Scientists are not in the business of deliberately debunking religion, nor do they gather in a secret meeting each week to try to reveal stupid religious beliefs. What scientists actually do is look at the natural world. Using current observational data and knowledge acquired from the past, they form hypotheses. These hypotheses are then subject to experiments designed to falsify the hypotheses if possible. Over time, if the hypotheses stand up to this experimental scrutiny, they are promoted to the status of "theory." The word "theory" used in this context refers to a group of tested propositions regarded as true.
Many creationists point out that evolution is only a "theory" - trying to make the point that the whole idea of evolution is pure speculation. Unfortunately one of the other English language definitions of the word "theory" is a "conjectural explanation." No one would argue, however, that the "theory of gravity" is simply a "conjectural explanation." We all know gravity exists.
The theory of evolution also falls into this category. The most recent evidence in evolution's favor comes from DNA analysis, something Darwin could not have known about.
God gave mankind brains and one of the many ways to worship Him is to use these brains to study His creation. I have not yet found a PhD in biology (and these include many Christians) who does not accept evolution as fact.
Yes, it is possible to be an "evolutionist" and a Christian at the same time.
Steve Ball
Gilbert
Accuracy posted at 11:59 am on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
Steve Ball tackles question of Creation and wrote: “God gave mankind brains and one of the many ways to worship Him is to use these brains to study His creation.”
-------------------------------------
Very true Steve… God's existence is obvious through all of Creation: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20).
The question of whether the universe was created by God or by scientific accident has been a decades-long debate. But there shouldn't be a conflict between the biblical account of creation and scientific theory.
Many Scientists do use the Bible to solve mysteries of Creation, because there are interesting bits of information in the Bible (Genesis, book of Job, and more) which explain some of the mysteries of creation. And space exploration can answer some of the most difficult questions of science and God's existence.
aj356 posted at 12:09 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
You said you didn't know a PhD in biology who doesn't believe in evolution (I'll assume you mean macro-evolution). Here's one:
http://www.reasons.org/scholars/fazale-rana/bio
mesateacher posted at 1:47 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
Steve: evolution is a fact, yes. But the Theory of Evolution isn't - yet. No has ever been able to prove why it works, how it was started. That's what the "theory" means. There are several competing theories, but none of them is absolutely provable. Same with Theory of Magnetism. We have lots of really advanced mathematics to explain it and work with it, but we still don't know what the underlying theory is. The standard model, string theory -- all fail in this. Someday we might know, but not yet, Maybe if they can find the Higgs Boson we'll have a definitive solution. Until then, it's still a theory.
Rich posted at 4:14 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
"God gave mankind brains and one of the many ways to worship Him is to use these brains to study His creation. I have not yet found a PhD in biology (and these include many Christians) who does not accept evolution as fact."
You destroy your own hypothesis. Evolution is what it is, the most probable explanation of a series of observable things, which is not be all the evidence. Just because you don't know one, does not mean they don't exist. Just because evolution is probable doesn't make it a fact, it makes it a theory. A creationist can use 'God" instead of probability, it is no more intellectually dishonest. All that is being said, in either case is 'I really don't know.' God is no less a foundation for reason than probability, and there is no good reason to find that the scientific method (empiricism) superior to any form of scholastic theology or rational philosophy or for that matter poetic and artistic thinking (often called magical reasoning). The fault, if one exists, is putting all our eggs in one basket.
hzcummi posted at 4:37 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.
There are no "creation stories" in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.
For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve". Has modern science discovered that yet?
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
Dale Whiting posted at 5:42 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
Nice piece, Steve!
bobunf posted at 9:38 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
mesateacher wrote, "evolution is a fact, yes. But the Theory of Evolution isn't - yet."
In science, theory is as good as it gets. A theory is an explanation of a large grouping of observations.
Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three observations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.
The theory explains biochemical and morphological traits and shared DNA sequences as seen in both existing species and the fossil record, as well as vestigial structures and gestational recapitulation.
There is no current theory of biogenesis; it is not necessary to explain how life started to understand how it evolved. No one expects to prove how evolution works - ever - but there are significant observations - see above.
Science isn't decided in a court of law, but courts of law have all stopped the teaching of creationism in any form, leaving the story of life to the Theory of Evolution.
Rich posted at 10:14 pm on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
"Science isn't decided in a court of law, but courts of law have all stopped the teaching of creationism in any form, leaving the story of life to the Theory of Evolution."
Therefore what you get is a single basis, based on probability, censored to that. In several basis of even pure reason, this is just a controlling mechanism to enslave you children.
Accuracy posted at 8:53 am on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
You've got that right, Rich!
"Controlling mechanism"
Evolution maintains its power not because it's valid, but because it's an entrenched bureaucracy. Evolution is almost a religion of nature -- cloaked in science.
Indiana’s Senate Education Committee has just approved a bill (by a vote of 8-2) that would allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public school science classes. The bill allows for the teaching of “creation science” and that the “origin of life” originating via a deity is an acceptable theory.
