• 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 idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

Do you accept evolution as a truth

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 51.0%
  • No

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Maybe so

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • New idea about it [explain]

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Best idea right now but new information might come

    Votes: 18 36.7%

  • Total voters
    49
I think the question in title is enough :)
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Not answered the poll because it's not quite black and white. It's the best explanation there is but it may be modified if new evidence comes to light.

Ok you edited the poll, i can answer now
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I think the question in title is enough :)
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes
Nature is a living breathing entity and enteries can evolve, so can a created entity do too. So even God created everything there is nothing wrong with a form of evolution, I don't say i believe in the ape to human Darwinism
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Evolution makes sense to me.
Yes, I accept it as the truth.
Because it is the most reliable and rational explanation on the origin of the Animalia, Plantae, etc...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Even if one doesn't know a lick of biological science, the answer is logically yes. Our experiences clearly show us that all material objects change one way or another over time, and organisms are not an exception to these observations.

And in no way does the above counter a belief in Divine creation, btw.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I voted 'Yes', but I also believe there is 'intelligence' also behind the processes. I do not believe the complexity we see occurred without conscious intelligent intent.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
I think the question in title is enough :)
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

I voted "no." I am still in the midst of studying creation (and Genesis in general) with few solid ideas but one of them is that death and corruption (and also life and incorruption) enters the cosmos through man alone, and prior to the Fall it was not so, and after the glorification of the Elect it will not be so. This is plainly incompatible. I also question to method of giving existence to an essence, which seems to also be incompatible.

Over the course of my reading perhaps my opinions will change on the matter, although on that main thing about mankind I doubt it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think the question in title is enough :)
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

Not as Truth.
As a theory with a very low probability of being disproved.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think the question in title is enough :)
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes
Reply #1 is pop sci.
Reply #5 is more scientific for those of us not directly involved: "Best idea right now but new information might come" Its not as easy as #1.

I'm not a biologist or anthropologist. Its not scientific for me to say evolution is truth. I haven't got any idea what that means. I say its most likely truth. If a biologist feels like its truth: fine for them. They may actually know that. There isn't any way for me to know it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I voted "no." I am still in the midst of studying creation (and Genesis in general) with few solid ideas but one of them is that death and corruption (and also life and incorruption) enters the cosmos through man alone, and prior to the Fall it was not so, and after the glorification of the Elect it will not be so. This is plainly incompatible. I also question to method of giving existence to an essence, which seems to also be incompatible.

Over the course of my reading perhaps my opinions will change on the matter, although on that main thing about mankind I doubt it.
You do know that you can no more examine scientific research through the bible than you
can auto mechanics?
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Yes, I believe in evolution, but this does not at all contradict the idea of a created or “simulated” universe.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I didn't vote (strike that).

The theory is correct in the main, but it is not impossible that new ideas might be added later. For example, the theory says that the tree of life descended from a single last universal common ancestor. If were later shown that a second population gave rise to another tree of descendants not yet identified or recognized as such, does that make the present theory wrong, or just incomplete? I'd say the latter.

But the basic idea that the life we see on earth developed over geological time through the process of applying natural selection to genetic variation isn't going anywhere. So while I see evolutionary theory like any other scientific theory - tentative and amenable to modification pending new discoveries rather than proven or the truth - I also consider the theory correct and having been demonstrated to be so by courtroom standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the theory is wrong, just an unreasonable one, that all that evidence doesn't represent the naturalistic process that Darwin described, but is a deception by a superhuman power and intelligent designer that went to that trouble to fool us. That only logically possible, but extremely unlikely, and can be dismissed as not a reasonable doubt. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation for these mountains of data suggesting naturalistic evolution beside superhuman deception, it's one of those.

So what I don't like about the first choice is that I don't like the word truth any more than proof. The theory is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's how we identify correct ideas. They work. They are useful in the ways just outlined. And how we identify incorrect ideas as well. They don't work. They don't do these things. Think creationism or astrology, both founded on false premises, and neither useful for predicting or explaining anything.

What I don't like about the last option is that it is wishy-washy about evolution, as if this ide is just a placeholder until a better theory comes along. That's not going to happen. That's no longer possible. The present theory will become more fleshed out over time, but not upended. Like the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease, though we don't like to use the word proven in science if it is to mean the same thing a proven in mathematics, still none of these theories is going anywhere.

My answer would have been that the theory is correct and that it will likely be augmented over time.

OK, having said all that, I will vote. And I will combine those categories in my mind, as I assume that most people who voted for either of those options mean approximately what I do, and could have chosen both of them like I did. Presently, its 11 yeses and best ideas, and 1 no.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Not answered the poll because it's not quite black and white. It's the best explanation there is but it may be modified if new evidence comes to light.

Ok you edited the poll, i can answer now
I answered "yes" because, although new evidence may come to light, it will still be evidence of evolution happening. The mechanisms may be understood a little differently some day, but the fact of evolution will not change.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I answered "yes" because, although new evidence may come to light, it will still be evidence of evolution happening. The mechanisms may be understood a little differently some day, but the fact of evolution will not change.

Very true, for a given value of true
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I voted 'Yes', but I also believe there is 'intelligence' also behind the processes. I do not believe the complexity we see occurred without conscious intelligent intent.
Which leaves you with the most unsatisfactory thing imaginable -- a question for which you can provide no satisfactory answer whatever: where did this "conscious intelligent intent" come from?

By saying that the processes that made us cannot have happened without such "conscious intelligent intent," you lock yourself into the necessity for that "conscious intelligent intent" to have another such cause .... and then it's turtles all the way down.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
You do know that you can no more examine scientific research through the bible than you
can auto mechanics?

I have no idea what you mean by this. If you're trying to say that every truth is not explicit in Scripture then yes I do know that.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I have no idea what you mean by this. If you're trying to say that every truth is not explicit in Scripture then yes I do know that.
The study of the bible will never inform you
about anything relevant to evolution.
A "no" vote so based in singularly uninformed.

If the topic were theories in hydrolics or auto mechanics, scrip wont help there either.
 
Top