Why Question Evolution?

[Pegg]

Here is a good article to consider if you are confused about Evolution. The bible directly says that God created the earth and life in it. But science tell us that creation is a myth and life and matter actually evolved.

So if you are a young person who is conflicted over these two different views, and want to believe in creation, you can confidently question evolution. This article shows you why and some young people who have done so.

Two reasons to question evolution

1. Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.

To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?—Psalm 10:4.

2. It matters what you believe.
“If life came about by accident, then our lives—and all the things in our universe—are meaningless,” says a boy named Zachary. He has a point. After all, if evolution were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose. (1 Corinthians 15:32)
On the other hand, if creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about the purpose of life and what the future holds.—Jeremiah 29:11.
To think about: How would knowing the truth about evolution and creation make a difference in your life?—Hebrews 11:1.[/URL]

Read the full article here

 

[mycorrhiza]

yes and i guess thats the point, scientists accept it without having all the details and they expect us to accept it without having all the details.

Until they can provide those details, we should question it.

May I respectfully ask if we should apply the same thing to the theory of gravity? Or quantum mechanics? These are also scientific theories in which all details aren't known, yet they seem to be generally valid.

 

[Pegg]

May I respectfully ask if we should apply the same thing to the theory of gravity? Or quantum mechanics? These are also scientific theories in which all details aren't known, yet they seem to be generally valid.

thats a little different seeing these theories dont contradict the idea that God created all things.

Evolution has a lot more implication then the theory of gravity or quantum mechanics.

 

[mycorrhiza]

thats a little different seeing these theories dont contradict the idea that God created all things.

Evolution has a lot more implication then the theory of gravity or quantum mechanics.

Should the scientific theories always be seen in comparison to the JW interpretation of the Bible, or do you feel that the reason to further question evolution is purely based on it's scientific merits?

 

[Pegg]

Should the scientific theories always be seen in comparison to the JW interpretation of the Bible, or do you feel that the reason to further question evolution is purely based on it's scientific merits?

we trust that the bible is true and that this description of the creation of life and all matter is accurate.

We dont deny all science, but we also dont blindly accept it all either. Some science is very believable, but the theory of evolution is not one of them.

 

[mycorrhiza]

we trust that the bible is true and that this description of the creation of life and all matter is accurate.

We dont deny all science, but we also dont blindly accept it all either. Some science is very believable, but the theory of evolution is not one of them.

Thank you kindly for your answer!

 

[Big_TJ]

Pegg, I have a question on this: What definition do you (and the article) uses for "Evolution"? I guess this would better allow us to understand the article more clearly.

Thanks!

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, I have a question on this: What definition do you (and the article) uses for "Evolution"? I guess this would better allow us to understand the article more clearly.

Thanks!

Evolution is the theory that all life evolved from non-living matter and that all the different types of animals are ancestors of something else. In the evolution view, nothing was created or designed...it just developed naturally.

 

[Big_TJ]

Evolution is the theory that all life evolved from non-living matter and that all the different types of animals are ancestors of something else. In the evolution view, nothing was created or designed...it just developed naturally.

Thanks Pegg..
What is the source for that definition? I couldn't find this definition used anywhere on the internet.

Could this possibly be the problem that you (and JWs) has? Apparently you are using a definition that is different from those in the scientific field.

The definition that, as I understand it, is used scientifically for "evolution" sound closer to this:

"
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable"


or to this:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

I am sure you will agree that if we start off on the wrong premise (such as using an incorrect definition" then we might not be talking about the same "evolution."

Thanks!

 

[Pegg]

Thanks Pegg..
What is the source for that definition? I couldn't find this definition used anywhere on the internet.

Could this possibly be the problem that you (and JWs) has? Apparently you are using a definition that is different from those in the scientific field.

The definition that, as I understand it, is used scientifically for "evolution" sound closer to this:

"
Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable"


or to this:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

I am sure you will agree that if we start off on the wrong premise (such as using an incorrect definition" then we might not be talking about the same "evolution."

Thanks!

I typed in 'definition of evolution' and got this on the first link:

evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(&#601n,ˈɛv-/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
2.
the gradual development of something.

do you believe that all living things came into being through this process?

 

[Big_TJ]

I typed in 'definition of evolution' and got this on the first link:

evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(&#601n,ˈɛv-/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection More
2.
the gradual development of something.

do you believe that all living things came into being through this process?

Even though the definition above is not a scientific definition for Evolution (you would need to consult a scientific source for a scientific definition), isn't that definition MUCH different from this:

"Evolution is the theory that all life evolved from non-living matter and that all the different types of animals are ancestors of something else. In the evolution view, nothing was created or designed...it just developed naturally."

So I would still like to see a reference for the definition that you are using; if you do not mind.

do you believe that all living things came into being through this process?

I find the question a bit odd, since the definition did not address about how living things "came into being," [that would relate to Abiogenesis; which is a different branch of science than Evolution]. Why do you think the definition is addressing how living things "came into being?" And why do you think the definition speaks about "all life evolved from non-life matter?"

As I stated before, is it possible that you (and JWs) do not have an adequate grasp of what Evolution is?

 

[Sunstone]

Pegg, do JWs believe that evolution is about the origins of life? That is, about how life originated? And if so, how do JWs reconcile that view with the scientific Theory of Evolution, which says nothing about the origins of life?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't understand how it would be possible for evolution not to happen. It's simple fact that genes that do not get spread will eventually get taken out, that's natural selection. Mutations create new genes. The fact that some genes pass more than other is all the reason needed to consider natural selection. A common example is how we genetically code animals; fatter pigs, smaller dogs, etc. we can basically alter a species to a more preferred state. This isn't to say we can create mutations, but we can have control over the genes that already exist.

