For those who deride evolution as "just a theory"...?

Question

Despite many of you being confused of what a theory (an idea corroborated by a lot of evidence) is, would you agree that the idea of a creator/god is even less than a theory, not having any evidence? Why do you think something having no evidence should be taught along side something with much evidence? I would say that even acknowledging the creation argument is an impediment to scientific progress and education; what say you?

Answer 1

Evolution is but a theory. Though a highly plausible one. A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted by science and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A theory is never a fact until it has been proven and then of course by definition it is no longer a theory. Even some so called "facts" have been demolished by further scientific study. It was once considered “fact” that the world was flat which as we now know is ludicrous. Newton’s theory of gravity had to be more accurately explained by Einstein. That's what science does. It develops theories about the workings of the universe using what ever observable evidence is available. If new evidence is discovered it can either confirm the theory or counter the theory, sometimes to the point that it know longer is a viable theory. Science does not know everything. We know a great deal that the faithful seem to disregard as simple argument but it is not simple argument. Our theories are not meant to disprove intelligent design or creation or anything else. In fact those concepts are not even considered in science. I would never say to a Christian that my theories disprove your beliefs. It always seems to be the Christian coming to me and saying that my theory can't be right because the bible says so. That doesn't fly in science.

Answer 2

I would say that denying the possibility of a creator is an impediment to scientific progress and education. I don't dismiss the theory of evolution, I dismiss the suggestion that the theory explains the origin of the universe or the origin of man.

I would suggest that vast amounts of evidence including the work of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking provides evidence to support the possibility of a creator. No, the evidence doesn't identify this creator and the very nature of scientific inquiry makes it impossible to ever do so, but the theory that the universe was created (as opposed to being a product of random chance) has as much if not more evidence than the theory of evolution.

Whenever you place limits on the boundaries of knowledge and then teach those limits to future generations of scientists, you are hindering progress. Limiting educational coverage of a topic to a single theory, no matter how much evidence supports it, is contrary to the a basic principle of science. It teaches learners, especially young learners, that science can prove something to be true when the reality is that NO theory is immune from refutation. How can it possibly be beneficial to teach people to ignore competing explanations for any theory.

I'm not suggesting that public schools should start teaching a specific religious interpretation or creation story. But what's the harm in acknowledging that people who believe one of those stories may be correct? That certainly seems more productive than condemning them as stupid or foolish. Even if their hypothesis isn't currently a true scientific hypothesis (falsifiable), that doesn't mean that some day, some discovery won't make it testable. It seems to me that a true quest for knowledge involves being open to all possibilities not limiting yourself to only those possibilities that can be tested with your current level of knowledge!

Answer 3

I have often stated that if they could come up with the same amount of evidence and sources that evolution has I would fully support it being taught in schools.
Oddly enough no one has been able to do it for me.
ONE source doesn't count people.

Answer 4

nicely, enable's see... Evolution works via path and mistake, 'admitting' failure via letting those with out a required valuable mutation or those with a incorrect one to die off and/or fail to reproduce. Creationists, in the event that they're to be coherent, could deny themselves a ability to earnings from their mistake. So i think catching up on their incoherence is possibly previous the psychological ability of maximum creationists. via addressing their question to atheists, on the severe opposite variety of their own thought so some distance as fundamentalism and literal (and rather stubbornly constrained) interpretation of the bible; they greater or much less sense empowered to take on the unmovable merchandise with their 'impossible to stand up to' stress; different than that they are in basic terms like 15 year old teenagers leaping interior the hoop against Georges St-Pierre... So... no. they gained't learn. in any different case they could have already got understood some issues.

Answer 5

The problem with evidence is that evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the vast evidence that is available. We cannot force you to open your eyes.

Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems. - P. P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation

Answer 6

The God Hypothesis; it's more than just a theory, it is unprovable (tee-hee).
Creationism: God zapped all us critters into being. Who wants nachos?
Intelligent Design: Isn't it obvious that world is a piece of art? Therefore, there was a painter. Who wants cake?
Evolution: First off, there will be no refreshments [Students evacuate room]

Answer 7

Well said!
And 100% true too. The FACT is, the idea of god is just childish fairy-tales.
Anyone who seriously believes the christian creation myth needs psychological help.

Answer 8

Charles Darwin took 20 years to publish his book in 1859. But that is not a problem, you see Darwin was not trying to law down the 'truth' that can not be questioned, it is a scientific look at us, thus it is allowed to be flawed, you use it as a starting point for the next argument. However, he was careful to make sure that it would be the best answer he could possible give.

The bible by comparison is not allowed to be flawed, it is supposed to be this perfect all singing and dancing answer to every question ever asked. But it is flawed, and many creationist who hold it up as perfect, refuse to even acknowlege the flaes in thier own evidence, so how on earth do you expect them to be able to scientifically examine other works?

In Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

however in Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

also in Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

however by Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

so you have two stories, that contradict each other...

(Gen 1:3-5) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Gen 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

(Gen 1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass"
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. However, having the plants appear before the sun puts paid to the creationist theory that gods days were thousand of years long?

God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac to predict what will happen on Earth.

However the Bible goes on to slate astrologers...

Leviticus 19:26
Neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
There shall not be found among you any ... that useth divination, or an observer of times.... For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD.

Isaiah 47:13-14
Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.

Jeremiah 10:2
Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

Zephaniah 1:4-5
I will cut off ... them that worship the host of heaven.

until Jesus is born, then its suddenly ok again to read the stars?

Matthew 2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Luke 21:25
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.

but returning to Gen 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth."
Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than a few thousand stars are visible with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Were they all created "to give light upon the earth"?

I think I will stiuck to Charlie Darwin, he looked a bit loike God, and made far less contradictions!

Answer 9

Look around you...don't you see the creativity of God. I don't look like you, and you don't look like me. There are plenty of supporting details to back up God creating us....you just choose not to see it. Take flowers for instance...most of them after being planted expand and multiply taking up most of your garden space. We don't do that, we don't produce exact replicas of ourselves, every one is different. Plus, what evidence do you have of evolution? I believe if you would stop and look and think, you would see that we are too special to just be placed here (and who does evolution say put us here?) to evolve, and also why (suppose we look at evolution right now) have we stopped 'evolving'? Evolution is just a theory... if you are to 'smart' to see that, I am sorry. I hope my answer helps you see that we were created by God.

Answer 10

Creationism is not science; evolution is. Evolution was taught when I was in school 50 years ago. Have we backslid that much?