Do you believe in Evolution?

[Karvlig]

Here are some interesting quotes about this subject from Mr. Richard Dawkins:


“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.

Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?”

“Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false.”

“If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.”

“Even if not a single fossil has ever been found, the evidence from surviving animals would still overwhelmingly force the conclusion that Darwin was right.”

“Evolution is not a genetically controlled distortion of one adult form into another; it is a genetically controlled alteration in a developmental program.”

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...That didn't have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn't. It didn't have to be true, but it is....Evolution is the only game in town, the greatest show on earth.”

“In a designed economy there would be no trees, or certainly no very tall trees: no forests, no canopy. Trees are a waste. Trees are extravagant. Tree trunks are standing monuments to futile competition - futile if we think in terms of a planed economy. But the natural economy is not planned. Individual plants compete with other plants, of the same and other species, and the result is that they grow taller and taller, far taller than any planner would recommend.”

If you deny evolution, you are denying a huge part of modern science.

[Genivaria]

Well, when was that?

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Damn I didn't embrace reason until around 19.

[Regnum Dominae]

Yes, of course.

[Bolden]

-____- please not one of these threads again....No I don't sorry. I'm leaving it at that.

Feel the same exact way as you do.

[The Black Forrest]

But you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. There's no reason to support theistic evolution aside from either A: feeling like doing something arbitrary or B: needing to cling to old belief systems because of familiarity.

No, you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. The theistic evolution proponent need not claim that this assumption is needed. He merely asserts that God is in fact the cause for evolution, not that He must be.
As far as his grounds for so believing, he can have any number of philosophical and theological arguments to support this claim, outside the two you have mentioned. They need not be scientific, because what he is asserting is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a theological claim which further informs a worldview which also includes scientific arguments, such as the theory of evolution via natural selection.

So you are saying Theistic evolution is a religious theory.

[Old Tyrannia]

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Damn. You beat me to it. For most of my younger life I was in some 1984-esque doublethink scenario where I simultaneously believed that the Big Bang was the reason the universe came into being, and God existed. I didn't think about the origin of the universe much when I was five. Then, once I became a grumpy teenager I figured out that this whole "God" idea didn't hold much water.

The existence of God and the validity of the Big Bang theory are not incompatible. A perfectly sensible religious person who accepted scientific facts and viewpoints would say that the Big Bang occurred because God willed it to.

[Neo Rome Republic]

While in day-to-day life you can claim that something mundane is the truth and people won't demand to know why you believe it to be true, anything as big as "why the universe exists" needs some facts backing it up. You don't get special treatment because your theory involves magic and divine beings, you still need proof.

I did not claim that the theistic evolution proponent has no backing for his theological claims, only that they need not be scientific. He arrives at his theistic claims through a different avenue than he arrives at his evolutionary claims, which is only to be expected, since his theistic claims are theological and/or philosophical, while his evolutionary claims are scientific and empirical.

A claim on the origin of our universe, is Scientific.

[The Tovian Way]

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

Actually the question of God is left to the philosophers.

For science; it's a non-question.

How do test for existence or non-existence?

Exactly correct! Science makes no claim whatsoever as to the existence or non-existence of God. The theist and the agnostic both have equal freedom within science.

[Kantria]

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

Setting aside the problematic word "belief"—I "believe" in the theory of evolution in the same way I "believe" in the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun orbits the galactic core—I can't say exactly when I was convinced. I learned about it in school, didn't think much of it—it made sense and I accepted it. I didn't realize there was a huge philosophical debate because I wasn't the most socially conscious teenager.

I read a bit more on my own time. To answer your question, probably about twelve years (I'm in my mid-20s), not because I ever doubted it but because it took me some time to formulate a worldview which included scientific observation and reasoning as the basis of understanding the world around me. It took that long to decide that accepting scientific knowledge was important to being a good, moral human being.