Since this is a DIR, my question to you is: With all of that, how is it possible that over the course of years evolution did NOT happen?

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***

This is a BLUE colored DIR, guys. Non-members are NOT permitted to make any posts other than respectful questions.

​

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums/Same Faith Debates/"Only Sections"
The DIR subforums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

The Same Faith Debates subforum is specifically for debate between members of the same faith. Members that are not part of a same faith debate thread's selected faith may not post at all in those threads. The Political "Only" subforums are also used specifically for that group and may not be posted in by members that do not correspond to the political position of the subforum. These forums are colored purple.

 

[Pegg]

Even though the definition above is not a scientific definition for Evolution (you would need to consult a scientific source for a scientific definition), isn't that definition MUCH different from this:

"Evolution is the theory that all life evolved from non-living matter and that all the different types of animals are ancestors of something else. In the evolution view, nothing was created or designed...it just developed naturally."

So I would still like to see a reference for the definition that you are using; if you do not mind.

Its not surprising seeing there are about 6 different definitions scientists use. The one i'm using is my own. Its my own definition based on the teaching of evolution which tells us that all living things came from bacteria...which came from something else.

I understand 'change over time' But evolution is much more then 'change over time'

It assumes that the further back you go, it eventually leads you to where life 'began' and that is the only logical way of looking at it. So you cant put abiogensis aside as if its not linked to the theory of evolution. Abiogensis is precisely where the theory leads you to. And guess what... they know nothing about abiogensis. They only thing they do know about it is that they know nothing about it. How convenient.

Evolution has no foundation until they know how it all started. So until then, i think people should question it a lot more then they do rather then blindly accept it.

I find the question a bit odd, since the definition did not address about how living things "came into being," [that would relate to Abiogenesis; which is a different branch of science than Evolution]. Why do you think the definition is addressing how living things "came into being?" And why do you think the definition speaks about "all life evolved from non-life matter?"

As I stated before, is it possible that you (and JWs) do not have an adequate grasp of what Evolution is?

I can easily pull up a thousand different websites with their explanation of evolution and it all comes back to the same thing... things developed from other things and when you go all the way back, we began as the tiniest of life in the form of bacteria...which came from something else even less advanced.

How Do Species Evolve?
How do species evolve?
All species are related to each other. If you trace your family tree back through your parents, grandparents etc. it will quite quickly join up with your cousin’s family tree. If you keep going back far enough, eventually your tree will join up with that of a chimpanzee! Keep going and it will join up with your pet hamsters, further still with your pet cats. Keep going and eventually it will join up with your pet goldfish and if you really keep going for a long time you can trace it back so it joins up with an apple tree’s family tree, and eventually bacteria will join up too!

Evolution is the biological model for the history of life on Earth. While some consider evolution to be equivalent to atheism, BioLogos sees evolution as a description of how God created all life. Evolution refers to descent with modification. Small modifications occur at the genetic level (in DNA) with each generation, and these genetic changes can affect how the creature interacts with its environment. Over time, accumulation of these genetic changes can alter the characteristics of the whole population, and a new species appears. Major changes in life forms take place by the same mechanism but over even longer periods of time. All life today can be traced back to a common ancestor some 3.85 billion years ago.

 

[Bunyip]

Its not surprising seeing there are about 6 different definitions scientists use. The one i'm using is my own. Its my own definition based on the teaching of evolution which tells us that all living things came from bacteria...which came from something else.

I understand 'change over time' But evolution is much more then 'change over time'

It assumes that the further back you go, it eventually leads you to where life 'began' and that is the only logical way of looking at it. So you cant put abiogensis aside as if its not linked to the theory of evolution. Abiogensis is precisely where the theory leads you to. And guess what... they know nothing about abiogensis. They only thing they do know about it is that they know nothing about it. How convenient.

Evolution has no foundation until they know how it all started. So until then, i think people should question it a lot more then they do rather then blindly accept it.

Yes, but you admit to using your own definition of evolution. The evolution that most people accept is a completely different thing - so they do not blindly accept evolution (by your definition) at all.

No offence, but using a different meaning for a scientific term prevents any meaningful dialogue. It does not challenge evolution, it prevents you from meaningfully discussing it.

I can easily pull up a thousand different websites with their explanation of evolution and it all comes back to the same thing... things developed from other things and when you go all the way back, we began as the tiniest of life in the form of bacteria...which came from something else even less advanced.

 

[Pegg]

hey, its not my problem that people keep doging the reality of the teaching of evolution.

It seems quite disingenuous to try and claim that evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis. The fact is, without abiogensis, there is no evolution because evolution claims life came from earlier life.... that logically must lead to the very first lifeform. If you think it doesnt, then something is wrong with your powers of deduction.

 

[Bunyip]

hey, its not my problem that people keep doging the reality of the teaching of evolution.

It seems quite disingenuous to try and claim that evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis. The fact is, without abiogensis, there is no evolution because evolution claims life came from earlier life.... that logically must lead to the very first lifeform. If you think it doesnt, then something is wrong with your powers of deduction.

It is very sad that you think so. Because evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, whoever taught you otherwise should not be teaching biology. Evolution is how species chamge over time, it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

 

[Pegg]

It is very sad that you think so. Because evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, whoever taught you otherwise should not be teaching biology. Evolution is how species chamge over time, it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Abiogensis is supposed to be the foundation for how life began, right?

Or do you think the alternative is possible that a creator actually started life on this planet?

 

[LuisDantas]

Isn't the second choice a specific interpretation of the first?