What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Hockeycowboy]

I simply do not see the threat to God in the theory.

It is a theory that has massive evidentiary support. It does not deny that God had a part in it.

Not necessarily in the Theory itself, properly understood. But the threat is from those who claim that all life forms arose from it. That’s Dawkins’ view:


“Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.
"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.
[……]
According to Dawkins, life was not created by an intelligent designer. In "The Selfish Gene," he wrote that science has established that, "We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." “
— excerpt from Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com

What kind of influence do you think Dawkins has on the younger generation of biologists? Or even the common folk? Way more than you or I!

Regarding the “massive evidentiary support”, I agree totally...for organisms within their taxonomic Families (or Orders). A vast number of species! Maybe all that we see, today. (Given how many species have gone extinct) But the original lifeforms representing those Families or Orders, each with their distinct features, were created. “According to their kinds.”

I’m not talking about characteristics, like ‘eating nylon’; I’m talking about de novo physical features, the kind that would allow ‘mammals to ‘return’ to the sea.”

I’ve seen no concrete evidence; only assumptions. But then, science can only accept materialistic causes; intelligence not allowed....hey, that sounds familiar, lol.

There is just no evidence of the actions of God found in the evidence and include in the theory as explanatory

I don’t agree with you there! Behe doesnt agree, either. Intelligence is seen everywhere. IC presents enigmas that the biologic sciences, held down by naturalism, can’t answer definitively. (They usually mention the process of exaptation, and gloss over it.)
If there weren’t problems with the Modern Synthesis, there wouldn’t be those highly respected biologists seeking to overhaul it.

Take care, cousin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not necessarily in the Theory itself, properly understood. But the threat is from those who claim that all life forms arose from it. That’s Dawkins’ view:


“Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.
"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.
[……]
According to Dawkins, life was not created by an intelligent designer. In "The Selfish Gene," he wrote that science has established that, "We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." “
— excerpt from Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com

What kind of influence do you think Dawkins has on the younger generation of biologists? Or even the common folk? Way more than you or I!

Regarding the “massive evidentiary support”, I agree totally...for organisms within their taxonomic Families (or Orders). A vast number of species! Maybe all that we see, today. (Given how many species have gone extinct) But the original lifeforms representing those Families or Orders, each with their distinct features, were created. “According to their kinds.”

I’m not talking about characteristics, like ‘eating nylon’; I’m talking about de novo physical features, the kind that would allow ‘mammals to ‘return’ to the sea.”

I’ve seen no concrete evidence; only assumptions. But then, science can only accept materialistic causes; intelligence not allowed....hey, that sounds familiar, lol.


I don’t agree with you there! Behe doesnt agree, either. Intelligence is seen everywhere. IC presents enigmas that the biologic sciences, held down by naturalism, can’t answer definitively. (They usually mention the process of exaptation, and gloss over it.)
If there weren’t problems with the Modern Synthesis, there wouldn’t be those highly respected biologists seeking to overhaul it.

Take care, cousin.

Behe hasn't done anything to support his claims. At least anything that hasn't been refuted.

What you are claiming here is that scientific issues with the modern synthesis equates to support of creation and that is a leap no one has shown. Controversy within science is encouraged, but it highlights areas needing more research and is not a nod to creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not necessarily in the Theory itself, properly understood. But the threat is from those who claim that all life forms arose from it. That’s Dawkins’ view:


“Dawkins argues that there is no doubt that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true and, unlike some other scholars of the subject, says belief in evolution is not compatible with faith in religion. In fact, he argues, science and religion undermine each other.
"I believe a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith," Dawkins says in his TED Talk.
[……]
According to Dawkins, life was not created by an intelligent designer. In "The Selfish Gene," he wrote that science has established that, "We are survival machines -- robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." “
— excerpt from Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism' - CNN.com

What kind of influence do you think Dawkins has on the younger generation of biologists? Or even the common folk? Way more than you or I!

Regarding the “massive evidentiary support”, I agree totally...for organisms within their taxonomic Families (or Orders). A vast number of species! Maybe all that we see, today. (Given how many species have gone extinct) But the original lifeforms representing those Families or Orders, each with their distinct features, were created. “According to their kinds.”

I’m not talking about characteristics, like ‘eating nylon’; I’m talking about de novo physical features, the kind that would allow ‘mammals to ‘return’ to the sea.”

I’ve seen no concrete evidence; only assumptions. But then, science can only accept materialistic causes; intelligence not allowed....hey, that sounds familiar, lol.


I don’t agree with you there! Behe doesnt agree, either. Intelligence is seen everywhere. IC presents enigmas that the biologic sciences, held down by naturalism, can’t answer definitively. (They usually mention the process of exaptation, and gloss over it.)
If there weren’t problems with the Modern Synthesis, there wouldn’t be those highly respected biologists seeking to overhaul it.

Take care, cousin.

You take care too. Always a pleasure talking to you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I read the same scriptures as you, but I don't see God as you apparently are. I don't see limitations placed upon him that makes him have to conform to our expectations of what sounds reasonable to us.

