. There is no need for it to redesign the wheel, so to speak. It's a process of "transcend and include", taking what come before and modifying and building new on top of it all. There is no "create this over here", then go back and create the whole new form all over frame scratch again. So we as human have in fact the "lizard brain" literally, not figurative, in our own 3-stage brains, as just one of countless examples showing how we are the result of millions of years of this process sharing evolution's design in our bodies as in all other bodies of animals out there. It's all there in us, in our created form.
But this image of our coming into existence as ourselves frightens people because they imagine it means we aren't special in the way we have believed in our childhood! But that image of ourselves as "the best!", not being true does not in one little bit mean we are not special. We're not special because the whole world is all about us (this by the way is how children think naturally about themselves), rather we are far, far more special than just being "God's special creation", his "favorite little child" the way a five year old might imagine his parents see him as. We are in fact God's very expression of God's Being. And if that isn't special, I don't know what is. We aren't special because we're "better than the animals," or the "best there is!". We're special because we EXIST. God is our existence. We are LIFE.
We don't need to be told we're "the best, and you better know you are to me", the way a parent might try to make his child of five happy. It's time we grow up and know that Love is much deeper, much fuller, much wider than believing we're what it's all about! A child at that stage does not truly know yet the depths of love like this, because they see themselves as "what's it's all about". But growing up is hard, and that's why people fight against the idea that we were not designed to be just what we are right now, a "planned child" in other words, some genetically designed offspring that was always just about us. It means we're going to have to discover who we really are ourselves, rather than relying on somebody having to tell you! And that to me, is when we truly begin to discover God.
Last edited:
When it is written in clear and unambiguous language that doesn't need interpretation, at that point the question should be, is the scripture from God or not and if it is shouldn't we accept it unhesitatingly as God is All Knowing and we are not?
That is untrue. Everything requires an interpretation. You read symbols on a page, you have to assign meaning to those. The meaning you assign is something you were trained with through your culture, the scope or lack of scope of your own personal experiences, your personality, your command of culture and languages, your philosophic outlooks, your religious beliefs, and the list goes on and on and on. All of those are the lenses in the glasses you and I and everyone alive wears through which they read words on a page. The meaning is all a matter of interpretation. What you may see as clear and unambiguous, others see has highly complex issues with no one simple easy to understand way of understanding it.
Just look at our conversation for a shining example of this. How many times do you quote something, which in your mind seems abundantly clear, yet when I look at it I raise questions which never entered your mind. You still don't think we're interpreting these thing? You interpret it as "clear and unambiguous". I interpret it as highly involved with no one easy answer. Our contexts through which we read and interpret things are vastly different, you and I. If you have people of your group all agreeing with you, it's because you share the same contexts, roughly speaking, and wear the same prescription glasses. I have a very different prescription so I'm seeing things clearly with these glasses things were are basically totally out of focus with yours to where you simply don't see what I see.
We should not be in a hurry to judge others as wrong and untrue. How many times has science itself exalted a concept publicly and confidently only to have to embarrassingly retract it at a later date?
It is not necessary to pass verdict. Time will prove that man is a distinct species and scientists themselves, once again will be forced to admit their ignorance on the matter and publicly retract their gross error.
Watch the scientific advancements and see how eventually they will all lean towards man being distinct and nothing to do with the animal kingdom.
Once scientists claimed that ether was a physical substance. Do they say that today?
My point is not to jump to conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of someone's views lest it turn out we are the ones that in the end will be proven to be wrong.
Let time and science be the judge and let's see how it plays out. No need to be hasty, the science of evolution is not yet perfected and has some stages to traverse before the truth comes out.
Last edited:
I do chat with them sometimes, I discover that.
Sorry these questions suppose to answser by atheists.
that's why evolution-vs-creationism DIR exist
I do believe your understanding of evolution may different that atheist one.
which is based on change of species and natural selection and randomness ..all about nature, God had no role in that.
just to be brief/direct about my experience in chat with atheists to conclude this matter :
The theory of evolution used as an argument by MOST of atheists to deny the existence of God.
Several points here. When I just now said that what you said was untrue, I was talking specifically about your statement that some things do not require interpretation. That is, in fact, untrue. All things require interpretation. There is nothing that goes direct into your brain from the brain of another that does not require you interpreting what you hear, see, read, etc. That's just a simple fact. That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
But now to this argument you think exonerates all possible error on the parts of the prophets people desire to exalt as infallible in order to support their religious beliefs. "Science has been wrong before, and they'll be wrong on this too because our prophet has a direct line to God." I think you're placing way too much hope in that, rather than taking the easier path in realizing that one of two other things is much more likely. The first being that your interpretation of what they say can be read another way. The second being that the prophet just plain and simply spoke truth as he understood it at the time, but in fact did not know the facts of something.
