Why is evolution even still a debate?

[Valjean]

Evolution is still a theory because there are many aspects of it that remain a mystery to us.

What does that have to do with a theory?
In science, "theory " is a technical term for for a fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Theory indicates the highest level of confidence. There is nothing higher, in science, than a theory.

The colloquial meaning of theory -- speculation, guess, or conjecture, don't apply here.

 

[Valjean]

Nature declares the glory of God. Like this morning in the middle of a snowstorm, when I was cutting firewood and the sun broke through the clouds. We are often startled by the intense beauty and raw power of nature, but with no belief in a deity, there's no reason for awe whatsoever. Nature can certainly lead one toward God or confirm their belief in a creator, but the mistake some make is to worship nature itself. And believing in God doesn't necessarily make one a Christain of course. I never remember not believing he existed. I didn't always accept Christ for me personally.

Emotion based belief is irrational, by definition.

 

[F1fan]

Evolution is still a theory because there are many aspects of it that remain a mystery to us.

Evolution is still a theory because the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no option but to accept the results. The only reason some reject it as a theory is due to the influence of bad religion.

 

[Valjean]

Science is full of guesses about the past.
Like the Neanderthals, who used to be thought of as the gorilla-like ape-to-man connection, but were really just humans.

But the whole point of science is to eliminate guesswork, by testing.

 

[F1fan]

Again. I do not believe in "punctuated equilibrium". This is merely the closest biological hypothesis to what I do believe which is far more complex than any set of hypotheses. I believe all of reality takes place interdependently and based upon conditions which immediately preceded it. Since time is probably not quantum than even the previous statement is a somewhat simplistic way of describing the immense complexity that is reality and that we each take for granted.

I believe the nature and causes of change in species are many orders of magnitude more complex than any current "theory" and that "survival of the fittest" does not really apply to the mechanisms that cause species or collections of individuals to change. "Natural selection" is an abstraction and is produced by a reductionistic science that can't even study change in species because we preferentially see our beliefs and abstractions to reality itself. Darwin led us far astray. One must jettison everything but experiment and known facts as well as define consciousness before even beginning to see how individuals of species change from their parents in a coherent way that we call "evolution". Just because off spring can coherently differ from their parents does not mean they have "evolved" or that it was caused by "survival of the fittest".

"Evolution" is a "science" based on false assumptions. Ironically religion got it closer than "science" in this specific case.

Well, we still get our best explanations from experts in science, not lay people on internet forums.

 

[Valjean]

The topic of evolution is meaningless if it's just a point A to point B theory. It still has a million holes in it, but the real question people have is why are we here? Where did it all start? Not whether the chicken or egg came first.

No, that's a seperate subject. Evolution isn't about beginnings, it's about change. The theory of evolution explains the mechanisms of change.
It's a consilient theory with vast supporting evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Which you don't have for life from non life, so quit pretending you have something you don't

Once there was no life. Now there's life. It came from somewhere, somehow. So it's reasonable to assume life developed from non-life.

What science is exploring are the mechanisms by which life developed. Science doesn't pretend to understand the whole picture, but I'd bet it knows more about it than you're aware of.

What alternative scenarios do we have, magic poofing? Do you see magic as a more reasonable "explanation?"

 

[Valjean]

Well, we still get our best explanations from experts in science, not lay people on internet forums.

But what about inspired prophets? Surely they'd be unimpeachable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First we see the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time.

It doesn't actually say that. It's how YECs can work in their absurdly short time span, because the Bible doesn't specify what a day is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which you don't have for life from non life, so quit pretending you have something you don't

What does the Bible say? God took non-life (dirt) and made humans.
I don't get why Creationists have this idea, because their own religious text teaches them what they themselves insist cannot happen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The topic of evolution is meaningless if it's just a point A to point B theory. It still has a million holes in it, but the real question people have is why are we here? Where did it all start? Not whether the chicken or egg came first.

That's not what evolution deals with. Evolution concerns itself with how life developed once it started. It doesn't say anything about how it got here or got started. And even if we knew 100% for sure how life on Earth started evolution still wouldn't be a part of it as the biogenesis of life on Earth would be a different theory separate from evolution (much like how germ theory overlaps with evolution but is its own theory).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Suppose the first life arose naturalistically, and that that can be demonstrated. How can we ever determine that without speculating that it may be the case and looking for evidence for or against that hypothesis?

you would be demonstrating that miracles are possible and you are into religion and have left science behind.

First, you said, "Science isn't supposed to be about speculation," which I rebutted. Rather than addressing the rebuttal and either calling it correct or explaining why it cannot be, you moved on to miracles and a misunderstanding of what is and does, since you think that abiogenesis research is not science or that any conclusion it arrives at can be called a miracle.

I'm just pointing out that science keeps claiming to know things it can't and people take them on faith.

Once again, what is known to science and what is known to people lay people not particularly well versed in it are two different things. Don't you think that you should have an encyclopedic knowledge of science before asserting what it doesn't know?

Which you don't have for life from non life, so quit pretending you have something you don't

Did you read this? It seems not: "Creationism asserts that life came from nonlife. If you consider God alive, then there is your counterexample of life not coming from other life. And if you don't consider God alive, then the life He created comes from nonlife."

The topic of evolution is meaningless if it's just a point A to point B theory. It still has a million holes in it

There are no holes in the theory. Perhaps you mean holes in the pedigrees of living life forms. We don't know what our ancestors looked like in detail, nor which hominid fossils are ancestral and which are "cousins" on branches that went extinct. That's not a part of the theory. The theory explains the mechanism for that transition, not the precise path it took.

the real question people have is why are we here?

If we are ever to have answers, they will come from science, not religion. Religions can only guess. I don't consider guesses answers.

I only have to demonstrate that science can't explain a whole lot of reality.

