Evolution is not an opinion

[dcipher]

I would caution you, or anyone to be an independent CRITICAL thinker. Not simply accept what somebody has written.

That is exactly what atheists have been trying to tell religous people. You hit the nail on the head.

Somehow I doubt Dawkins would care one iota if anyone read his book critically. However, the same cannot be said for the other side, since their beliefs preclude critical thinking.

Yes, and it's yet another reason why Dawkins, who seemingly would prefer simple faith in his arguments, is not a great choice to lead his "crusade".

I'm not sure however, that the beliefs of the "other side" preclude critical thinking. There are many impressive minds who have excelled in theology and philosophy that represent Christianity or other religions. Would you be comfortable telling say C.S. Lewis that his beliefs preclude critical thinking? I certainly would not! However, I do think that matters of faith are indeed, by definition, not subject to scientific methodology/empirical evidence. Here, I find both the religious arguments and the arguments of people like Dawkins to be weakest. I think the two (almost) completely independent but not mutually exclusive....I think when you start trying to use arguments from one, to draw conlusions in the other, you're really in trouble generally.

[steven lloyd]

I'm not sure however, that the beliefs of the "other side" preclude critical thinking.

You’re right. That is just another stereotype and overgeneralization. Many, if not most of the atheists on this board typically make wide-sweeping assumptions on the beliefs and conviction regarding various scientific theories by anyone who is not atheist (although I will qualify this by clarifying not all of the atheists here limit their thinking that way). There are at least as many atheists here who struggle with the concept of critical thinking as any other group.

[Mr. Personality]

I wonder how completely closing yourself off to an idea is "critical thinking."

[steven lloyd]

I wonder how completely closing yourself off to an idea is "critical thinking."

Obviously it is not.

[fvkasm2x]

I don't mind either of the "wing" nuts so much. I believe in evolution and science, but I wouldn't have too hard of a time believing in creation AND evolution. Perhaps God created the Universe and things just moved on from there. Who knows. Without 100% proof the other doesn't exist, I can only accept one and believe in the possibility of another.

The thing that REALLY gets to me are the people who "dont believe in dinosaurs." Umm what?

[JoleneandJoel]

Did any of you who believe in evolution question the recent finding of a 40 million year old human ancestor, or did you just blindly believe the story on the news? Perhaps you are not so different from those who blindly believe what they are told in church.

Here is the difference between fact and theory, and I will use that recent discovery as an example.

This animal existed - Fact
This animal no longer exists - Fact
This animal was in the process of evolving into modern man - Theory

You can't prove from a fossil that it was in the process of evolving. They took a look at the bones and noticed it had human characteristics and assumed that it must be an ancestor of man.

[steven lloyd]

The thing that REALLY gets to me are the people who "dont believe in dinosaurs." Umm what?

Or who believe they existed during the same time as humans (because that is the only way to reconcile their existence while believing the earth to be only about 10,000 year old).

O dem bones, those carbon dated bones.

[steven lloyd]

Here is the difference between fact and theory, and I will use that recent discovery as an example.

This animal existed - Fact
This animal no longer exists - Fact
This animal was in the process of evolving into modern man - Theory

You can't prove from a fossil that it was in the process of evolving. They took a look at the bones and noticed it had human characteristics and assumed that it must be an ancestor of man.

That's true. Evolution is still a theory. It is a theory supported by an impressive amount of very credible evidence, but still a theory nonetheless. I accept it on the basis of the existing evidence, but would be open to changing my opinion if enough evidence, and I mean credible evidence strong enough to counter existing evidence, was introduced to suggest otherwise.

[Glacier]

Did any of you who believe in evolution question the recent finding of a 40 million year old human ancestor, or did you just blindly believe the story on the news? Perhaps you are not so different from those who blindly believe what they are told in church.

Here is the difference between fact and theory, and I will use that recent discovery as an example.

This animal existed - Fact
This animal no longer exists - Fact
This animal was in the process of evolving into modern man - Theory

You can't prove from a fossil that it was in the process of evolving. They took a look at the bones and noticed it had human characteristics and assumed that it must be an ancestor of man.

Evolution is a fact (scientists have observed generational genetic changes in organisms), but by extending this to say everything evolved from a single organism is purely theory.

[fvkasm2x]

Did any of you who believe in evolution question the recent finding of a 40 million year old human ancestor, or did you just blindly believe the story on the news? Perhaps you are not so different from those who blindly believe what they are told in church.

Here is the difference between fact and theory, and I will use that recent discovery as an example.

This animal existed - Fact
This animal no longer exists - Fact
This animal was in the process of evolving into modern man - Theory

You can't prove from a fossil that it was in the process of evolving. They took a look at the bones and noticed it had human characteristics and assumed that it must be an ancestor of man.

There are frogs in South America that are 100% fully male. When surrounded by only males in their group, some have changed complete sex characteristics and become female. They aren't hermaphrodites, they aren't asexual. Their body completely changes.

I read about things like that and I say "wow that is some scientifically amazing evolution."

Then I hear that Jesus walked on water and fed the poor with but a loaf of bread and I think "that was a mighty kind carpenter, whose legend has grown to quite the fairy tale over the years." Now of course, if you would like to provide any proof of some sort, I will be glad to listen.

I went to church every week for 8 years as a kid/teen and realized what I was being "fed" and stopped. Then went for another year when I was 21 to see if my mind had changed. It hadn't.

Carbon dating is science. Genomes and DNA sequencing is science. Reading from one of the first books ever written is... reading from a book. Scientific theory is built around evidence, ideas and formulated thought processes. Religion is about belief in something one can never truly know.

[steven lloyd]

Evolution is a fact (scientists have observed generational genetic changes in organisms), but by extending this to say everything evolved from a single organism is purely theory.

That is true. It is a fact that things do evolve. Physically, socially, economically, politically, and culturally. In anthropological terms, particularly physical anthropolgy, what evolved from what is purely hypothetical - although, as stated, some ideas are supported by some very strong evidence.

[JonyDarko]

I notice that once again a couple of people are not using the word theory correctly.

[Mr Danksworth]

Did any of you who believe in evolution question the recent finding of a 40 million year old human ancestor, or did you just blindly believe the story on the news?

Actually 'Ardi' the latest discovery is 4 million years old, not 40 million. If you can't even talk about the discovery without getting the age wrong by an order of magnitude, you no longer need to be taken seriously.

[JoleneandJoel]

sorry, the story was a few weeks ago and i thought i heard 40 million, my apologies if i was wrong.

Here's another angle to this... the implications of either theory.

implications of evolution
- No purpose to life
- No value of life
- Nothing happens for a reason
- There is no such thing as fate
- There is no comfort in death

implications of creation
- Life has a purpose and value
- Everything happens for a reason
- There is comfort in death

Although the implications of evolution seem worse, it allows us to live how we want, and we can live for ourselves without fearing a consequence. For that reason it is much more appealing. You cannot believe in purpose and evolution. They conflict with each other.

[steven lloyd]

I notice that once again a couple of people are not using the word theory correctly.

I‘d go with something like this:

In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

How about you ?