Understanding and accepting knowledge is an ongoing process, for individuals and for society. If something comes around to put to doubt our current understanding of the origin of species, I will reconsider my acceptance of the theory, just as I would if there happens to come into being a better model for the structure of the galaxy or Solar system. I do not anticipate this occurring any time soon.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this question, unless you're trying to set up an argumentum ad hominem. It isn't at all relevant how long any one of us has accepted the theory of evolution.

[Aquafireland]

Well, when was that?

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Wow. You were that young when you knew anything about it?
For me, I was about 10 when I learned about it. I disapprove it, as you can see. Religious beliefs.

[Bottle]

In other words why are you still here?

I don't get this attitude. How can you say you don't approve of science when you're using it's results every single day?

Speaking as a scientist, it's okay. Anti-science people can use our stuff.

I'm pretty sure at least a few of the kids who got the Salk vaccine were complete brats. That's okay. There are Young Earth Creationists who drive cars that run on the very fossilized material that, according to them, does not exist. Creationists get heart transplants, blood transfusions, and countless other life-saving procedures which only exist because of evolutionary biology and related concepts.

Science works whether they believe in it or not.

And I mean, yeah, it's pretty fucking rude for anti-science people to use our advances while simultaneously spitting on us, but we get the smug satisfaction of knowing that they are only able to show their asses on the internet BECAUSE of everything we have done for them. So it breaks even IMO.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Yes, of course.

Really? I always took you for a creationist.

[The Tovian Way]

I did not claim that the theistic evolution proponent has no backing for his theological claims, only that they need not be scientific. He arrives at his theistic claims through a different avenue than he arrives at his evolutionary claims, which is only to be expected, since his theistic claims are theological and/or philosophical, while his evolutionary claims are scientific and empirical.

A claim on the origin of our universe, is Scientific.

The theistic evolution proponent can accept every accepted scientific claim as to how the universe began. He merely makes a further, non-scientific, claim that the ultimate cause of these origins is a supernatural being.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Wow. You were that young when you knew anything about it?
For me, I was about 10 when I learned about it. I disapprove it, as you can see. Religious beliefs.

The greatest cause of ignorance.

[Riiser-Larsen]

-____- please not one of these threads again....No I don't sorry. I'm leaving it at that.

Feel the same exact way as you do.

If you don't like the thread, then you don't have to be here. Just leave it be and go enjoy a separate thread.

[Utceforp]

While in day-to-day life you can claim that something mundane is the truth and people won't demand to know why you believe it to be true, anything as big as "why the universe exists" needs some facts backing it up. You don't get special treatment because your theory involves magic and divine beings, you still need proof.

I did not claim that the theistic evolution proponent has no backing for his theological claims, only that they need not be scientific. He arrives at his theistic claims through a different avenue than he arrives at his evolutionary claims, which is only to be expected, since his theistic claims are theological and/or philosophical, while his evolutionary claims are scientific and empirical.

Again, when dealing with questions like "How did life emerge" or "How was the universe created" there aren't any other proofs other than scientific ones. Either you confirm your theory is true, or you assume you're wrong.

[Neo Rome Republic]

A claim on the origin of our universe, is Scientific.

The theistic evolution proponent can accept every accepted scientific claim as to how the universe began. He merely makes a further, non-scientific, claim that the ultimate cause of these origins is a supernatural being.

Nope, it's Scientific if it's a claim on the origin of our universe.

[Lemanrussland]

Yes, of course, what do you think I am, a creationist?

[The Ben Boys]

Yes, evolution can happen in seven billion years or a hundred thousands years or fourteen billion years... I was throwing out a number, unless of course I'm caught totally unaware and evolution can only happen on a specific timetable and isn't gradual.

Well, it'd be tough for life to evolve on a planet for over two and a half billion years (give or take) before that planet existed. I mean, if you're going to create a planet and then fill it with the building blocks for life to evolve on its own, you'd start by creating the planet first, right?

