-
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!
Errors in the theory of evolution
- Thread starter Renji
- Start date
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
There are always improvements that can be made to a scientific model. The sign is not the thing signified.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Lawrence, before answering you, can you tell me what you think the theory of evolution is?
As a scientific theory, evolution is of course not absolutely correct. Much of what Darwin originally proposed has been corrected already, and it is expected to be improved further still as time passes.
That is normal and expected. That's how science works.
As for believing in it, well, it is not really a matter of belief, unless perhaps you mean the origin of life itself. As Woman of Reason just told us in another thread, Evolution does not really have an answer for the origin of life (at least not yet). But as a model for the origin of species and a theoretical basis for Biology, it is quite simply unavoidable.
It doesn't take any faith at all to accept it, and quite frankly, it is not worth the trouble to gather the faith to resist it either. It is, very simply, true. Way too much evidence of various kinds has been gathered to really put it in doubt. Doubting it is very much an exercise at feigning ignorance.
It is a bit puzzling really that so many people resist it, when it is not even really much of a religious hazard. Strictly speaking, it is not even incompatible with Creationism, although there are many (myself included) who fully expect it to explain the origin of life as well.
Just in case you didn't find it yet, there is a superb site about the matter: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
That is normal and expected. That's how science works.
As for believing in it, well, it is not really a matter of belief, unless perhaps you mean the origin of life itself. As Woman of Reason just told us in another thread, Evolution does not really have an answer for the origin of life (at least not yet). But as a model for the origin of species and a theoretical basis for Biology, it is quite simply unavoidable.
It doesn't take any faith at all to accept it, and quite frankly, it is not worth the trouble to gather the faith to resist it either. It is, very simply, true. Way too much evidence of various kinds has been gathered to really put it in doubt. Doubting it is very much an exercise at feigning ignorance.
It is a bit puzzling really that so many people resist it, when it is not even really much of a religious hazard. Strictly speaking, it is not even incompatible with Creationism, although there are many (myself included) who fully expect it to explain the origin of life as well.
Just in case you didn't find it yet, there is a superb site about the matter: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Renji
Well-Known Member
Well I'm not asking here about that. I'm asking about your belief on the theory of evolution and what errors can be seen on it. Well I'm not doubting it here in this thread, I'm asking.
Renji
Well-Known Member
And before answering that, why are you questioning me that way (I'm a student of science hoping to gather info on this thread and not to be questioned)? I'm here to ask if you can see any errors about the theory.
Nikodemus
Heartstone
It's hard to find "errors" in a model that allows for future correction. Simply because if an error is found, it's corrected. So I guess no, I don't find errors in it.
I believe it because it makes sense.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
What would you consider an "error" in the context of discussing a scientific theory? Ordinarily, that would mean that a variation on the model or an alternative model is more consistent with the observed evidence. Somehow, I don't think that's what you mean, though.
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Because I want to know if you understand the theory of evolution by natural selection for what it really is. I am sorry to say that I don't think that you understand it. I just want to be sure first.
And what do you mean by errors? Do you mean holes in the theory?
But it is misleading to talk about belief in the Theory of Evolution. It is not all that different from asking about belief in, say, the effects of painkillers. In both cases there are facts aplenty to show that the theory is sound and true.
I don't know of any errors per se in it, although it is certainly not above correction, and has indeed been corrected. Some points remain obscure or controversial, but not nearly to the degree of importance that some people herald.
For instance, it is still uncertain and speculative how life itself began. On a less controversial matter, there are often revisions about the specific workings of genetic mutations and species diferentiation. But all of those are actually minor (if very interesting) points on the overall theory, which is by this point quite tried and true, to the point that I can't claim belief in it, because it is not a matter of belief at all.
I don't know of any errors per se in it, although it is certainly not above correction, and has indeed been corrected. Some points remain obscure or controversial, but not nearly to the degree of importance that some people herald.
For instance, it is still uncertain and speculative how life itself began. On a less controversial matter, there are often revisions about the specific workings of genetic mutations and species diferentiation. But all of those are actually minor (if very interesting) points on the overall theory, which is by this point quite tried and true, to the point that I can't claim belief in it, because it is not a matter of belief at all.
Renji
Well-Known Member
Yap. Besides, it's still just a theory that needs to be proven.
Excellent!
Evolution is a fact. Sorry ...
Sorry, but that's not true. Hasn't been for decades, at the very least.
See the third question in Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"
Renji
Well-Known Member
Sorry too, but it is still undergoing a lot of improvements to be proven and scientists are still finding evidences to prove it. And hey just a student, hello, I'm working on a relavant info's on it.
Last edited:
Women_Of_Reason
Mystery Lover
Of course there are holes and question left unanswered in the theory. Like in every Scientific theory.
The theory of evolution as been demonstrated already.
They keep finding them, actually. As for the improvements, they are just that; improvements on a theory that has been proven true already.
You are babbling. Scientists are not "still finding evidences to prove it" but, rather, continue to find evidence to confirm it. How can you presume to speak about evolution when you are so clearly clueless about science in general?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
When people stop doubting scientific knowledge and improving it, it becomes empty dogma and is no longer the Living Word. The Living God is found in uncertainty and doubt. The dead one is in belief.
