Is evolution really scientific?- Reasoning from the Scriptures?

Question

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Answer 1

This "question" is copied in its entirety from pages 121-124 of "Reasoning from the Scriptures", a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, true science harmonizes with the bible.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20000922/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/t13/
http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20000122/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/

Answer 2

It seems that so many people don't understand science...

Yes evolution is scientific. Your description of the scientific method is not complete. This is not the only way in which science progresses. Some theories (like evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics) are about phenomenon that occur over very large time scales, so long that they are difficult or impossible to literally observe in a human lifetime or reproduce in a lab. What we observe and measure are the effects of the process. We make these observations from a wide range of scientific disciplines (paleontology, archeology, microbiology, genetics, behavioral psychology, animal physiology, etc.) and the best possible theory that explains all of the observed effects in all of these scientific fields is ... evolution (descent with modification - gradual change in form and function through time due to environmental pressures).

Having said that, there have been a few cases where we have actually been able to observe evolution in action. A perfect, recent, example of this is how the increased use of antibacterial soaps (due to people's insecurity about germs) has led to increased populations of bacteria that are resistant to these antibacterial materials.

Science progresses most often by proving itself wrong - not by proving itself right. Evolution is science b/c it can be proved wrong - only no one has been able to do this. No observations have been made that don't fit the evolutionary model.
This is the opposite of religious / supernatural ideas, which can not be proved wrong b/c they are believed to be revealed truths and are completely closed to the possibility of ... evolution.

BTW, "Reasoning from the scriptures" is a contradiction.

The rest of your argument is flawed b/c your doing nothing but taking quotes from some scientists out of context. And even if you weren't doing this, this is still not an argument ageist the truth of evolution.

Answer 3

You went on-line and looked for a bunch of people to tell you what to hear. Most of the quotes you have are from the 80's. The theories can seem to be based on faith if you don't understand the math and science behind them. They are fairly abstract concepts but no one is claiming that they are fact. Just because all the details are unknown does not make a theory untrue it just means no one has figured it out yet. That's how science works when we have a way to explain it we do, until then we don't know.
As for the fossil record, it's spotty at best. The preservation of a fossil is a relatively rare event and requires a specific set of circumstances. They fact that fossils are not found does not disprove the existence of a species.
Most of the evidence we do have is based on genetics. In the 80's we didn't have the technology we do today as far as mapping genomes. We now have working models of inheritance and mutation that clearly demonstrate natural selection.
Just because we don't have the ability to fully answer all aspects of a theory does not make the theory wrong. This theory involves changes that take place over millions of years humans have not been around long enough to observe this. We have how ever been able to observe changes within spices that support the theory.
The theory of evolution does not seek to disprove God. It only strives to understand how.

Answer 4

first of all, i didnt read all of your quotes, but as an answer yo your general question the scientific method is followed, the observations that support evolution are mostly from fossil records and genetical data research projects like the genographic project.

fossil species are classified by race and age, eventhough there are still many gaps or so called ' missing links ' in the tree of species, many connections between older species and newer species have been.

secondly, evolution has been observed in fruitflies. fruitflies have a very large lifespan, if you have one single tribe of them. split the tribe in two, then feed the one cornstarch as food, and the other fructose (fruit sugars). the flies will take about 50 generations (a month or 2) to adapt perfectly to the new foodsource. once they have done so hte interesting fact comes up, that a member of the now fructose sugar tribe, will not be able o breed with a member ofthe cornstarch tribe.

proving that the adaptation has made the species incompatible.

as for religion, thats a toughy, most religious people try to disprove or discredit many scientific theories without having much basis of doing so, some religious people completely shun all scientific progress simply because they feel the bible reads other wise, as others try to mend the gap between science and religion. there is a large stream of religious people that see god as the why evolution as the how, life was created.

Answer 5

This isn't a question, it's a testimonial.

And a very outdated one at that. Your citations reference issues that science HAS answered long ago with experiments, no less. The rest falls into the category of "personal opinion". Opinions are fine, we've all got them, but you're way off the mark trying to argue for creationism (or ID) based upon such old, and easily falsifiable views.

Besides, you're assuming that the views expressed by the authors you cite, were roundly accepted at the times of their publications. They were not. Also, some of the sources are not (and were not, even back then) regarded as the best possible.

In short, the ideas you cite are dated, were "weak" when they were made, and are essentially of no relevance today. I'm too tired to write more.

Answer 6

You bible thumpers never give up do you?

Evolution is based on science: The bible story of creation is a fable meant for illiterates 4000 years ago. Seems a lot of people want to stay that way.

There seems to be little question that someone(something) we call God created all that is in the universe about 13 billion years ago. The big argument seems to be as to when God stopped messing with the universe and let things develop on their own. I believe it was 13 billion years ago. I see NO "divine" intervention in anything that has developed since then. I prefer to believe what I can see and test rather than believe in some old book that should have been burned along with the Koran and all other religious nonsense.

Answer 7

Taking stuff out of context and then claiming it as proof is much worse than admitting weaknesses in theories.

Evolution is a theory and always has been and will remain so until a proof is provided. That is why it is called the theory of evolution. That is how it should be taught.

Creationism claims to be a fact and always has been although the facts have had to be changed in small measure over the ensuing millennia to suit contemporary knowledge. Creationism also leaves an awful lot out of the equation.

All things bright and beautiful, All cancers great and small. Is that what is taught to kids? No, it's creatures, because they're nice fluffy things. So what happened to the creation of nasty things like cancers and creepy crawlies and the misshapen things that die as soon as they are born. Were these created by a loving God?

Be honest - both of these ideas are theories, neither have been proved. The only difference is that Science sets out that theories have to be proved, and Religion says they have to be believed. You takes your choice, whatever you feel happiest about. It doesn't matter, the world will still turn, which is something science has proved and religion didn't bother to mention.

Answer 8

"Creationism claims to be a fact and always has been although the facts have had to be changed in small measure over the ensuing millennia to suit contemporary knowledge. Creationism also leaves an awful lot out of the equation.

All things bright and beautiful, All cancers great and small. Is that what is taught to kids?"

incorrect, what is it that Creationism has left out. You talk about not explaining cancers, and all things bright and beautiful. Cancers are a result of sin entering the world according to Creationism. And if you read up on it, it does actually say that "All things bright and beautiful" were created, especially the stars

Answer 9

There are lots of questions about the details of evolution. But not about the basic idea that life started out simple and became more complex. Dinosaurs and man did not walk the Earth together.

But, as you point out, that doesn't mean evolution, broadly stated, is inconsistent with faith. Nothing in science denies the existence of a Creator who designed us and watches over us today.

It just says that, if they exist, they started the process with a Bang 13 billion years ago, and used some sort of evolution as a tool.

Here's a good website from a scientist whose faith is strong:

http://www.reasons.org/

Answer 10

Life is an extremely complex thing. It will be a long time before life can be almost entirely explained in scientific terms. With the work already done, though, people can now focus their studies on specific problems and work with theories until they are improved enough to provide a satisfactory, scientific view of life.

Answer 11

Got anything from the last 20 years?