If you read the same Scriptures, then you know 1 John 4:8...”God is love.” There’s a limitation, right there: we can conclude that He wouldn’t be selfish, but generous.

Or Job 34:10...”Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.” Any wickedness that we experience, isnt from Him.

That it doesn't make sense to you, is a good sign it's probably right.

Are you trying to belittle me? Being nasty? Why? Have I hurt you somehow?
And @Dan From Smithville ....why did you like this? I thought we were on good terms with each other.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You take care too. Always a pleasure talking to you.

Ok, have a great evening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read the same Scriptures, then you know 1 John 4:8...”God is love.” There’s a limitation, right there: we can conclude that He wouldn’t be selfish, but generous.

Or Job 34:10...”Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.” Any wickedness that we experience, isnt from Him.




Are you trying to belittle me? Being nasty? Why? Have I hurt you somehow?
And @Dan From Smithville ....why did you like this? I thought we were on good terms with each other.

Hold on. I didn't read it as insulting and I agree with some of what @Windwalker has been saying. It wasn't meant as a slight to you intentionally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, have a great evening.

I know we do not agree on religion and science, but I do rather like you from your personality on here. You are the one JW I get along with despite our differences. My liking a post does not mean I am intending to besmirch you intentionally or even unintentionally if I catch it. Unlike your pelican friend, we have developed a better rapport here and even when discussions get heated, I hope we can maintain that. I could see setting down and discussing things over a beer with you. But I must admit there are certain practices in your denomination of Christianity that perplex me.

 

[Windwalker]

Being similar biologically doesn't prove evolution.
And it matters because being spiritual beings separates us from animals.

Evolution proves we are all related biologically. Even if humans are spiritual beings, we are spiritual beings in human bodies, which are part of the animal kingdom. Being spiritual, does not mean we are not biological also. And that biology, is related to all animals, in bloodlines.

 

[Windwalker]

If you read the same Scriptures, then you know 1 John 4:8...”God is love.” There’s a limitation, right there: we can conclude that He wouldn’t be selfish, but generous.

God is love is fine. One of my favorite verses of the Bible. But that is not limiting God at all. That Love is the foundation of all that exists. It is the boundless, infinite Wellspring of all Life itself.

However, saying God creating people can't be through evolution, because I believe a perfect God would do it from scratch, whole cloth, with flawless perfection according to how I think that should look, is in fact our minds superimposing itself upon the Divine. That is what you do when you say evolution can't possibly be right, because it doesn't make sense to you. You and your mind, is not the standard by which the Truth of God is measured. God is beyond what the human mind can grasp.

Are you trying to belittle me? Being nasty? Why? Have I hurt you somehow?

Not at all. What I said is a truism. If it defies our reasoning of what we think God should be, then it probably is true. Haven't you read the NT? Didn't Jesus turn all their ideas about what God was doing, on its head too?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's why they call it faith.

Faith does require evidence (You can’t ‘have faith’ in strangers, only people you know.)

Hebrews 11:1.... “Faith....is the evidence of things we cannot see.”

I know we do not agree on religion and science, but I do rather like you from your personality on here. You are the one JW I get along with despite our differences. My liking a post does not mean I am intending to besmirch you intentionally or even unintentionally if I catch it. Unlike your pelican friend, we have developed a better rapport here and even when discussions get heated, I hope we can maintain that. I could see setting down and discussing things over a beer with you. But I must admit there are certain practices in your denomination of Christianity that perplex me.

I feel the same. (But that last sentence of Windwalker....

That it doesn't make sense to you, is a good sign it's probably right.

....that’s antagonistic & belittling. This is just me, but if I like a post, I like the whole thing. Otherwise I’ll rate it informative, useful, or something else.)

Anything we can discuss, it will be amiable. (if not, we’ll just stop) I’m a pretty good apologizer. My intent will never be to offend.

A beer sounds great!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don’t know, man. This...

If it defies our reasoning....

As in, “us”. Yeah, I get that.

But you said, “That it doesn't make sense to you, is a good sign it's probably right. “

You didn’t say “us”.

If I recall, you have not exactly been friendly in other posts.
But I get this attitude a lot from people, being a JW.
In the end, though, it’s all good. - James 1:2-3

Have a good evening.

 

[McBell]

Faith does require evidence (You can’t ‘have faith’ in strangers, only people you know.)

Hebrews 11:1.... “Faith....is the evidence of things we cannot see.”

Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith.
​

~unknown (at least by me)​

 

[Heyo]

CD (Common descent) evolution is the only facet of evolution I take issue with. It is a philosophy which intends to ultimately relegate Jehovah God as being unnecessary. Not just to remove Him as Creator, but to make Him a non-entity. Like He’s only been a product of men’s minds.

You don’t consider that a threat?

First, in accordance with the topic, I don't want to debate the veracity of evolution or creation. We have done that extensively.

Second, I'm going to make statements that might seem demeaning in nature. They are not and they are not directed at you as a person or creationists as a group. It is about human psychology.

I have cut the above part of your post because it seems most relevant to the topic. Off cause, feeling threatened is a good reason to see something as very important. (After all, we (scientists and scientifically minded people) feel our accomplishments threatened by creationism.)

