|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Key points of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Theistic or not, evolution is evolution I thought the theory of evolution was supposed to be a natural process. Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution? It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms. Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective?
Science is unable to say either way, whether or not god has anything to do with anything. God could be behind everything and the scientific outcomes would remain the same. Objects fall at 9.8 m/s2 whether gravity is pulling them or god's hand is pushing them. The ToE could simply be the way that God goes about creating his creatures. Science doesn't care one way or the other as long as the results are consistant. Also, in Genesis it says that god formed man from the dirt. By 'forming' it could be referring to the process of evolution and by dirt it could be referring to the non-life that the original life arrose from. They don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Next time you think you need a physician, perhaps all you need is a physicist or a chemist? How about a car mechanic - he can make your car better, yes? The point being that physicians are not biologists, their training is in a different specialty, and this makes them no better than anyone else that does not have a biology degree to be able to talk about biology. Scientific opinions are only valid when they come from scientists that have studied the field ... and even then you are dealing with the argument from authority logical fallacy. Scientists don't trust the validity of the theory of relativity because Einstein said so. Did you see the thread on different paradigms? From the OP:
quote: Any connection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Therefore, I concur that almost all scientists believe in evolution. Whether they all have the same definitions, or different definitions, I do not know. I also am convinced, until the evidence shows otherwise, that scientists are divided about the mechanism responsible for these changes, and many scientists believe that a supernatural element (God) is somehow involved in the process. But they don't incorporate god into the scientific explanation of the process. Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whether god is behind it or not, the process is the same. I would agree that the process that is being observed today would be the same. However, if God was involved in the process sometime in the past, and according to the study 45% of scientists say that He was, would our conclusions be the same?
Well, yes. They would. The conclusion is drawn from the evidence. Whether the evidence happened with or without god is of no concern. The evidence is that objects consistently fall to the earth when dropped. It doesn't matter if that is an entirely natural process or if god is actually pushing things down. The fact that things are falling is just describing how god, himself, pushes things to the ground. Or its describing how Santa Clause does it, or its describing how the process naturally occurs. It doesn't matter what we put 'behind' the evidence, the conclusion will be the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That leaves the 40% that believe that God was involved in the process, including man's creation. We do not know how involved. However, we do know that His involvement does not equal zero. God does not equal zero. Evolution does not equal zero. Time does not equal zero. Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God + evolution + time All of the components are necessary for the calculation.
No, they're not. The ToE accurately describes the evidence even when God is not a part of the equation. That doesn't mean that god had nothing to do with it, it means that god is not a necessary component for the calculation. You're misconstruing what the poll insinuates so you can say that the scientists are divided. They are not divided on whether or not the ToE is accurate. They are divided on what their personal faiths are, as expected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Acutally, the scientists are divided on whether they believe God exists. They could also be divided on what role they believe that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. I believe God exists. I don't know what role he has played in the past in this creation where we live. I don't believe the Bible is literal and inerrant in what it says on what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about what role that God has played in the past in this creation where we live.
It is hard to tell from the statement they selected in the poll. It was a shitty poll. There's gotta be a better way to phrase that...
Based upon your opinion and others, I would agree that they are not divided upon the sufficiency of the Theory of Evolution. It is a solid theory.
That does not mean they are right (or that they are wrong). I have not reached that conclusion yet. Though, I am working in that direction. Take it from me, they're right.
So, yes they are divided, but no they are not divided! I agree totally. There is a line, though. If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong. The ToE is not wrong, therefore the Bible is not literal and inerrant. It seems 5%, IIRC from the shitty poll, think the ToE is wrong presumably because they believe the Bible is literal and inerrant (assuming they're the YEC scientists that the poll seems to be targeting).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the Bible is literal and inerrant, then the ToE is wrong. With God all things are possible.
That's called 'hand waving'.
Maybe it is possible that the Bible can be literal and inerrant, and the ToE is valid also. Not with the way they are written this day.
All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention. Like what? The only thing I can think of is to change the Bible or change the evidence that the ToE relies on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024