Evolution is not an opinion

[Big ned]

JoelandJolene.. perhaps you should read the bible a little more closely. Man was not in the beginning... man came very last in the order of creation. There were five creative periods before man showed up on the scene. Anyone who is not a bible literalist can easily reconcile the theory of evolution with religion.

God's time is not man's time, so when God said he created the earth etc in 6 days, that could be millions of years in our reconing.. even hundreds of millions of years. As to evolution, I have studied science my whole life and evolution remains a theory. Until the genome tree can be traced back to a single ancestor and the proof of how life started.... we have to accept evolution as a theory. The fact that we can cause minor evolutionary changes within a species does not prove all life evolved from a single cell organism.

So... while I do believe in evolution within a species because it is scientifically reproduceable, I will continue to watch evolution from the beginning with interest, but sceptically and continue to identify it for what it is... a theory. It in no way interfers with my religious belief.

[blink]

Most biologists speak of evolution as a fact, it is now moving into common terminolgy in the mainstream. There is overwhelming evidence from many different sources that lead us to that.

To assert that evolution is a fact would be correct, but 'evolution' is very ambiguous in that context. We have observed and documented 'evolution' as a fact insofar as a kind of creature is able to adapt to it's surroundings in order to survive. To assert that this inherent adaptability is the apparatus by which a single biological ancestor mutated into the myriad of species we see today is pure speculation. It has not been observed or demonstrated, which qualifies it as a theory at best. Heralding 'evolution is a fact' is very misleading.

[I Think]

An interesting fact is that when cells in a baby's brain are evolving into nerve cells or support cells, the fittest cells, have to compete with the rest of the cells, the cells that become nerves have to dominate the other cells, they do this in part by being stronger, as well as by secreting substances that inhibit the ability of the weaker cells to grow into nerve cells. Evolution is going on, even within us as we mature.

[JLives]

Most biologists speak of evolution as a fact, it is now moving into common terminolgy in the mainstream. There is overwhelming evidence from many different sources that lead us to that.

To assert that evolution is a fact would be correct, but 'evolution' is very ambiguous in that context. We have observed and documented 'evolution' as a fact insofar as a kind of creature is able to adapt to it's surroundings in order to survive. To assert that this inherent adaptability is the apparatus by which a single biological ancestor mutated into the myriad of species we see today is pure speculation. It has not been observed or demonstrated, which qualifies it as a theory at best. Heralding 'evolution is a fact' is very misleading.

You are talking about microevolution versus macroevolution. Microevolution is what we see in the short term and could call adaption and macroevolution happens in the long term. We do not need to see something evolving over a period of thousands or millions of years to prove it is true, the same as we don't need to see a T-Rex running around to know they existed.

I use the dictionary definition for evolution:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity

[JoleneandJoel]

If the 6 days is not literal, at what time did sin enter the world and by whom?
Why would God, who calls us to protect the weak, the poor, the disabled, the homeless, the widow, the hungry, develop his world with survival of the fittest?
Why does he hate those who lie, steal, cheat, and so on, if that is how we have evolved?
It seems fair for me to say that the God of the Bible does not like survival of the fittest and would not have used a means that destroys those we are called to protect in order to advance the world to where we are today.
This world is not advancing as you seem to think. In fact I could argue that the opposite is true! Is the world not getting older and decaying? If we look to the past we see a massive variety of animals that existed at one time, but exist no longer. Animals are going extinct! Look at the endangered animals list. Even if it is human caused, are we not products of evolution?
God created a perfect world. We rejected him, and the world has been decaying ever since. We're going downhill, not uphill.

[JoleneandJoel]

I forgot to mention above that survival of the fittest was not how God created the earth, death and decay is a result of sin.

[FunkyBunch]

You still have not answered my question JoleneandJoel:

If someone believe in Intelligent Design, that God created the Big Bang and guided the development of the universe and our subsequent evolution AND that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died for their sins, do you think they would go to hell?

[JLives]

It seems strange that through evolution, natural selection would place the one creature that is destroying the planet like cancer as the most evolved. We are also the only creature that can willfully turn things around to save the planet for future generations (survival of the species) by not having kids, spending money on improving the world instead of on war, etc. yet refuse to collectively keep the state of the planet from going into a downward spiral. Wouldn't this go against the purpose of evolution much like cancer being the most evolved organism?