The question remains: why evolution especially? I don't see this kind of controversy about electromagnetism. We all, more or less, accept that lightning is caused by natural mechanisms, not created by Zeus (or the respective god of your pantheon). We all, more or less, accept the theories of planetary formation from clouds of dust. No gods forming the earth. Even the idea of Carl Linnaeus, that all life can be categorized in a tree of life (in which humans are on the same branch as the other Great Apes) didn't stir much controversy.
So, I guess, it either isn't so much creation, that is in danger or Darwin was just the straw that broke the creationists back.

When we look at what did create controversy in believers it was heliocentricism. Here, the special status of man was in danger. Earth was no longer special and man no longer the centre of the universe.
The same can be said about evolutionary theory. Man was no longer a special creation but evolved just like all other life. "I ain't come from no monkey" was, and is, the most common reaction to Darwin.

So, my conclusion is that, what is threatened by evolution, is man's special status as above the animals. To someone used to privilege, equality is a threat.

Thoughts?

 

[ratiocinator]

Really, from my experience when a YEC shows examples of say fossils that are not supposed to be there (land animals that predate tiktaalik for example) atheist tend to react with passion and favor.

They don’t say, “hey sure that is just a small nail in the coffin, “ but we wont drop the whole theory of evolution just because you found something unexpected

That will be because it isn't a "nail in a coffin". It's not even the tiniest grain of sand out of the mountain of evidence for evolution. I haven check the details here but fossilisation is very rare, it's entirely unsurprising that we have to rearrange things from time to time with new discoveries. It's actually creationists lack of understanding that leads them to think that every little change to the 'family tree of life' is a problem for the overwhelming evidence for evolution. I'll admit it's not helped by sensationalised pop-science headline writers but creationists who have been arguing this for some time should really know better. Why do they never learn?

 

[leroy]

First, in accordance with the topic, I don't want to debate the veracity of evolution or creation. We have done that extensively.

Second, I'm going to make statements that might seem demeaning in nature. They are not and they are not directed at you as a person or creationists as a group. It is about human psychology.

I have cut the above part of your post because it seems most relevant to the topic. Off cause, feeling threatened is a good reason to see something as very important. (After all, we (scientists and scientifically minded people) feel our accomplishments threatened by creationism.)

The question remains: why evolution especially? I don't see this kind of controversy about electromagnetism. We all, more or less, accept that lightning is caused by natural mechanisms, not created by Zeus (or the respective god of your pantheon). We all, more or less, accept the theories of planetary formation from clouds of dust. No gods forming the earth. Even the idea of Carl Linnaeus, that all life can be categorized in a tree of life (in which humans are on the same branch as the other Great Apes) didn't stir much controversy.
So, I guess, it either isn't so much creation, that is in danger or Darwin was just the straw that broke the creationists back.

When we look at what did create controversy in believers it was heliocentricism. Here, the special status of man was in danger. Earth was no longer special and man no longer the centre of the universe.
The same can be said about evolutionary theory. Man was no longer a special creation but evolved just like all other life. "I ain't come from no monkey" was, and is, the most common reaction to Darwin.

So, my conclusion is that, what is threatened by evolution, is man's special status as above the animals. To someone used to privilege, equality is a threat.

Thoughts?

according to evolution we are here due to a seemingly chatoc and indirect process, the idea of being created by a perfect being is slightly theaten by evolution for this reason

 

[Wildswanderer]

The question remains: why evolution especially? I don't see this kind of controversy about electromagnetism. We all, more or less, accept that lightning is caused by natural mechanisms, not created by Zeus (or the respective god of your pantheon). We all, more or less, accept the theories of planetary formation from clouds of dust. No gods forming the earth.

We do? Of course God formed the earth. Everyone that's a Christian pretty much has to believe that to believe that the Bible is correct. It's in the first verse.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evolution proves we are all related biologically. Even if humans are spiritual beings, we are spiritual beings in human bodies, which are part of the animal kingdom. Being spiritual, does not mean we are not biological also. And that biology, is related to all animals, in bloodlines.

No we are not part of the animal kingdom. I kill animals and eat them. Your idea would make us all cannibals. And spiritually, we are distinct from the animal kingdom. We are given dominion over them, not over humans.

 

[Heyo]

We do? Of course God formed the earth. Everyone that's a Christian pretty much has to believe that to believe that the Bible is correct. It's in the first verse.

Yeah, but you don't make a fuzz about it, not as much as with evolution. The only thing that even comes into the same ballpark as anti-evolutionists are the flat earthers.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yeah, but you don't make a fuzz about it, not as much as with evolution. The only thing that even comes into the same ballpark as anti-evolutionists are the flat earthers.

It's included in the package. It's not just evolution per say. It's abiogenesis and matter coming from nothing, also. And where did energy come from?

 

[Heyo]

It's included in the package. It's not just evolution per say. It's abiogenesis and matter coming from nothing, also. And where did energy come from?

Yes, I know that you're at war with all of science but why do you hang it all on evolution?