Ok, friends, I can see many of you think I am a rightwing nut case, religious fool when it comes to evolution.

Question

That is not what I am. My point is simple, even if evolution could be proven, which I doubt it will be, who cares? What difference will it make? Most evolutionists are simply anti-religion and wish to prove the religions wrong. Evolution is no more a science then creationism, both have many, many missing links. And I believe that to teach evolution as fact, is totally wrong. It should be taught as what it is, a theory. An unproven theory. An idea that has a long way to go to be proven.

Thank you all for your answers but of course, someone has to question my education. So...if I go to college and "learn" about evolution, that will change my mind?
I have not said that evolution didn't happen, only that it has not been proven. And, although I am a Christian, I belong to no church and never have. The problem I have with Evolutionists is, they assume something to be a certain way and then they search for an answer that suits their pre-assumed answer. It is like taking a poll, you ask a question but want a certain answer, if you do not get that answer, you change the question and take another poll and keep going until you get the "right" answer is what you wanted to begin with. If you are searching for fossils, and you assume that evolution took place, then that is what you are looking for, proof. The science of Carbon dating can not be proven. There is no way to prove it. And don't we have many more important things to teach our children? If evolution took place,so what?

There is , of course, one burning question as to evolution that just can not be answered and that is why? Why would it need to happen and what is the purpose?
There is no purpose, no reason, and no most of all no need. If we were monkey like creatures why wouldn't we just have stayed that way? And it is quite funny when I make that point that most evolutionists change the story as to what it was we evolved from. But still, the why? I will make my last point: If indeed, Darwin had never seen a monkey he would never have come up with his theory. His travels and observations proved nothing, and if he was alive today he would admit that.

Answer 1

I agree with you. Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale theory.

Answer 2

Your first misconception here i believe is your understanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory." It's a common misconception that this word means "a guess," this is not the case. In science the equivalent of a guess is called "hypothesis" and this is a prediction based on rudimentary observation. When this hypothesis is tested, data and/or evidence is gathered, and the hypothesis stands up to scrutiny in the face of this data it then becomes a theory which is a supported observation. In science a theory is strong enough to base other research on. Parts of a theory may be flawed and are eventually removed or revised in the face of new evidence. Scientific method is a self checking, self correcting process.

Now when you say creationism is a theory you are correct in using the colloquial definition of the word which is closer to the meaning of conjecture. The only support for biblical creation is the bible itself. Herein lies a problem because the authority of the bible is also derived from the bible itself. This is the same as myself saying that i have proof that i am the king of Antarctica because i say i am.

Missing links in science, especially at the theory stage, don't make a whole lot of difference. If the evidence is found to fill that gap based on what is already known it will most likely support the theory with little revision. There is very little in this world that we can know with 100% certainty. However, there are things that we know quite a bit about and have been supported through evidence, experimentation, and observation. Reality is what we call what we can support in this way, and fantasy is what we would like to be true... Evolution is reality, creation is fantasy. The problem with teaching fantasy as science is that it causes confusion and stifles forward progress in things that can prove essentially helpful in the future.

Answer 3

God and evolution can and do coexist -

when you read the bible and belive in God and his only begotten son Jesus, you realise that a lot of the things said in the Old Testament - e.g. at the beginning was the word, and God was the word, and also all the descriptions of the sound effects - sounds exactly like the Big Bang.

Scientist more or less agree that an event like the Big Bang started the universe. However no event can be without a cause. So what was the cause of the Big Bang ? Obviously it must be God.

Evolution describes the development of life and here - especially with human development from whatever monkeys to us - is where most people have their hang ups.

God created everything, but it doesn't mean he literally assembled all species.
No, he created a blueprint of the universe, gave it rules and laws and systems and let "evolution" happen. Thats why there were dinosaurus etc etc

This is not contradictory to the bible.

Adam and Eve's genetic make up were created by God and the seed planted by him .... no coincidences here

God Bless you

Answer 4

Sceintists have no concern one way or the other about how their discoveries might impact on someone's personal interpretation of the Bible. A person doesn't become a scientist so they can spend their days trying to debunk religious theories. Scientists simply seek the truth. That's what science is all about. A great many scientists are followers of Jesus Christ, and others are believers in other religions. Some of course are also atheists - just as in the population at large. A scientists' religious beliefs do not guide their scientific observations and interpretations, which is exectly as it should be. This crazy idea among some fundamentalist Christians that scientists are out to destroy their religion is a paranoid delusion.

Yes, there are "missing links" in our knowledge of biological evolution, just as there are missing links in our knowledge of every scientific field of study. That's why research is continuing. If we knew it all, if all the missing links were put into place, that particular field would cease to exist as a science. We have many missing links in our understanding of cancer. Recearch is attempting to find some of those missing links. Does this invalidate the field of cancer research??

Answer 5

Actually creationism isn't a science at all, and evolution is. And your last sentences clearly demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific application of the word 'theory'. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense because it is observable and testable, and to date there have been no tests or observations that disprove it. As for your claim that evolution is unproven, all scientific theories are unproven. Science can not prove something, that's not how it works. The best we can do is run as many tests and make as many observations as possible and if none of them disprove the theory, then we can assume it is probably correct. We cannot do this for creationism, as it is not testable or observable. It's not science, to put it simply.

Answer 6

Micro-evolution has been proven through study, experimentation, and observation.

Second, there might be gaps in the science of evolution, but there is also structure, based on science. There is absolutely no science for creationism. Evolution is not an attempt to be anti-religion, it is a scientific theory, based on science, that attempts to explain how we and other species are here.

Hope that answers your question. Although I'm not sure what it was.

Answer 7

An unproven theory you say?

Well we have withstood more rigorous testing than creationism ever had...

Evolution is science. Period. We set a hypothesis, we have testing, we have samples, we get results, we know the mechanism for evolution (genes of inheritance). If you want to talk about missing links, creationism is one big freaking gap..

don't dismiss scientific theories as "Oh its just a theory". Science is a self-correcting and we will strengthen our case at every specimen we find.

But its wrong to think that evolution=anti-religion. Ok, yes, we have shown that the Bible was wrong about some stuff. But why the fuss? Your bible is wrong about many stuff too. Why pick on evolution?

and if u want to teach creationism at school, why not teach about how the chinese gods make people out of mud and magic?

and yes, i still see you as a rightwing nut case, religious fool when it comes to evolution.

Answer 8

One does not need to prove religion "wrong". Religion serves a highly relevant purpose in giving people a sense of the infinite, a moral code and a historical perspective. But to suggest that it is based on fact is clearly ludicrous.

Evolution on the other hand does not at any point claim to be anything other than a scientific theory. Scientific theories by definition work with facts as they are currently understood. New facts are discovered, and improve the level of evidence to either support or modify the theory. It never claims to be the unalterable truth, but it is, and will remain, a theory based on logical conjecture that explains all available evidence. So it remains the best available theory in science to explain the development of bio-diversity. That being so, it will continue to be taught as a science, not a fact in itself, but a system that makes sense of all the available facts at hand. Religion is taught as both more and less than a theory - as a way of explaining spirituality that uses a supernatural, rather than a scientific, central element to answer the call of human beings towards the vastness of the universe.

Answer 9

Evolutionists are not anti-Christian. Most of them tried for many years to fit it into the bible nonsense, because they didn't want to go against the grain.

Unfortunately, facts are facts. And it's blatantly obvious that the bible is primitive mythology. No self-respecting scientist is going to deny the obvious, just so that people like yourself can continue to believe in a comforting lie.

Sorry, but you're a bit uneducated on evolution and/or creationism. There is actually no debate to be had about the subject. An actual scientist won't debate Creationism with a fundie because there is no point. That would be like a medical doctor debating his practice with Benny Hinn.

Answer 10

I find it ironic that you call it a theory and then claim you don't believe it.

To call something a theory is to admit that it is true.

Do you question the theory of gravity, even though we know we don't have it figured out yet (relativity is wrong/incomplete and we know it is wrong/incomplete because it's incompatible with quantum gravity)? Do you question the theory of thermodynamics (and don't go telling me, 'but that is a law!'... the law is the math, the theory is the idea behind the math).

Be a man, come out and say what you really mean -- evolutionists are liars and charlatans in your eyes.

And then ask yourself again if we're wrong to think you're just a right wing religious nut.

Answer 11

You are definetly right about evolution. However the creationism is proven by the fact that the bible is used as an archelogical map to almost every dig ever done. If the garden of eden hasn't been found thenGod does not want it found. However creationism is not a science. Just a note. did you know that you can find almost every kind of religious book in school libraries except for the bible, including witch craft and atheism? how fair is that?