Why do evolutionists answer only those questions that are answerable. But simply fail to answer when they ...?

Question

can't find one. I have earlier posted one question on using religious point of view. No one answered the question. While posting that question I thought evolutionists did had a proper answer for my question. But no one answered. I was really open to get a good explanation. Why? It seems to me evolutionists don't have a proper explanation for it. If yes, then stop denying god using evolution. This is more dnagerous than religion. If we just accept there is nothing more than body then we have constantly fight with each other. Live with insecurity, jealously and constant competition.
If we see the religious point of view it is more prospective for life and we there is no reason for any sin as well. Most important, we never have to consider ourselves as some finite beings. Why are we not considering all aspects before simply denying god?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asf7tHsRq4FGB7bvzQAQBXsgBgx.?qid=20070226122756AAwl2xB

Well when darwin proposed evolution it was just a theory. Was there a strong proof? No. But some scientiests BELIEVED it and later proved that as correct. Same could be the case here. My belief lies in the point that some religious texts happened to have mentioned very clearly mentioned that there is something called soul and that it is separate entity from body and is eternal.
Unless you can deny what I said with some good reasoning you can't reject it either. Otherwise I would say you are superstitious about your beliefs. Not simply by saying that science goes with proofs. May be we find truth from science even for something like what I said.

Sonambulence: I have denied neither the theory of evolution nor the development of science. science has proved to be good to a large extent. It is definitely a problem if we deny the point that we are infinitely capable souls and that we are all the same soul. No matter how much you root to one common ancestors people with different colour and look always fight against other races. It would definitely be a total chaos. Denying soul means accepting our indivdual body as the correct one. Otherwise there is no good reason for one not to kill all the people who are not fit. World is already filled with too much population. Why don't we simply kill all the unfit ones. We seem to have a built in jealousy. How could we avoid that. I don't see any problem accepting the point that I am infinitely capable being while accepting that everyone else is also the same. My motives if I accept this point will be to look for my eternal self. What is wrong there?

I think it would be simpler if I define soul as it is mentioned in scriptures. This is the true concept of soul. There is only one eternal soul with infinite capabilites. And its true self is eternal bliss. It can multiply itself if it feels too confined or get back to its origin by detaching whereever it has been wandering. This is what is the actual unaltered concept of soul.
It would be more easier to explain the evolution using the propsed random combinations. Soul starting from single celled ones feeling too confined multiplies itself as it may have felt too confined and ultimately formed many species due to its infinite capabilities. It would be more hard accepting evolution by means of random combinations. It is even disputed that DNA would have been a random chance at all. How can you explain parrots speaking, when they are teached, just using usual evolution theorem? For parrots to develop vocal cords evolution requires millions of years. Isn't that right?

Answer 1

If you were stood out side a room discussing if the light had been left on would you know for sure it was on, the scientist would say I don't know but I will try to find out. but your way says it is on!!

Answer 2

Why are you asking a question you don't really want scientifically answered on the science forum?

Just because science doesn't have the answer for everything doesn't mean a made-up myth should be created to fill the gaps. Some call this "god of the gaps" filling in those places science hasn't yet found the answers. With every scientific advance, the "gods of the gaps" retreats another step.

If you truly want to look at religion from a science point of view, start with "there is no god" and go from there to see if you can find some real evidence. And, forget the bible. It is not scientific evidence. It is a book.

Answer 3

Science is based on the detection of the observable and measurable. If something is speculative, one can formulate a theory to explain it.

A scientist then looks for evidence to support the theory or contrary evidence which suggests that the theory be changed to fit the evidence.

Pure speculation is better suited to the realm of philosophy or theism.

Perhaps the danger of making any belief system or scientific theory an ideology is that it alters one's perception to fit the belief. This would be unscientific as only evidence should alter one's scientific perception.
The absence of discovery shouldn't rule out the possibility that something exists, so denying the existence of a deity isn't only considered blasphemous to the faith group, but also untrue to science, since you can't disprove the existence of a god.

If it happens, then it is idealism without the detection of evidence.

I don't believe the theory of evolution creates antagonism between people, or an environment of competition. That would be social darwinism, which is largely viewed as a corruption of evolutionary theory, one that supported social stratification and elitism by suggesting that some elements of society were more fit than others. Darwin did not create the phrase "survival of the fittest". Species can only become highly adapted, not "perfect".

I don't think it needs to be pointed out that people have been constantly fighting over religious issues for centuries as well. "Evolutionism" did not invent human conflict, it's nothing new. Perhaps it did initiate some strife, so do all ideologies, especially when they become institutions.

There exists in this world, in circles of evolutionary anthropology, an attempt to reconcile racial differences by illuminating the small degree of difference between us, and that we all stemmed from a common ancestral group.

Unlike a certain biblical event that could be mentioned, they don't believe that people were made different by a single event, but became so over a very long period of time by influence of geography, genetics and environment.

Answer 4

You have to realise that evolutionists are scientists, and they base their work upon facts and evidence. Hence it isn't always possible to have an answer if there are no facts or evidence to back up a scientific answer.

Religious people base their theories purely on belief. Its a completely different thing to how science operates. It is a lot easier for a religious person to conjure a belief to fill a void than it is for a scientist to do research to fill their void.

A good example is what exists outside our own universe. Science can't answer that because it cannot see outside the universe to answer that question. A religious person will probably say something along the lines of "God's kingdom" as this comes from faith/belief. If a religious person was to adopt a scientific approach (which is more complicated) then they wouldn't have an answer as well.

Science and religion are two completely different approaches.

Answer 5

It is wrong to conclude that the evolutionists duck proper answers. A true E will know that E and religious belief are entirely separate units of understanding of the nature of life, and a truly religious person will not fail to draw the correct inference that behind the course of evolution lies what H,Bergson calls the Elan Vital, i.e. the creative principle of life and universe.One may call it GOD, but such a god is not the father of creation, nor is it all mercy and compassionate etc.{Incidentally, these are human expressions, and they have no place in objective study of human existence..Moreover, when talking of evolution one must not do so on purely structural basis. Today we have help from biochemistry{DNA} and they take us to the irrefutable argument that the human evolution is one area we should not avoid to understand the human development viz reason, emotion and will. Does it answer you Q?

Answer 6

Didn't see your unanswered question, but would give it a shot. I'm currently earning my PhD in Evolution and Ecology.

The thing is, we don't claim to have an answer for EVERYTHING. If you can't find a way to test it scientifically, we aren't going to try to propose a scientific explanation--that's just how it works. Scientists are OK with leaving things unexplained if there's not a legitimate way to test it--as in the existence of a god or the soul. Those are much more matters of faith than science, at least for the time being.

Answer 7

I can only suppose that you are a creationist and believe the bible verbatim as to God creating earth and everything in it some 10,000 years ago ! I am no scientist but I am not so naive as to believe that baloney. Call me a doubting Thomas if you will but that kind of leap of faith is unsupportable.As far as I am concerned Religion has always been more destructive in human terms than creative. A power game plyed by ogres and charlatans preying on mankinds fear of death. People can and do live caring compassionate lives without the need for for such stultifying institutions as Christianity and Islam.

Answer 8

such a long question. i cant answer it however they do have an answer.all they have to do is put a theory.