Again, just threw out a number, I thought he was saying that evolution didn't exist back then or something.

Damn. You beat me to it. For most of my younger life I was in some 1984-esque doublethink scenario where I simultaneously believed that the Big Bang was the reason the universe came into being, and God existed. I didn't think about the origin of the universe much when I was five. Then, once I became a grumpy teenager I figured out that this whole "God" idea didn't hold much water.

The existence of God and the validity of the Big Bang theory are not incompatible. A perfectly sensible religious person who accepted scientific facts and viewpoints would say that the Big Bang occurred because God willed it to.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light"~King James Bible.

[Bentrada]

Holy shit, couldn't this thread just be a Yes or No type thing?

[Aquafireland]

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

Setting aside the problematic word "belief"—I "believe" in the theory of evolution in the same way I "believe" in the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun orbits the galactic core—I can't say exactly when I was convinced. I learned about it in school, didn't think much of it—it made sense and I accepted it. I didn't realize there was a huge philosophical debate because I wasn't the most socially conscious teenager.

I read a bit more on my own time. To answer your question, probably about twelve years (I'm in my mid-20s), not because I ever doubted it but because it took me some time to formulate a worldview which included scientific observation and reasoning as the basis of understanding the world around me.

Understanding and accepting knowledge is an ongoing process, for individuals and for society. If something comes around to put to doubt our current understanding of the origin of species, I will reconsider my acceptance of the theory, just as I would if there happens to come into being a better model for the structure of the galaxy or Solar system. I do not anticipate this occurring any time soon.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this question, unless you're trying to set up an argumentum ad hominem. It isn't at all relevant how long any one of us has accepted the theory of evolution.

I'm just curious on when you guys found out about it. No major need to get all fussy, you know.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

Do I believe in a creator, or the inexplicable... I'll say creator. Do I believe in Evolution or what atheists claim I believe... hmmm, such a hard one

Honestly, the least you could do is debate rather than bash.

Hmmm....
Do I believe in something very explainable, or something written by a people who believe in a god that's rehashed from another god.
Hard choice

Oh boy. What god does this imply that mine stems from might I ask? (can't wait for the hair brained answer)

[Nightkill the Emperor]

How the hell can you even reasonably deny it?

[Mkuki]

Yes, I am.

Okay then, bring out the information.

My point is, if evolution happened, why are there still apes in the world? Surely, there wouldn't be anymore left in the world if it happened.

My second question is, if evolution happened, it should still be happening. The physical look of the creature does not matter, but the intellect does. Why have us human beings, or 'apes' from your people's point of view, have not become much smarter? Yes, technology has advanced, but that does not subsequently apply to the fact that evolution is real. It is just a buildup from thousands of years, that's all.

My final point - if evolution really happened, why has it only happened to apes and gorillas? Why only them? Surely, if it happened, there would be a wider range of animals that have witnessed the evolution.

Now, I think in about finished here. I challenge every one of you to state a vaild argument against this, except for those who agree that the evolution theory is a myth.

I'd suggest you read up on scientific articles, papers, essays, and books concerning evolution. They provide more detailed information on why evolution is true than what any of us can do with a single post.

That said, Divair has a bevy of links on the validity of evolution. Regnum Dominae also has a good thread on why creationism is false.

I do hope you are genuinely interested in learning. I don't like wasting my time.

[The Tovian Way]

No, you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. The theistic evolution proponent need not claim that this assumption is needed. He merely asserts that God is in fact the cause for evolution, not that He must be.
As far as his grounds for so believing, he can have any number of philosophical and theological arguments to support this claim, outside the two you have mentioned. They need not be scientific, because what he is asserting is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a theological claim which further informs a worldview which also includes scientific arguments, such as the theory of evolution via natural selection.

So you are saying Theistic evolution is a religious theory.

In a way. It is a synthesis of scientific theory (evolution via natural selection) and religious/philosophical theory (theism, Christianity, Prime Moverism, what have you).