Rational Human posted at 9:36 am on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
In science, theory is as good as it gets. In religion, blind faith is as good as it gets. I see humanity as an ant hill where all the ants are in debate as to whether that ant hill was created by chance or did the ant god create it. From our perspective, nothing is certain.
sockratties posted at 5:17 pm on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
From the time man crawled out of a cave until the present day most myth has been replaced with some kind of science or at least with theories that are supported with some structure of facts. Astrology has been replaced with astronomy, Alchemy has been replaced with chemistry. Marks on boards and knots in string have been replaced by economics. Medicine has replaced shaman and witch-doctors. Physics has developed out of the fabric of exploration and experimentation in many fields. Archeology has given us a view of our species from now back to the time of that primordial cave. Unfortunately the only advancements religion has made is into big business with encroachments into government (much like the tribal medicine man).
If we must have a definitive hypothesis relating to creation and a creator has to be responsible, how do we reckon the creation of the creator? Or is thought and speculation blasphemous? The vanity of religious teachings is astonishing. The religious Heaven/Nirvana/Valhalla/what-ever must have a lot of really high fences because everyone thinks they are the only ones up there.
It's also interesting to hear all these devout oh-so-sure believers speaking for God. Pride is supposed to be one of the 7 deadly sins, isn't it? At least scientists write papers and present hypotheses in the form of “in my humble opinion.” There are no institutions more corrupt than those of organized religion and most of the minions have been brain washed to believe such drivel before they learn to think.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:24 am on Sun, Jan 29, 2012.
Steve, still a good piece. You observe:
"Accept evolution as fact [vs. fiction]", yes that's the choice these biologists face. Those of us who judge evolution as fiction are few in number. Most if not all misunderstand these distinctions. Even the "intelligent design" folks are accepting evolution as fact, i.e. not made up to entertain or sell books, or earn a livelihood preaching.
Perhaps the Greeks were the first "scientists" seeking to understand the world about them, meeting on street side caffees to compare their views and try to improve their communial thinking about the problem. But most jumped to interesting but unreasonable conclusions, creating in their eye Mount Olympus and the "gods" with human short comings. It was easier to understand. And the Romans followed suit.
Religion has done the same thing, but has approached it from another direction. Both scientists and religionists earn their livelihoods from this process. But science has achieved much more along the way. Maybe, just maybe, religionists need to concentrate on more meaningful objectives.
Scientists are comparatively well equipped to explain human beings from a biological perspective, but are not well equipped to explain humankind. Religionists appear to have given up, predicting an end to the world marked in war. Few seem to emphasize the need to come together and study war no more. Isaiah 2: 1-5. Why is that? "The Creator" must be wondering this, too!
Rich posted at 6:38 pm on Sun, Jan 29, 2012.
sockratties,
There was an age of theology, in the West about the second to twelfth century. Among the Jews Miamonides, the Christians, Aquinas, the Moslems Averroes, took the basis of a God about as far as it could be taken, rationally, but that took over a millennium of application and thought by the best and brightest. And if you read Eastern thought, it might have gone even further, how much of nuclear physics is the 'dance of Shiva', Let alone that the 'big bang' is just restating Aquinas.
I will agree with you that organized religion is hokkum, snake oil, but I don't think theology is. And I would agree that it is reasonable to assume that if Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't be wearing a Rolex on T.V.
Science is a baby compared to Theology, and really, when you examine it, is just beginning to find the 'dance of Shiva' and the 'prime mover'. Both, as part of science, just in my lifetime, not a millennium of thought. Science is young yet, and like most teenagers has all the answers, In a few centuries of it being the reasoning system of the best and brightest, we might find out a thing or two, or not.
Philosophy has yet to have it's shot, and if we survive the scientists learning Shiva's dance and blowing up cities, they might make another step. Who knows? Reason only operates when you believe, it can't go from nowhere and yet the only thing we can prove is our own existence.
sockratties posted at 2:32 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Rich -
I can't disagree with you if you define theology as the study of religion as a school of thought where religion and not belief is the subject of inquiry. If you are referring to people speculating on the existence of God, miracles, angels, life after death and creation, there is no “ology” there. If people want to believe in something supernatural or super-existent they can certainly do so. If they aren't clever enough to come up with their own myths and beliefs and wish to join an organization of like minded people, that's their business. If they wish to include their myths and beliefs in public entities such as school or government they are out of line.
If they wish to refute scientific theory, they need to do so with meaningful data and working hypotheses. Quoting from ancient scripture and using religious books as “proof” is no more valid than using Roman or Greek mythology to prove Newton's Laws incorrect.
Religion belongs in the same place as other superstitions. If people believe black cats and broken mirrors bring bad luck, it's their right to do so. If people are comforted by prayer, meditation or chanting they should be encouraged to utilize these rituals. Science does not threaten such freedoms although some forms of government do. If believers feel threatened by such scientific theories as evolution or “the big bang” they don't have enough faith in their religion.
VofReason posted at 12:05 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Thiswas a good editorial and actually sparked some good additions in the comments here. One thing that must be said or resaid is that evolution does not explain how we went from no life to life. I believe that is where those who believe in God have the upper hand. We believe that only a higher power could create something as beautiful as life- take a look at a baby someday and see if you do not see God in it's creation. Evolution has fact and logic in how once life was here it evolved into different forms. Ask any scientist how many times they have produced life from nothing and or to explain how we went from no life to life.