Wow. I am just freaked out.
I always thought Darwin was an atheist!
I can't believe I've finally agreed with a column in the Seattle Times.
The MSM is now plugged into what most theologians are arguing these days. Impressive.
I think she means "holy rollers" or "fundies", but she doesn't personally know any so she's not sure.
I doubt she knows as much about evolution.
I bet. You are reading a biologist write what FReepers have been telling you for weeks.
As far as God is concerned, it's where one is buried and what other people think that counts. /s
I always thought that in the scientific method, theories were based on evidence and facts were the result of tested theories. But apparently to Mr. Miller, evolution is "more than fact" and thus holds a higher place than the scientific method.
Nice and polite and all, but he didn't really research this thing. He just made a prejudgement. Oh well. So it goes with this issue.
My problem with evolution is that it's junk science.
We can argue the issue all day, and we often have. But there's enough doubt about the General Theory of Evolution so biology books should present it as a theory, not a fact. I don't see why that is so difficult to accept. I have no problem with teaching kids about evolution, which is now an important part of modern intellectual history. But it really should be taught as a theory.
Even if evolution becomes discredited as science, it still should be taught as an important piece of scientific and intellectual history, like phrenology or racial theory.
Of equal interest is the effect that evolutionary theory has had on politics and other fields. It was largely responsible for the euthanasia movement under the early Communists and under Hitler, for instance. That's not Darwin's fault, but "survival of the fittest" has undergone some pretty nasty political turns.
It was also responsible for the widely held view that Africa and Asia were full of "lesser breeds," a commonly held view a hundred years ago. Again, not Darwin's fault, but part of the big picture.
So anyone know if this guy's book "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" is any good?
Theistic evolutionist need to look beyond Genesis to realize He set this place up for immediate inhabitation. Vegetables and all.
There is a whole lot of twisting going on to reconcile the Bible to a faulty interpretation they sell as science.
That was exactly Einstein's famous sentiment: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
Facts are details. Theories are thoughts.
The Bible is incompatible with evolution, from the very beginning and throughout its entirety.
The Bible says, for example, that death followed sin -- that death did not take place before Adam sinned. But evolution says that death preceeded sin, and that it was a necessary element of evolution.
Did you intentionally "misquote" inorder to fit your agenda? I think so.
Here we go again.
Here is a link to a good discussion of the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
When discussing scientific methods, it is best to be aware of these guidelines.
For a starter, there are billions and billions of facts out there, but there is no such thing as "evidence" (better try a courtroom). A theory organizes these facts into a framework. Might be right, might be wrong, might be ridiculous. But, how do we know which? Well, lets test it!
From this theoretical framework one can derive hypotheses (i.e., one can make a prediction). For example, "Rocks are hard. If I bang my head against a rock it is bad news for my head but not for the rock." That hypothesis can be tested. Chances are your head will suffer more than the rock. From this observation you can (if your head has survived) confirm the hypothesis; in other cases an hypothesis may be rejected, and in still other cases its a draw (no data, try again some other way).
A good theory allows accurate predictions (i.e, hypotheses which are supported when tested).
This leads us back to the statement "evolution is 'more than fact' and thus holds a higher place than the scientific method." This is nonsense. Evolution is a theory based on facts and confirmed hypotheses or predictions. The attempt to say that evolution is only a theory is bogus--of course its a theory. But then, so is electricity, and I wouldn't want to bet the rent money against that one!
Lets try again. I believe that the moon is made of green cheese. That's my theory. Well, if that is true the six Apollo landings should have found some evidence of cheese. Nope! No cheese. Hypothesis not confirmed. My theory is either wrong or seriously in need of revision.
So, these are the rules. If you want to play this game you have to play by these rules. If not, start your own game and make up your own rules. However, the success of your efforts (the accuracy of your predictions) will determine your credibility.
Many of the comments following the evolution posts attempt to twist the rules. As quoted above "theories were based on evidence and facts were the result of tested theories." This is obviously incorrect: theories are based on confirmed hypotheses, which in turn attempt to organize and explain facts.
I have provided a link to a good summary of the scientific method. If you don't want to play by these rules, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit where you are coming from and don't claim to be doing science.
Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest hope that this post will make any difference.
Carry on, folks.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (Evolution) is an operative principle on how species change over time. For example, let's take the case of pathogenic bacteria and antibiotics.
When antibiotics were developed, people thought they would wipe infectious disease off the map. There was one problem, people did not take the full course of the medicine. The result was: Some of the most resistant specimens of the bacterial growth survived. Repeating this process, a number of times, produced some organisms that could not be killed with the antibiotic.
There is some natural variability in any species, which allows the species to survive new challenges. Variability of the species is not a contradiction to the Creator, it is just a testimonial to the Creator's wisdom.
Theories can be a higher level of understanding, and they can explain facts. BUT several different theories can explain most of the same set of facts (few explain all the facts), so a theory is always shaky. Newton's laws were 'gospel' for centuries but are now seen to be only a low-velocity approximation to relativistic mechanics.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada