Do we need to prove evolution? Isn't it a proof by itself?

Question

It is a science !?!?!?!?

[[[[[[[!@#$%^&*())(*%$%^&]]]]]

Answer 1

I feel its been proven to happen but not "how" it happens. I dont think "God" exists there will be a good scientific explanation.

I heard this idea about mutations and such.

Answer 2

Attaching the word science to something doesn't make it true. How many times have we gone back and changed our thinking on something because we've found new information? And to me, evolution is just somebody's best guess as to how to show where people came from. They looked at sets of bones and said "these bones look similar to those, so they must be related somehow." Then as more bones were found, the story became more elaborate. This is not science to me, it amounts to trying to prove what you believe. The question to ask is are these bones from a human or an animal? Seeing how diverse humans and animals are, and how similar they are, I don't believe you can tell with 100% accuracy in all cases.

Answer 3

Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?

Answer 4

No you don't need to proove it. And no, it isn't proof by itself. It can't be prooven because a lot of it is rediculous. and it is not a science. If you like reading, I recomend you read "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler. It makes total sense if you read it. It takes so much more faith to believe that this all happened by coinsidence rather that by a great "creator". Think about it please. It would definately clear things up.
Hope it helped,
Christi

Answer 5

Wow, that's the first time I ever heard an imitation of Renee Descartes used for evolution. The science at this site just gets funnier and funnier.

Answer 6

Science schmience. No, it's not proof by itself.

Answer 7

The whole point of evolution, being science, is that it constantly demands itself to be proven. That's why it's not belief-based -- it continually is modified and challenged as new data and findings come in.

Answer 8

Would you prefer we use the word "change" instead of "evolution"? Now, do Christians believe in change?

Well, God certainly created us and every entity on the Earth with the ability to change.

Proof: Think about your marriage. Or, your last marriage?

Do we need a no-nonsense definition of "evolution"?

"Every entity is in a state of flux; moving, reacting, adjusting, and changing. The amount of change is, of course, dependent on its ambient environment, outside stimuli, and its basic (foundational) characteristics."

The Scientists call this "evolution".
The Creationists call it (by) "intelligent design".

Answer 9

It is a theory and as such needs undeniable proof to make it fact. The proof is not there so it remains a theory. Yes, you do need to prove evolution, but you will never be able to.

Answer 10

Science has to prove itself or it is not valid.

That's the rules.