If evolution was actually disproven?

Question

Christianity automatically becomes the answer by default? How would the disproving of evolution make christianity any less bogus?

Bearded man- I am aware that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. I am trying to understand how by trying to disprove the christians make their argument legitimate.

My point is, even without evolution that christianity is still rendered useless as it cannot stand on its own merits

Bearded man- I am aware that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. I am trying to understand how by trying to disprove the christians make their argument legitimate.

My point is, even without evolution that christianity is still rendered useless as it cannot stand on its own merits

Answer 1

No it wouldnt. Theres a whole bunch of other religions out there that doctrine the creation of life was from god(s) and/or goddess(es).

Dont be so ethnocentric and look around you.
Tons of religion around you both created by HUMANS before and after Christianity, what makes you think one that didnt even exist since the beginning of history can be the answer?

So disproving evolution wont make Christianity any less bogus. Some of the religious leaders just want to say "Hey look, there is a creator cause evolution is false!"
Which is totally stupid because if we were all created, there would be no need for natural reproduction and things would just be magically created as old things die.

To the guy saying monkeys should be extinct because we came from monkeys. If we all came from Africa then shouldnt all Africans be extinct? NO. Please go read a genetics text book. Mutation in genes that confer a selective advantage does in no way imply that the ones without the advantage will die.

Just look around you. You see people with different characteristics (tall, short, high/low metabolism, skin color, etc, etc)? Thats evolution there. Right there infront of your eyes.

I dont understand how many of you who benefit from genetics can not accept evolution. If you truly do not trust evolution please dont go blindly and seek treatment for things like diabetes. Insulin is mass produced from bacteria via genetic manipulation. If evolution is false. That would confer that everything in genetics is basically FALSE. Then why can we use and manipulate it to our advantage if its false? And why are you using something you dont believe in?

Dont seek gene therapy, drugs that are mass produced via genetic manipulation, dont eat genetically modified foods, many cancer treatments (that combat the effects of certain critical genes needed for normal control of cellular division), etc if you are so strong against it.

Because the basis of evolution is the mutation and accumulation of (addition, deletion, inversion, duplication) of genes/codons - which causes the organism to have different characteristics. In which the existence of these codons and DNA is the basis of genetics. Which many of you benefit from.

Answer 2

oh I asked similar questions. Witha very diferent aproach though.

Dude, what christianity got to do with evolution? I'm a christian and an evolutionist. Theyre not mutually exclusive.

You must be talking about creationism. Well, than the awnser is no. Creationism is not a scientific theory and therefore could not replace evolution if it were to be discarded. If evolution was disproven (what has absolutely no chance of happening), scientists would have to, based on their data, come up with a new hypotesis. Would it have anything to do with life being originated already in a very complex state from an unexplained fenomena? Who can say, if evolution were disproven (again, pretty impossible thing to happen), i would certanly look a little deeper into it...

Christianity on the other hand has nothing to do with evolution and it is not bogus. To my knowledge is backed up by a solid rational basis (which include phylosophy, theology and historical facts). I encourage you to search further for the diferences betwen creationism and Chrsitianism


Paz de Cristo

===================

ROTFL- dude, you can't use the words evolution and disproved on the same sentence of a question here in R&S and not expect be insulted! i dont think its safe to use those words in the same paragraph, even if you're really backing up the theory of evolution.

Answer 3

God Bless you for your question...

Considering that Darwin came up with the THEORY of evolution as an attempt to disprove creationism...I would think that once people see that macro-evolution is not valid, (which no credible scientist has EVER been able to prove it's validity) then I think that one has to consider creationism, or at least intelligent design, as a logical alternative. Unless something else came along to take it's place, non-creationists would have to take a step back a re-evaluate.

As far as it making Christianity "any less bogus", disproving of something that doesn't exist can't change the mind of the non-believer. Only experiencing the person and works of Christ can do that...I pray that you can meet Him and see for yourself what cannot be expressed in words...

Answer 4

I think that in order to make Christianity less bogus, we would acutally need some factual evidence. It would have to become fact from faith. Otherwise, if we can disprove it or find something to the contrary, it's an easy target for ridicule and judgements.

Answer 5

No religion can be a "default" option for anyone other than the terminally unthinking. If evolution was disproven it would be because a better idea had taken its place. That's science. And that scenario isn't in prospect just yet.

Answer 6

I think the opposite could also be asked. If evolution were proven to be correct would that prove Christianity to be false?
No
And the answer to your question is it wouldn't.

Answer 7

No, you'd still have the "god was a spaceman" option in its variant forms, with humans and other creatures being deliberately engineered by some super-race.
(for food, according to more than one speculation)

See exogenesis, panspermia, the Annukai, the spaceships of Ezekiel... and so on.
Sensible and silly sit side by side.

Answer 8

Has evolution been fully proved though? There is still the missing link. The link between us and the monkey. (I use that term very generally) I can see where humans have evolved over the millennia, but I just don't see the connection between us and them. Besides, if we did come from them, why are they still here in their present form. Even Neanderthal are extinct.

Answer 9

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by innumerable facts in several different disciplines.

Answer 10

You're forgetting that Muslims and Jews also believe in a creator. Christianity doesn't become the answer by default, however the Atheist won't have the body of science to back them up in their claim that it has been pr oven that the earth wasn't created. In my book evolution has already been proven inaccurate.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------