To whom? The scientifically literate (and probably everybody else as well) already know that. Like many others, you seem to think that that is an argument for faith in a deity.

And those making that implied argument don't seem to notice that it applies more so to their own supernaturalistic beliefs, which explain even less of reality than science. If that is an argument against science, it's not one in favor of faith. It's an even stronger argument against faith than science, which actually does explain much.

Nature declares the glory of God.

No, nature declares the glory of nature. Nature is weak evidence for a deity, just like scripture. Claiming that either is more than trivial evidence of a deity is claiming more than the evidence supports.

this morning in the middle of a snowstorm, when I was cutting firewood and the sun broke through the clouds. We are often startled by the intense beauty and raw power of nature, but with no belief in a deity, there's no reason for awe whatsoever.

I'm intrigued by how often the believer misjudges the unbeliever's inner life. We are told that without a god belief, life should be meaningless, morals impossible, and now, the spiritual experience impossible as well. Those are all incorrect.

Incidentally, I'll digress here for a moment, since that description of the experience of the sun through clouds hit home. Early in my Christian walk - first year, actually - while in the Army, I was sitting on the barracks steps one evening with my girlfriend, the Christian who brought me to Jesus, and just as you described, I witnessed crepuscular rays piercing through the clouds, felt a frisson travel my spine, and thought that the Holy Spirit was guiding me to ask this woman to be my wife. So, I asked her, and we got married.

Big mistake. This is not the way to choose a wife, and a mistake I refer to when explaining why I don't make decisions based in faith any more. The story has a happy ending. I rectified both errors by abandoning faith and getting out of a bad marriage, and today, I am 35 years a satisfied secular humanist and have been happily married for last 31 of them. That's a much better way to live life, I think. It has been for me.

This atheist has spiritual experiences frequently, by which I mean moments when I feel connected to our natural world and experience that as mystery, awe, and gratitude, but I no longer attribute them to spirits. I have them looking up at the sky still, and contemplating the vastness of the distance to the stars that that drop of light revealing one traversed before impacting my retina, as well as our intimate connection to them, being made of their ashes after they die. Whoosh! Connection. Awe. Or contemplating my life and being alive. Or being raptured by some passage of music that fills me with that same transcendent feeling. The difference is that I no longer attribute any of that to anything but my own mind, since I have n evidence that it is more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution is still a theory because there are many aspects of it that remain a mystery to us.

No. There is no "still/just a theory" in science. Evolution is a theory and fact. Just like existence of germs and the combustibility of oxygen (I don't reccomend testing the limits of "just a theory" with that one).
Hence why I've repeated ignorance fuels this debate that isn't a debate.

 

[cladking]

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I personally believe is 'science'. Valid science is determined by a vigorous scientific method carried out by individuals educated in this methodology. It is a methodology that has been by far the most successful way human beings have thus far come up with for accurately determining how the universe functions.

It all depends on what you mean by interpret evidence or experiment differently. If it means that they misinterpret evidence or use faulty experimentation methods that don't conform to the scientific method then yes, they are wrong.

So... ...let me understand. Since science is so successful it follows that they are universally correct and that we know everything. Homo omnisciencis.

Your reasoning is just as circular as "evolution".

 

[cladking]

Well, we still get our best explanations from experts in science, not lay people on internet forums.

And in 1860 all surgeons thought it was a waste of precious time to wash their hands or instruments before an operation. All their patients died of the resulting infections.

They were obviously all stupid and knew nothing at all about science.

Fortunately we now know everything and every patient survives. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Valjean]

Then you would be demonstrating that miracles are possible and you are into religion and have left science behind. Of course, science and faith are on different levels. I don't have to prove God, I only have to demonstrate that science can't explain a whole lot of reality.

Huh?
How would this demonstrate magic?

I don't have to prove God, I only have to demonstrate that science can't explain a whole lot of reality.

To conclude... what?
If science can't explain a whole lot of reality, so what? It explains a lot, and its understanding is growing.
Religion, on the other hand explains virtually nothing.

Are you saying that if science can't explain things, that this is evidence for creationism?
It is not. This is illogical reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a debate among anybody except some religious and many of who had no education beyond high school.

...and apparently slept during High School science classes.

 

[PureX]

If we uncover most or all of those things that remain a mystery to us, you think that means it will stop being a theory? Well that's not how it works.

If all the mysteries were solved, it would no longer be a theory. But you're missing the point. There are a number of significant mysteries within the evolution theory that remain unsolved. Which is why it remains a theory, and why it's still being discussed and debated (as per the thread title). Mostly because the the parameters of the idea of the evolution of life forms have not been clearly defined, and therefor a lot of confusion remains.

We don't yet know where or how life originated. Or how common it is in the universe. Or what the defining parameters of "life" even are. So we are a very long way from any clear understanding of how life forms evolve. And yet, here on Earth, we can very clearly observe the result of selective mating, and how it can significantly change the characteristics of life forms within a very short span of time. And we can see how the environment supports some of the changes while eliminating others. Such that it is clear that these factors count significantly in the way life forms evolved here on Earth, once it arrived.

 

[PureX]

In science, "theory " is a technical term for for a fact supported by overwhelming evidence.

No, that's not at all what a theory is, in science or in any other intellectual discipline.

Theory indicates the highest level of confidence. There is nothing higher, in science, than a theory.

Yeah, that's not true, either. It has nothing to do with anyone's "confidence" level. It's about whether or not a proposed set of physical relationships can remain cogent, when physically tested.

 

[PureX]

Evolution is still a theory because the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no option but to accept the results. The only reason some reject it as a theory is due to the influence of bad religion.

This is all nonsense, in terms of science. Evolution is a theory because it is only partially developed and partially effective as a method of understanding complex biological interactions and their results.