Given the magnitude of evidences all supporting the Theory of Evolution, the likelihood of science being wrong on this is so unbelievably minescule that it's like saying one day science will confirm gravity doesn't exist, or that the sun is made of sugar plums and the moon of green cheese. You utterly cannot just inject some belief as true, and then deny science that presents you trainloads of evidence that says otherwise. That is in fact what you are doing in you saying if the prophet contradicts science, the prophet is right. That my friend, is a sure recipe for the destruction of your faith.
One can keep one's mind from denying evidence for so long before they have no choice but to face facts, and then what happens to the prophet? Far better to rethink your ideas of what prophets are and do now, then to hope science will one day reverse the laws of physics, which is tantamount to what you are hoping for here about evolution. It is seriously that well-supported. There is no hope of that ever changing. You're positioning your faith to be destroyed doing this and join the rising ranks of neo-atheists who themselves walked that same tightrope you're doing here. Science-denial leads in time to your own faith-denial. Mark my words on this.
That is never going to happen. The facts are already in and have been confirmed and validated again and again and again and again from all the disparate fields of the sciences. In fact, I would request you read this very well-written Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America. I'm going to highlight certain things you need to seriously consider here, and then try to find a way to make your religious faith fit with this accurate understanding of science and the Theory of Evolution:
The Botanical Society of America has as its members professional scientists, scholars, and educators from across the United States and Canada, and from over 50 other countries. Most of us call ourselves botanists, plant biologists, or plant scientists, and members of our profession teach and learn about botanical organisms using well established principles and practices of science.
Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen;ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true.
Some people contend that creationism and its surrogate, “intelligent design,” offers an alternative explanation: that organisms are well adapted and have common characteristics because they were created just so, and they exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design. As such, creationism is an all inclusive explanation for every biological phenomenon. So why do we support and teach evolution and not creationism/“intelligent design” if both explain the same phenomena? Are botanists just dogmatic, atheistic materialists, as some critics of science imply? Hardly, although scientists are routinely portrayed by creationists as dogmatic. We are asked, “Why, in all fairness, don’t we teach both explanations and let students decide?”
The fairness argument implies that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative to evolution, and that is not true. Science is not about fairness, and all explanations are not equal. Some scientific explanations are highly speculative with little in the way of supporting evidence, and they will stand or fall based upon rigorous testing. The history of science is littered with discarded explanations, e.g., inheritance of acquired characters, but these weren’t discarded because of public opinion or general popularity; each one earned that distinction by being scientifically falsified. Scientists may jump on a “band wagon” for some new explanation, particularly if it has tremendous explanatory power, something that makes sense out of previously unexplained phenomena. But for an explanation to become a mainstream component of a theory, it must be tested and found useful in doing science.
To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.
<snip>
The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.
What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.
Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.
Creationism is the modern manifestation of a long-standing conflict between science and religion in Western Civilization. Prior to science, and in all non-scientific cultures, myths were the only viable explanations for a myriad of natural phenomena, and these myths became incorporated into diverse religious beliefs. Following the rise and spread of science, where ideas are tested against nature rather than being decided by religious authority and sacred texts, many phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, genetic defects, lightning, blights and plagues, epilepsy, eclipses, comets, mental illness, etc.) became known to have natural causes and explanations. Recognizing this, the Catholic Church finally admitted, after 451 years, that Galileo was correct; the Earth was not the unmoving center of the Universe. Mental illness, birth defects, and disease are no longer considered the mark of evil or of God’s displeasure or punishment. Epileptics and people intoxicated by ergot-infected rye are no longer burned at the stake as witches. As natural causes were discovered and understood, religious authorities were forced to alter long-held positions in the face of growing scientific knowledge. This does not mean science has disproved the existence of the supernatural. The methodology of science only deals with the material world.
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.
Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen;ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true.
Some people contend that creationism and its surrogate, “intelligent design,” offers an alternative explanation: that organisms are well adapted and have common characteristics because they were created just so, and they exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design. As such, creationism is an all inclusive explanation for every biological phenomenon. So why do we support and teach evolution and not creationism/“intelligent design” if both explain the same phenomena? Are botanists just dogmatic, atheistic materialists, as some critics of science imply? Hardly, although scientists are routinely portrayed by creationists as dogmatic. We are asked, “Why, in all fairness, don’t we teach both explanations and let students decide?”
The fairness argument implies that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative to evolution, and that is not true. Science is not about fairness, and all explanations are not equal. Some scientific explanations are highly speculative with little in the way of supporting evidence, and they will stand or fall based upon rigorous testing. The history of science is littered with discarded explanations, e.g., inheritance of acquired characters, but these weren’t discarded because of public opinion or general popularity; each one earned that distinction by being scientifically falsified. Scientists may jump on a “band wagon” for some new explanation, particularly if it has tremendous explanatory power, something that makes sense out of previously unexplained phenomena. But for an explanation to become a mainstream component of a theory, it must be tested and found useful in doing science.