We are not the most evolved. There is no such thing as most evolved, it is a constant process. Everything on our planet is constantly striving for one purpose: to reproduce. If an animal is the most efficient it can be in it's environment such as a shark or an alligator then those strong genes will carry forward. Also man did not come directly from apes, we sprang from a common ancestor. The same as goats and horses, whales and cows and birds and lizards. Even if an offshoot turns into another species, through envirnomental or diet constraints for example, the root species can still exist. Here's a good follow up: http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm

Also, our species has only been raping the planet for a relatively short time. We will get our come-uppance from nature but it's a gradual process. For one thing, we don't seem to be too picky about who's genes we're breeding with so there's lots of room there for genetic failure.

[JLives]

I forgot to mention above that survival of the fittest was not how God created the earth, death and decay is a result of sin.

This is not a thread about sin, this is a thread about evolution. Sin is a man made word and nothing more.

[JLives]

If the 6 days is not literal, at what time did sin enter the world and by whom? See previous post
Why would God, who calls us to protect the weak, the poor, the disabled, the homeless, the widow, the hungry, develop his world with survival of the fittest? There is no god, it's up to us to fix these issues.
Why does he hate those who lie, steal, cheat, and so on, if that is how we have evolved? I thought god was love?
It seems fair for me to say that the God of the Bible does not like survival of the fittest and would not have used a means that destroys those we are called to protect in order to advance the world to where we are today.
This world is not advancing as you seem to think. In fact I could argue that the opposite is true! Is the world not getting older and decaying? Um, yes, everything is getting older. If we look to the past we see a massive variety of animals that existed at one time, but exist no longer. Animals are going extinct! Look at the endangered animals list. Even if it is human caused, are we not products of evolution? Species have come and gone since the they first existed. In more recent times more becasue of humans than evolution. We however know how to not kill things so we have a choice whether to kill of species, it is not biological for humans to kill other species unless we are eating them. Not sure what your point is here.
God created a perfect world. We rejected him, and the world has been decaying ever since. We're going downhill, not uphill.

[sleepdeprived]

This is not a thread about sin, this is a thread about evolution. Sin is a man made word and nothing more.

That's sort of irrefutable.

Sin is a word.
Made by Man.
Like all words.

[JLives]

Sorrry I should have said subjective to the individual, it's not an ethereal word to be scared of so you don't burn in hell.

[steven lloyd]

There is no way to connect God to evolution, science will not allow it.

Science does not connect God to evolution, but it certainly doesn’t disallow it. With essentially an infinite range of understanding of what God is, what science can you provide that says anything about the relationship between God and evolution? Keep in mind that refuting some literal explanation of a story from Bible or some limited definition of one particular religion does not refute the endless possibilities of God.

Evolution is considered by SOME scientists to be an undirected process. Your claim that evolution is considered by science to be an UNDIRECTED process can hardly be substantiated. In fact, it is quite presumptuous as many scientists have strong spiritual, sometimes even religious beliefs and have no problem reconciling evolution with theistic belief.

If you believe in a theistic evolution you are rejecting God's word. You are rejecting the idea of Adam and Eve and the fall into sin, you are rejecting the words of Christ who speaks about human's existing at the beginning, and you are rejecting the idea of a day of rest as it relates to the day God rested after creation. It's simply one or the other.

How could someone who believes in theistic evolution be rejecting God’s word? What’s God’s word? Did you receive something by fax or email you’d like to share with us? Or are you referring to an ancient book written by men from both oral tradition and writings on scrolls that presumes to tell the story of God (and there is more than one of those)? It is also quite presumptuous to state “If you believe in a theistic evolution you are rejecting God's word” as that would require everyone have the same understanding of God that you do and that is simply not the case. Furthermore, if I reject your interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve that only means I reject your interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve and nothing else.

[steven lloyd]

Most biologists speak of evolution as a fact, it is now moving into common terminolgy in the mainstream. There is overwhelming evidence from many different sources that lead us to that.

I agree there is overwhelming evidence from many different sources that lead us to accept the theory of evolution. I certainly accept it (without adding conditions that don’t apply). Still, just because the evidence is powerful, and just because it is now moving into common terminology in the mainstream, as far as science goes it still is not fact. It can even be accepted theory, but that is not the same thing.

[steven lloyd]

This is not a thread about sin, this is a thread about evolution. Sin is a man made word and nothing more.

That's sort of irrefutable.

Sin is a word.
Made by Man.
Like all words.

One thing I know for sure is that if someone tells me they know the word (and purpose) of God, I know they are quite mistaken.