How they believe in evolution as origin of life or changes in same kinds?
-
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's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Nobody believes in it as the origin of life. Many Muslims believe in it as the origin of the diversity of lifeforms we observe around us.
In science theories are considered more established and certain than facts. Scientific terms have very different meaning than that in ordinary English.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Interesting thread. Still reading on p. 1 currently. Not sure if following post is already addressed.
Just had to say - this is not a question by you. Post #13 seems to capture your point (for this thread), along with OP.
Just had to say - this is not a question by you. Post #13 seems to capture your point (for this thread), along with OP.
Whoa Nellie, I am certain today's science could not plausibly go along with this assertion. Facts are (allegedly) indisputable. TOE is consistently approached as willing to find evidence that disputes/disproves the theory, and thus far has come up empty.
TOE is definitely disputable, and that's arguably a great thing for fans of TOE/science for anyone that truly wishes to have such a dispute.
(Though kind of have to be willing to overlook a few fundamental claims that get at heart of {philosophy of} science.)
Already addressed the first point, and would note that nothing in the definitions goes as far as saying "more established and (more) certain than facts." That's an odd limb to go out on.
But also wish to say that from philosophy of science perspective, the "definitions" of scientific theories are a matter of ongoing dispute. Perhaps more so tangentially, but much of what these definitions are asserting are skipping ahead of what I routinely identify as the fundamental faith that science (and all subsequent ideas) are based on.
In terms of fallibilist epistemology , which most sciences go with, there are almost no infallible facts (including facts such as earth is round). So we are using somewhat different definitions here.
Hence, why philosophy of science really needs to be considered before making such (odd) claims such as more certain than facts. IOW, you better be stipulating how you are using the word facts if not going with dictionary definition: a thing that is indisputably the case
Almost like saying, "it is a fact that God exists."
Then (a bit later) saying, I'm using "religious facts" for how facts are to be understood. Ha!
Happy to clarify whenever a question is asked. This is a dialogue, I am not writing a book where everything has to be clarified all at once. But remember I said:-
Scientific terms have very different meaning than that in ordinary English.
Ha!
I would like to know if its plausible to hold the view that human beings can know and justify "facts" infallibly.
Agreed. But given awareness of philosophy, they aren't extraordinary meanings.
I would say yes. The first part (can know) would be what knowledge is at least partially about. The second part (can justify) would be based on understanding that stems from knowledge or having faith in what is unreal (spiritually speaking). If faith in the unreal is apparent, then attempts to justify facts could be met with plausible deniability.
I disagree. If one cannot explicitly justify infallibility, the belief in such infallibility is itself fallible.
I'm not sure what the disagreement is with. One can explicitly justify infallibility.
Could you provide an example of such an explicit justification that conclusively rules out delusions, dreams, Boltzmann brain, Descarte's demon or Matrix World?
Yes.
But I believe (or actually know) that words would not provide adequate justification (alone). Symbols of symbols don't make for explicitness.
You should try, in a new thread maybe.
Skwim
Veteran Member
You have it backwards
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
source: Wikipedia
source: Wikipedia
"Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts."
source
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts."
source
And facts themselves?
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
--Stephen Jay Gould--
--Stephen Jay Gould--
.
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
If it were as simple as that then I doubt we would have so many heated discussions. The issue is that the legitimate science of evolution and the facts that it has provided us about biology and the history of life is often usurped by a pseudo-scientific non-theory of creationism. Really the point of this DIR is to have people who are wrong about evolution debate people who are right about evolution and frustrate everyone really.Hello everybody
I discuss this with some member, they told me theory of evolution had nothing to do with origin/start of life. it's abiogenesis.
I thought this DIR main goal is about how life appears,according to two different methods "believe in God is Creator, believe in nature is creator", yes or not ?
Since evolution had nothing to do with life appears why compare/oppose it to creation ?
So,What is the purpose of discuss evolution VS creationism ?
Well jokes aside if creationism and those that promote it didn't reject evolution I doubt we would have such a problem with each other.
The criticism is fair. But here the disagreement is whether
1) An isolated observational fact on its own lonely self has a greater likelihood of being true
than
2) An entire set of well-established observational facts that are connected in a predictive and explanatorily powerful logical mesh (a theory).
In most science seen in textbooks, facts are already enmeshed as in (2) and hence the certainty of (2) is added onto (1).
However in the expanding boundaries of this epistemic loom (the research labs) we have to deal with observations that are still isolated, not interconnected and bumbling around tugging and pulling in contradictory directions. There the "facts" do not look very "facty" to us researchers. Quarreling over contrary and rebellious facts is the life of researchers.
The goal of creationism is about origin of life/creation.
The goal of evolution is explain how same species changed in time became variation .had nothing to do with origin of life.
So evolution don't suppose to oppose to creationism, due to not aim the same objective.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
In the broadest of terms I suppose. However implimentation is often different. Lastly evolution doesn't actually give creedence or mind to creationism in study since it isn't a science. But people here still like to discuss things.