To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.
<snip>
The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.
What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.
Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.
Creationism is the modern manifestation of a long-standing conflict between science and religion in Western Civilization. Prior to science, and in all non-scientific cultures, myths were the only viable explanations for a myriad of natural phenomena, and these myths became incorporated into diverse religious beliefs. Following the rise and spread of science, where ideas are tested against nature rather than being decided by religious authority and sacred texts, many phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, genetic defects, lightning, blights and plagues, epilepsy, eclipses, comets, mental illness, etc.) became known to have natural causes and explanations. Recognizing this, the Catholic Church finally admitted, after 451 years, that Galileo was correct; the Earth was not the unmoving center of the Universe. Mental illness, birth defects, and disease are no longer considered the mark of evil or of God’s displeasure or punishment. Epileptics and people intoxicated by ergot-infected rye are no longer burned at the stake as witches. As natural causes were discovered and understood, religious authorities were forced to alter long-held positions in the face of growing scientific knowledge. This does not mean science has disproved the existence of the supernatural. The methodology of science only deals with the material world.
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning. As professional scientists and educators, we strongly assert that such efforts are both misguided and flawed, presenting an incorrect view of science, its understandings, and its processes.
Given the track history of accurate knowledge about the natural world, science wins hands down over religious explanations. It has proven itself, in this case of Evolution particularly, to be in fact right. Religion, when trying to explain natural phenomena is the one you should be predicting to be wrong and need to reverse itself. Don't turn your prophets into magical scientists, and you'll do fine. Try to say these prophets allow you to bypass science, and be prepared to lose your faith when you can no longer deny the facts of their failures to do so.
Last edited:
Continued...
To me, the real question then becomes that when you accept science, how do you then "harmonize science and religion"? You in fact are not doing that in denying it and saying one day it will be proven wrong. I on the other hand accept it, with good reason, yet have faith at the same time. Who between the two of us is actually "harmonizing science and religion"? What you should be doing is asking me how.
Give me one single shred of evidence from the scientific community that says we're not part of the tree of life and that we are not to be considered an animal life form. Without that, you have nothing. Most certainly no right to claim that your religion "harmonizes science and religion".
Once the prophets thought the earth had "corners", and that illnesses were caused by God punishing you or some "vexing spirit". Were they right?
First off, what I said was wrong was your mistaken view that we can bypass interpreting things that we read. The mechanics involved simply do not allow for that to happen. But there is a difference in talking about facts. To stand in front of a lake and say "There is no water in it", when there certainly is, is in fact being wrong. To say we are not part of the animal kingdom is in fact wrong. The evidence we are is in fact utterly non-reversible. If we aren't animals, then what classification are we? Fairies?
There is absolutely nothing hasty whatsoever about the Theory of Evolution! I hope you enjoy reading that Statement on Evolution article I shared. I hope you found it informative.
To me, the real question then becomes that when you accept science, how do you then "harmonize science and religion"? You in fact are not doing that in denying it and saying one day it will be proven wrong. I on the other hand accept it, with good reason, yet have faith at the same time. Who between the two of us is actually "harmonizing science and religion"? What you should be doing is asking me how.
What role do you think God plays? Do you believe God specifically directs evolution to a specific form he had in mind ahead of time?
But regarding my understanding of evolution being different than the atheists, I'm not sure how it is? The process is the same. I'm not injecting magic into it. I'd be curious specifically what's different.
Yes, I'm familiar with that. But the reason they do is two-fold. First, they mistake creation myths as what defines the actual reality of God, and if you can disprove the myth scientifically that this disproves God. But to be fair, as is being demonstrated in this thread, many theists in fact tie the denial of the science to their faith, so it makes equating the two, belief in God and mythic beliefs in that way completely understandable. The reality is that not all who believe in God deny the science of evolution, and they are often overlooked or ignored when it comes to the question of God.
Secondly, many of these atheists are former religionists themselves, and like what I am predicting in this thread, many who support their faith through the denial of evolution will in fact not be able to ignore fact well-enough to sustain that denial, leading to a crisis of faith and a loss of belief in God and all religious claims as a whole. So when those particular atheists focus on evolution as "disproving God", it's very likely a reflection of what it was for them. It's what convinced them and allowed them to move forward in life facing the facts of what the science overwhelmingly supports. And that all happened because they felt a need to deny the science in order to maintain their belief in God. Everything that as I've said before, demonstrates a poor faith. It's bad science, and bad religion. Faith is in no way is compatible with denial.
Last edited: